02/18/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e e Mr. Gleason said this was done because it was necessary to get a feel for what was reasonable and for what space is needed. He described a graph which indicated population and square footage on a per capita basis. The council needs to determine how crowded staff will be and how productive staff will be, because the two have a direct relationship. Mayor Keller asked if one used numbers of employees rather than population per capita figures, whether the chart would be similar. Mr. Gleason stated that it is difficult to base the figures on employees, but he feels it would show the same trend line. Mr. Lindberg stated that someone in another city must have done a similar study. Mr. Gleason responded that they have and he has done similar studies in other cities as well. Mr. Lindberg asked if the League of Oregon Cities has done a 20-year study, and if they have a model for prediction. He asked how changes in structures of an organization are factored in. Mr. Gleason stated that predictions are done on an empirical basis with every department. The only predictions have been on a product-by-product basis. This is a very complex process. Assuming that council agrees that staff has decreased productivity in the current space allocations, then the space needs should be somewhere between the current amount available and what the required standards indicate. An independent study consultant could conduct a study which could cost up to $25,000. Bill McGuire, Management Services Director, stated that the chart was developed using various assumptions as to need and the square footage per capita. In option 1, the maintenance figures are different since that is a lease option and maintenance could be provided by the developer. If the council wants to proceed with more investigation, they should find out which option is the most cost- effective. Option 2 would be using the existing building. Options 2 and 3 would have space to lease until the City requires more use of the building for its activities. Option 3 would be using the existing building with remodeling. Option 4 would create an addition, and Option 5 would be the most expensive option. Mr. Gleason noted that most options come very close in terms of final cost except for buying from a private developer and leasing. There are five different ways to solve the problem and all will cost approximately $400,000 a year if the square footage projections are accepted. The only differences are the methods of financing and who pays for the financing. If the council agrees on the three main assumptions presented earlier, then ideas can be developed further. There is a relationship between the number of people served and the cost. Ms. Wooten asked about financing mechanisms. She expressed concern that the space needs not be removed from the capital improvements program priority list because she does not know if something else might be as important. Mr. Lindberg noted that the space needs are a problem that will not go away. Mr. Gleason stated that it is imperative to consider space issues for 20-25 years beyond today for staffing and planning purposes. The number of people served and the cost of services are directly related. Ms. Smith stated that she feels a work session is necessary on this item. Mayor Keller indicated that the item could be scheduled as Item 1 for the next Wednesday council meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 11