Laserfiche WebLink
diligence, Mr. Rayor wanted to know what the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did in Salem to <br />reinforce the former Sears building against earthquake risk and what those costs had been. He <br />said that he wanted to focus staff on a design-build approach. He wanted minimal staff input into <br />the construction of a building. He thought the City had more oversight staff than the private sector <br />did. Mr. Rayor said City department heads should do their job rather than oversee construction. <br />He wanted more information about efficiency of service delivery. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ was in favor of the City owning buildings if it was financially feasible. He referred the <br />council to page 32 of attachment B and confirmed with Mr. Svendsen that the present value of <br />scenarios A and B were the same, and scenarios B and C differed by about $5 million. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how the estimates were arrived at, Mr. <br />Svendsen reviewed the methodology. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor favored office consolidation, wanted to retain and rehabilitate City Hall, and would <br />consider private/public partnerships. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to develop <br /> a financial strategy and implementation plan for replacing City Hall and other <br /> downtown City office space with new buildings. The planning will include <br /> consideration of possible joint development with other agencies; locations <br /> along 8th Avenue from Oak Street to the river, as well as possible sites for <br /> joint development with other agencies; and potential for use of some of the <br /> warehouse and historic structures east of Mill for some City functions. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He said that basic principles for him included quality <br />construction, City ownership of its buildings, and consolidation of City services. He did not favor <br />retaining City Hall, which he found to be a building of extremely poor urban design. He <br />acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's comments regarding telecommuting, but pointed out that over <br />the last ten to twelve years City space had increased dramatically beyond the population, and he <br />did not think the council had seen any efficiencies yet. Regarding the potential of joint <br />development, he was very concerned about the possibility and said he would be wary of that <br />approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson shared Mr. Meisner's concern about joint development. She was more interested <br />in constructing a new building and leasing space out to other agencies. <br /> <br />To Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding City space expansion, Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the City <br />had taken on more responsibilities at the behest of its citizens or as a result of mandates from the <br />State and federal government. The City had fewer staff per capita than it had ten to twelve years <br />previously. She confirmed with Mr. Kelly that the element of his motion related to historic <br />structures was intended to allow examination of the possible lease or purchase of historic <br />structures, which could both save money and preserve the integrity of those buildings. <br /> <br />While Ms. Nathanson thought it was great to have the latitude of looking at sites for joint <br />development, she did not want to undercut the downtown vision by council actions. That vision <br />established a great street as a civic street, and that would not be realized if activities were located <br />outside the downtown. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />