CCMinutes - 04/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mr. Svendsen referred the council to two handouts distributed prior to the meeting: 1) Comparison of Civic Center/Police Facility Projects; and 2) How to Get the Best Value for Your Construction Dollars A Primer on Construction Delivery Methods. He distinguished between construction methods and pub- lic/private partnerships. He said that the City's construction management method involved the private sector in design or construction. He believed that when some people discussed public/private partnerships, they were discussing a situation in which the private sector had equity in a project. That was independent of the construction method employed. Referring the council to the second document, Mr. Svendsen briefly noted some of the different construction delivery methods and called the council's attention to some of the advantages and disadvantages listed under each. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. Mr. Meisner discussed what he wanted to see in a civic center. He wanted a center that brought together City government operations, and that had implications for what City properties could be sold and what moneys were assembled. He said that raised the question of what the City's capital priorities were. Mr. Meisner suggested that had the council decided the center was a high priority two years ago it was likely it would not have voted to fund some other capital projects. He asked if, in fact, the civic center represented the City's highest capital priority, and further asked how the City could focus on that and begin to move away from maintenance of downtown facilities. Mr. Svendsen said the goal of the process was to consolidate staff and sell assets in downtown, as well as get staff out of leased spaces downtown. He thought a decision on the Atrium Building had yet to be made. Mr. Meisner requested information about the amount of square feet needed in a civic center to replace the space used by the City in the Atrium building, what would be realized from the sale, and what would be saved if the City stopped putting money into improvements into it. He also wanted to know what the City could realize from bonding against leases. He wanted a sense of how much money the City could ultimately assemble. Mr. Papd wanted Mr. Meisner's information request extended to include other City properties downtown. He wanted to have all staff housed in one place. Mr. Pap~ suggested that another approach was to have a developer build the project and then lease it to the City with a 20-year minimum lease with a dollar option. Mr. Svendsen said that was a financing strategy as opposed to a construction methodology. Mr. Pap~ said that construction management would be turned over to a developer. Mr. Svendsen said that was similar to what occurred with the Pearl Street Garage, which the City merely paid for when complete, although it was somewhat involved in the design of the facility. Mr. Pap~ believed the City wanted to be involved in the design, but beyond that thought a private developer could take over and deliver the product. Mr. Svendsen said that approach was a combination of the last two methods in the comparison, ~Design/Build (Possible Leaseback)" and ~Bridging." Ms. Bettman thought a combined police station/city hall was the City's highest capital priority. She wanted to know what it would take to succeed in getting such a facility built. She agreed with a committee member MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session