Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/11/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 11, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Poling would be unable to attend the meeting due to a family emergency. 1. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – Downtown Initiative Action Plan Assistant City Manager Angel Jones introduced Chief Randy Groves, the executive leading the project team for the council goal, and Associate Planner Nan Laurence, team member. She said this was the first time the council had reviewed the action plan and staff was asking for direction to guide their efforts. Chief Groves commented that the goal was a very large and ambitious one and said the action plan represented staff’s best efforts to develop an initial plan and associated strategies, but he welcomed comments and suggestions for adjustments. He said council leadership was vital to any downtown revitalization effort, with the council defining success. He said the draft action plan was strongly connected to the Eugene Downtown Plan, which was the guiding document for revitalization efforts. He said the assumption was that the downtown initiative was inclusive of the entire downtown, not just the proposed West Broadway project. He said the action plan had a five-year planning horizon under the supposition that the downtown initiative would remain a council goal for longer than the two-year goal cycle, although staff recognized that a future council could amend or eliminate it as a priority. Chief Groves said staff had developed four key values to focus their efforts: vision, teamwork, communica- tion and commitment. He asked for the council’s direction in defining and guiding the role of the staff team and its relationship to the Planning and Development Department technical team and the Broadway Development Advisory Committee, which were also working towards downtown revitalization. He said there were many outcomes, large and small, associated with the goal, with the council’s stated goal being a revitalized downtown. He said specific outcomes came from individual projects and outcomes and ranged in size and scope. He reviewed several examples, such as improvements to benefit the Farmers Market and the council’s direction to support both the Beam and KWG concepts for West Broadway. He said staff was currently focused on implementing strategies from the Downtown Plan and many of the actions and projects built on one another and the results might be sequential, with initial, interim and long-term outcomes. Ms. Laurence stated that the 71 implementation strategies from the Downtown Plan spoke to an enormous range of actions addressing all of downtown and provided the specific action items for the initiative. She said many of the strategies were opportunity-driven and many were interrelated, but all of them were MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 1 Work Session attempts to implement the adopted policies in the Downtown Plan. She emphasized the importance of a diverse staff team to ensure coordination of the City’s efforts. She said staff was developing a more detailed matrix to track progress on each strategy and the associated key staff. Ms. Taylor questioned why it was necessary for the council to vote on the item as it seemed more like a report. She asked if any part of the action plan would raise the debt limit or expand the boundaries for the urban renewal district. Chief Groves said the action plan did not include that level of specificity; the intent was to provide a framework to guide staff efforts consistent with council direction. Ms. Taylor said that some strategies, such as strategies 9 and 11, were of concern. Ms. Laurence said that the adopted Downtown Plan was being implemented based on council direction and the implementation strategies were a part of the Downtown Plan; no new actions were being proposed other than those already in the plan. Ms. Taylor asked for assurance that the council was not voting to raise the debt limit or expand the boundaries. Assistant City Manager Jones said that any staff action would be based on the council’s direction and the council could decide at some point in the future to provide that direction; however, the council was not being asked currently to take any action related to the urban renewal district. Ms. Taylor asked why strategy No. 37 was a medium instead of high priority. Ms. Laurence said that could be made a high priority in the staff work plan if the council directed. Chief Groves said the scope of the action plan was so large that staff hoped the council could help focus staff efforts. Ms. Taylor said that many of the strategies that were on hold seemed to be simple and easily accomplished. She asked what the term “opportunity-driven” meant. Ms. Laurence gave as an example the strategy to th enhance the visual and physical access at the end of 8 Avenue where it met the riverfront. She said staff was working with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) because of the opportunity provided by the new substation. She said that staff had discussed way to provide places that appealed to children and families and was looking for opportunities, but had not estimated costs or brought the item before the council. She said that implementing some of the strategies hinged on availability of staff or financial resources and the purpose of the work session was to determine if the action plan and priorities needed to be modified to fit the council’s expectations. Ms. Taylor observed that some of the strategies on hold, such as signs, would not be large or expensive projects and could be done fairly soon to make the downtown more accessible and attractive. She asked why encouraging and supporting a stable arts community was on hold. Ms. Laurence replied that was happening to some extent through other opportunities and some of the loan programs, but when staff took on larger projects and staff resources were shifted to those projects other things that did not have the same level of priority got put on hold temporarily. Chief Groves added that there was another council goal team working specifically on the arts and outdoors and efforts were coordinated. Ms. Taylor asserted that the council had not decided to support the Beam and KWG proposals; the decision was to investigate and was not a final decision. Mayor Piercy interjected that the council direction, as voted on, was to move the two West Broadway development projects forward and bring an advisory group together to work with developers on those projects. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated she had voted against the goal because given its long-range implications and extraordi- nary amount of outcomes and implementation strategies it should be an ongoing work plan for the council and City departments. She said it would be impossible for the council to address the 71 outcomes in a work session forum and suggest revisions to the action plan. She said she was in favor of some of the outcomes and opposed to others and would vote against the plan because approval would convey acceptance of each of the implementation strategies. Ms. Bettman noted that sections related to the City Hall and police initiatives did not refer to a City Hall/police station or discuss police infrastructure being downtown. She asked if a police station in another location was being considered and if not, then a police station linked with the civic center should be reflected in the action plan. Chief Groves said the plan did not get to that level of specificity but he understood Ms. Bettman’s point. Mr. Pryor indicated he liked the plan so far and understood that staff was asking if it reflected the council's emphasis and priorities. He assumed over the next several months the council and staff would work on determining which of the 71 strategies should receive higher or lower priority. With respect to the large number of medium priority items, he said it would be helpful to know what timeline that status represented and whether there was an order in which they might be accomplished. He was interested in the staff's approach to structuring or phasing the strategies. Mr. Clark also expressed his approval of the plan. He highlighted some of the strategies that had special interest for him, including creating special places and a cultural center. He said creating an attraction for residents and surrounding communities was an essential part of developing a vital downtown. He thought that locating the Lane County Historical Museum in the downtown area would be a cultural asset. He supported an expanded goal for the Farmers Market as an integral strategy for a lively downtown. He hoped that maintenance, code enforcement, and public safety would be part of creating open spaces. Mr. Zelenka said he was reluctant to approve the draft plan as he was uncertain what some of the strategies meant and suggested taking some time for councilors to ask for additional details. Ms. Ortiz said she was willing to agree to Mr. Zelenka's suggestion, but hoped that there was appreciation for the work that had already been done and not consider adding new strategies without discussing them with staff. She commended Chief Groves and the staff team for their efforts. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the work and was in favor of Mr. Zelenka's suggestion. She asked how "medium" was defined. She perceived some of the strategies as being ongoing initiatives. She was interested in ways to integrate green space throughout the downtown area. She asked if the council had approved all of the strategies in the draft action plan. Ms. Laurence replied that all of the strategies were included in the Downtown Plan. She said the council approved by ordinance the policies in the Downtown Plan and the implementation strategies were examples of ways to implement the policies. Assistant City Manager Jones reiterated that this was the first time the council had seen the draft action plan and she expected there would be a number of sessions to narrow the range of strategies down to a more defined direction based on the council's involvement. She said the next would be to respond to the council's requests for more information, definition of priority levels, timelines, phasing, or any other details that would be helpful. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka suggested that councilors could email staff with requests for information and staff could assemble the responses for the full council. He suggested that the strategies could also be sorted in several ways, including status (completed, on hold, in process) and by priority (low, medium, high). He said it was difficult to process the strategies as they were currently organized by broad category. Ms. Taylor agreed that the council did not adopt the strategies. She stated that the council's discussed the KWG and Beam proposals in terms of "getting engaged" and not "getting married" and it was not a final decision. She thought several strategies should be moved to high priority, such as Nos. 52, 48, 70 and fixed rail transit. She agreed with Mr. Clark about the importance of the Farmers Market and favored Mr. Zelenka's suggestion to postpone action until more information was provided. Ms. Bettman agreed that more information about the status of strategies and their potential was required. She questioned why conducting a study of riparian habitat was on hold when the City was in the process of providing technical expertise to EWEB on its master planning process. She noted that enhancing the 13th Avenue corridor was in process but did not think there had ever been a discussion about it. Continuing, Ms. Bettman recollected that during the council's discussions with PeaceHealth one of the options was using bonding authority to build a community hospital. She said that other cities had done that and then attracted a provider to the nonprofit hospital. She pointed out there was $50 million in urban renewal money and yet the strategy to work with major medical providers to locate their facilities in and near downtown was on hold. Regarding the strategy to promote multi-story, mixed-use structures, she said that mixed-use did not have to be in the same structure; it could be block-by-block or area-by-area. She said investing in public infrastructure such as a streetcar to stimulate redevelopment was the best way to enhance downtown but the City had never pursued funding for a study or right-of-way acquisition. Mayor Piercy urged staff to confirm whether issues raised during the work session represented the position of the council or just one councilor and the extent to which there was support for that issue. She hoped that signs in the downtown area would not only identify places but also tell the story of the whole community. Mr. Zelenka said he wanted to see strategies sorted by status and priority and more granularity on "medium" provided. He also wanted definitions of "in process" and "on hold" and encouraged councilors to email staff with their specific questions about the action plan. Mr. Clark asked for more detail on time horizons for accomplishing strategies and information on currently identified potential barriers to accomplishment, as well as any sequential issues. He was also interested in historical information about downtown and the community. Ms. Bettman did not think postponing action would change the direction. She did not want to take action on the plan at this point as approving it would mean approving all of the strategies and the positions staff had taken on them. She felt those needed to be narrowed and refined by the council. Assistant City Manager Jones said staff could provide information on all of the classifications and identify policy versus implementation strategy. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Goal – City Hall Complex MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects stated that the purpose of the work session was to provide information requested by the council on several issues and that information was provided as attachments to the Agenda Item Summary. He hoped the council would take action on three key questions: ? project site, ? approach to consolidation options, and ? council direction for completion of the remaining work for implementation and planning phase of the City Hall complex. Mr. Cohen said the consultants agreed with using the currently City Hall site for the project and master planning that site would allow it to accommodate full consolidation, either wholly or incrementally. He said that would provide an appropriately sized site area that would maximize future flexibility and was located adjacent to other governmental entities. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to use the ex- isting City Hall site for the planning and design of City Hall. Ms. Bettman asked if the option to build and occupy a patrol facility first prior to the move would occur before or after the ballot measure. Mr. Cohen said the assumption was after the ballot measure, but that would be the council's decision. Ms. Bettman said she assumed an incremental approach would mean a smaller bond measure to build a non- consolidated space and would require a second bond measure, which she felt spelled the failure of bond measures and would result in moving forward with only a police station and that had been staff’s preference all along. She pointed out that the public preference was for a City-owned site and not necessarily the current City Hall site. She asked if the County commissioners had taken a position regarding sale of the butterfly lot. Mr. Penwell replied that staff and consultants had met with the County's facilities subcommit- tee, which indicated it was open to proposals. He said that staff had conducted due diligence but would not present a formal proposal unless the council decided to continue pursuing that site. Ms. Bettman asked if calculations of additional costs for relocation were based on an incremental approach. Mr. Cohen said the master plan process being proposed was intended to provide the council with more information to answer many of the questions being raised. He said there were many consolidation options and the council did not have to choose one at this time. He said the council could decide among options once the master planning process had provided details. He said that the other sites had been evaluating using the criteria developed with input from the council and the public and the recommendation for the current City Hall site was based on those criteria. He said an incremental approach was not reflected in estimates of moving and relocation costs and the intent of master planning was to identify with more certainty those costs. He said the math had to be based on a real scenario. Mr. Penwell said that there was a clear preference for keeping the police patrol facility and City Hall as a consolidated project. Mr. Pryor remarked that he had always preferred the current City Hall site as the most reasonable and direct approach with a site that met the criteria and maximized options for consolidation. He said many sites had been evaluated and it was time to make a decision. He felt the recommendation was thoughtful, considered and based on experience and facts. He had not heard any councilors indicate a preference for moving forward with only a police station and he did not think a bond measure would fail on the basis of some MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 5 Work Session difference in amount; it was the responsibility of the council to make that measure as attractive to voters as possible. He intended to support the motion. Mr. Zelenka agreed with using the current City Hall site and noted that the City also owned the property across the street, which should be incorporated in the planning process. He was also agreeable to an incremental approach and a $100 million bond, in addition to the $40 million in reserve, would achieve much of the council's goal for a facility. He also wanted the patrol facility and City Hall to be an integrated project. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion, as it would result in prematurely eliminating the County-owned site. She said the County had initiatives for which it wanted the City's support and the City could therefore rely on the County's cooperation. In terms of consolidation, she thought a $100 million bond, $50 million in urban renewal funds and $40 million in reserves could complete the entire project. Mr. Zelenka said his first choice was the butterfly lot, but there were too many problems with the site, including unwilling sellers of adjacent parcels. He said the County might sell the lot but would expect a new parking facility to be built at a cost of $12 million in addition to the $2 million purchase price, which was too expensive. Mr. Clark supported the current City Hall site but would vote against the motion because he felt that establishing stable funding for the transportation system was a priority and the council needed to make more progress on that before initiating a new city hall project. He said the County was facing difficult financial choices and would likely ask the City to take up the slack in some services; moving precipitously on the City Hall project could remove some options from the table. He said that downtown redevelopment was still in the planning stage and a clearer vision of downtown was needed before making a decision on a new city hall. Mr. Pryor stated that he was equally passionate about transportation system funding but thought that could move forward concurrently with a new city hall project. He would not support a significant public financial obligation until the council had a better handle on transportation funding, but that did not mean the City Hall project had to be halted. He noted that even if the County was willing to sell the butterfly lot, acquisition of privately owned parcels necessary to complete the site was uncertain and he did not want to see the council involved in another condemnation action. Mr. Clark said there was still uncertainty about other government-owned buildings in downtown and he felt the council was moving too quickly. Ms. Taylor commented that the current City Hall site was a good location, but not the only land the City owned, such as the former Sears site. She was not certain the public was ready to support a large expenditure. Mr. Zelenka said the participants in the public process represented a broad spectrum of the community and voting supported as first choices the current City Hall site and the butterfly lot, with the Sears site and ShawMed site as second choices. He did not want to consider either of the second choices because they were included in the downtown redevelopment plan. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- tion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to approve the development of a master plan for a wholly or incrementally consolidated con- cept on one site. Ms. Bettman asserted that from the beginning there was discussion of consolidating City services in one facility and she believed that an incremental approach should not be taken, as she feared it would be too expensive and full consolidation would never happen. She was staunchly against the motion because it appeared to support an incremental approach. Mr. Cohen explained that the motion would allow design solutions that examined both an incremental and whole consolidation approach and both options were predicated on one bond measure; there was no assumption for more than one bond measure. He said that was based on the initial position statement to consolidate City services to the greatest extent practical. Ms. Bettman asked how much it would cost to explore the incremental option. Mr. Cohen said the expanded concept design would provide the council with different incremental configurations. Ms. Bettman said consolidating City services incrementally would remove a significant argument in favor of the bond measure. Mr. Pryor said the council was deciding to develop a plan, not adopt a final direction on the new city hall complex and the information provided by the plan would help inform future decisions. He understood Ms. Bettman's point regarding consolidation of City services in one building and still supported that concept, but wanted additional information before deciding whether or not it was appropriate for all services to be located in City Hall. Mayor Piercy said the council's previous discussion included whether there would be space available for the Municipal Court in the former federal courthouse building. Ms. Ortiz used the example of Bethel's construction of a new school to illustrate that an incremental approach could be successful. She felt that an incremental approach could help identify which services would best fit in the new City hall complex. Mr. Zelenka also favored consolidation of all services, but it was too expensive and it was clear the public was not willing to pay for full consolidation; a backup plan was to take a more cost-conscious approach, including considering the former federal courthouse building as a location for Municipal Court and continuing to use the library and Atrium Building for City offices. He felt the public would support an approach that tried to achieve as much consolidation as possible with a lower price tag. Mr. Clark stated he was willing to look at options for consolidation and would support the motion. Ms. Bettman said there had been considerable early work on consolidation of City services in the downtown area based on an assumption of full consolidation. She pointed out that a previous ballot measure for a police station had failed. Ms. Taylor asked what approach was proposed for incremental consolidation. Mr. Cohen said the outcomes of the planning process were not predetermined and the team would be sensitive to feedback on project costs. He said that the process would offer the council consolidation choices. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the City would continue to pay rent for some services. Mr. Cohen replied that would depend on which options the council chose. The motion passed 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with Phase 3B of the Implementation Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan and request on a Supplemental budget an appropriation of $789,000 from the Facility Reserve. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the cost of Phase 3B was $1,249,000. She asked what the cost to-date was. Mr. Penwell said the cost was slightly over $2 million to-date. Ms. Bettman noted that one of the technical tasks in Phase 3B was police patrol facility planning. She said now that the council had decided to use the current City Hall site, she did not believe any option other than using the site across the street, which was the plan all along, would be considered. She said there had been three ballot measures on a police facility and did not understand why it would cost $126,000 to do more planning. Mr. Penwell said that previous planning was for a fully consolidated police facility that included all of the Police Department and planning would now look as just the patrol facility as all other police functions would be in the new city hall. He said the other planning had been used as the basis for planning to date. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because she was not in favor of the direction the process was going. Mr. Clark said he would support the motion as the majority of the council chose the current City Hall site and a majority of funding would come from funds saved to plan for and building a new city hall. Mr. Zelenka said he could support having a patrol facility located adjacent to the new city hall and hoped the planning process would be in that direction. Ms. Solomon commented that the council agreed that having a patrol facility in City Hall was not the best use of valuable property in downtown and she hoped that decision would not be reversed. Mr. Penwell said the planning costs included an analysis of up to three sites for a patrol facility, including a separate facility on a contiguous site if the council wished. Mayor Piercy commented that the funds spent to date were in response to a vigorous council discussion about the need to engage the public fully over the entire process, as well as fully engage the council in every facet of the planning. The motion passed 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 9 Work Session