HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B - D'town Space Mast.PlnEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Downtown City Space Master Planning
Meeting Date: February 23, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is a follow-up to a January 10, 2005, work session, requesting council direction on
implementing a master planning and public participation process for the development of a downtown
city government complex.
BACKGROUND
In 2001, the council began considering a long-range plan for replacing City office space in the
downtown area. Since that time, numerous council meetings have taken place and decisions have been
made to develop the long-term plan. A summary of the council's direction on elements of the
Downtown City Space Plan to October 2003 is included in Attachment A. The council action history
through January, 2005, is detailed in Attachment B.
On November 22, 2004, the council agreed, in concept, to move forward with a master planning and
public participation process for the purpose of informing future decisions related to a city government
complex. The council did not support committing funding for a master planning process without more
information. Staff indicated it would return to the council with a more detailed scope of work related
to this process and to ask for authorization for budget resources for this purpose.
On January 10, 2005, the council reviewed the staff recommendation to implement a public
participation and master planning process in stages, providing council the opportunity to authorize the
funding level at each step in the process. The recommendation was to fund an initial process scoping
element at the level of $75,000. The council provided staff with comments on both the process and the
range of issues to be addressed in the design of the public participation component of the master plan.
The council also indicated that the cost of the scoping component still seemed high, and requested staff
to come back with a more defined process. Mayor Piercy requested that the council provide specific
direction to help staff refine the project proposal, and encouraged staff to elicit information from
councilors in order to reflect all of the council's concerns. Councilor Bettman provided comments to
staff through e-mail, as she was unable to attend the work session.
In reviewing the January work session, the council's comments can be grouped into two broad policy
directions (the council's comments are summarized in Attachment C). On one hand, the council is
supportive of involving the public in a range of policy questions related to a City Hall Complex, and
would like a collaborative level of public involvement in developing the master plan. This general
direction could lead to the council "delegating" some level of decision-making responsibility to these
public involvement processes. One suggestion included use of a "citizen jury," which in its purest
form would actually delegate to the citizen jury the authority to make final decisions on the policy
questions submitted to the jury.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
On the other hand, the council indicated that prior to requesting public input, there is a need to
determine council's level of commitment to the City Hall Complex master planning process and the
level of the council's existing agreement on issues relating to the City Hall Complex. While the
expansion or replacement of City Hall has been a major project for the council since 2000,
membership on the council has changed during this period. The current council has not had an in-
depth discussion of the range of values and City policies that formed the basis for the original
Downtown Space Plan and that resulted in the council' s 2001 policy statement calling for the
replacement of City Hall with one or more new buildings. The council discussion could result in a
consensus that one or more policy issues have been resolved, and more clarity on which issues should
be submitted to the public in a decision-making context. This would affect the form and content of a
subsequent public involvement process.
There are two other issues of importance that should be highlighted as they are interrelated--the issues
of council consensus and timing. Successful resolution of the issues related to a City Hall Complex
will require consensus of the full council. To attain this consensus, the City Hall Complex master
planning process needs to be complete in time for the current council to act on the master plan
recommendations prior to January 2007. This suggests that the design and implementation of the
master planning and public participation process should be complete within the next 15-18 months in
order to give the council adequate time to consider next steps and, if voter approval is needed, take
decisive action prior to the general election of November 2006.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The downtown City space master planning and public participation process relates to the City Council
goals of an effective, accountable municipal government, a safe community, and sustainable com-
munity growth and change.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The task of creating a City Hall Complex master planning process using a mix of City Council input
and public involvement could potentially have different levels of involvement by staff, the consultant
team, the council, and the public. Accordingly, different levels of participation by these four groups
have different cost implications ranging from simple and inexpensive to complex and expensive. Four
likely options are summarized below with a fifth option being to do nothing at this time.
The first and simplest option would be for staff to take the input already received from the council and
design a proposed master planning and public participation process for the City Hall Complex. Staff
would present the details of the proposed process to council for review and adoption. Then, a Request
for Proposals for consultant services could be issued and the final details of the master planning and
public participation process would be finalized. While this approach would need little or no additional
funding, staff feels that an approach incorporating outside expertise would have more credibility with
both the community and the council.
The next simplest option would be for staff to hire a consultant team on the front end in order to assist
in the design of the City Hall Complex master planning process. This would provide a broader range
of experience in identifying and evaluating the issues that should be considered, especially with the
public participation component of the master planning process. Again, staff would then present the
details of the proposed process to the council for review and adoption. This option could also include
a step for staff to check in with a few representative constituent groups to make sure key issues are
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
covered adequately. The estimated cost for this option would be in the range of $10,000-$15,000.
This is an economical approach that could yield an acceptable outcome, but still may be perceived as
lacking adequate input from both the council and the community.
In the third option, staff would hire a consultant team which then would meet with the council to
describe the basic components of a master planning process and to discuss various options for the
public participation components that could be added to the process. This would facilitate the
development of specific City Council goals and parameters for the public participation process and
allow a direct exchange of ideas between the council and the consultant team about what public
participation techniques would best accomplish the council's goals, including the pros and cons of
various public participation tools. The consultant team--with the assistance of staff--would develop
an outline of the master planning and public participation process. The consultant team could then
meet with a handful of representative constituent groups to make sure the process is both inclusive and
fair. The details of the master planning and public participation process would be finalized and
presented to the council for review and adoption. The estimated cost for this option would be in the
range of $20,000-$30,000, depending on the final details and the number of council work sessions
required to reach consensus. This option has a higher likelihood of success than the first two options
as it includes the opportunity for more input directly to the consultant team by both the council and the
community.
The fourth option is the most complex and expensive as it maximizes the input of both the council and
the community in developing the master planning and public participation process for the City Hall
Complex. As with options 2 and 3, this option begins with the hiring of a consultant team with
expertise in both master planning and public participation processes. The consultant team would
facilitate an in-depth exploration with the council of the issues relating to the City Hall Complex
through either a half-day workshop or interviews with individual councilors followed by a work
session. The consultant team would then develop recommendations for the appropriate public
participation techniques to be used during the City Hall Complex master planning process and bring
these to the council for discussion during a work session.
The next step in this option would be for the consultant team to draft an outline of the master planning
and public participation process to be used as a basis for eliciting input on the process from a wide
range of constituent groups such as the Neighborhood Associations, the Chamber of Commerce,
Friends of Eugene, etc. The details of the master planning and public participation process would then
be finalized and brought back to the council for review and adoption or, if necessary, modification and
resubmittal to the council at a subsequent work session. The estimated cost for Option 4 could be as
high as $75,000, depending on the number of public meetings and council work sessions required.
Although this option offers the most inclusive approach, staff believes it would be too expensive and
time-consuming for the initial step of designing a public participation process. It would be better to
devote the extra time and money to the public participation process itself rather than to the design of
the process.
Option 1: Direct the City Manager to design a master planning and public participation process for the
City Hall Complex and present to the council at a future work session.
Option 2: Authorize the expenditure of up to $15,000 to design a public participation and master
planning process; the design process would include a limited level of involvement by the
council and little to no involvement by the public.
Option 3: Authorize the expenditure of up to $30,000 to design a public participation and master
planning process; the design process would include a moderate level of involvement by the
council and limited, focused involvement by community representatives.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
Option 4: Authorize the expenditure of up to $75,000 to design a public participation and master
planning process; the design process would include a significant level of involvement by
both the council and the public.
Option 5: Take no action at this time.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends Option 3.
S[IGGESTED MOTION
Move to direct the City Manager to proceed with an approach to designing a public participation
process for the City Hall Complex master planning effort that incorporates a moderate level of City
Council involvement and limited, focused public involvement, and to direct the City Manager to
request on a Supplemental Budget up to $30,000 from the Facility Replacement Reserve to implement
this process design project.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of the Downtown Space Plan Policy Direction
B. Council Action History on the Downtown Space Plan
C. Summary of Council Comments on January 10th Staff Recommendation
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Mike Penwell
Telephone: 682-5547
Staff E-Mail: michael.j.penwell~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF THE DOWNTOWN SPACE PLAN POLICY DIRECTION
Funded Projects Updated October 20, 2003
What is it? The Downtown Space Plan (DTSP) is a long-range plan to provide adequate and safe space for City
functions located in the downtown core area.
What involvement has Council had in the DTSP? Council has had several meetings to discuss various
aspects of the DTSP (4/11/01, 4/25/01, 5/16/01, 9/19/01, 11/26/01, 1/30/02, 2/25/02, 4/8/02, 5/22/02). Council
has provided direction to staff on a number of aspects of the plan. The major direction items include:
· The City prefers to own facilities rather than to lease from private landlords
· The City should plan to abandon the current City Hall, and construct new buildings within 10 years
· The City should research a variety of ways to procure City buildings, including design/build, and report
back to Council before the planning phase of any new City building
· Relocation of Fire Station #1 and Police Special Operations should be the first priority in the DTSP,
with a new Police Headquarters next and a new City Hall last in priority
· The planning will include consideration of possible joint development with other agencies; locations
along 8th Avenue from Oak Street to the river, as well as possible sites for joint development with other
agencies; potential for use of some of the warehouse and historic structures east of Mill for some City
functions; and examination of consolidation
As a result of this Council direction, staff developed policies around the maintenance and preservation of City
Hall and the Public Works Building to address the level of reinvestment to be committed to those assets through
2010. These policies were provided to Council on July 5, 2001.
What facilities are included in the DTSP? For planning purposes, the DTSP includes City Hall, a Police
Headquarters building, Fire Station # 1 and a Police Special Operations facility. City staff currently located in a
number of buildings would be included in the plan: City Hall, 858 Pearl Street, Eugene Hotel, Central Building,
Aster Building, Jacobs Building, Lincoln Yards and the Overpark. For planning purposes, the Atrium was not
included in the analysis, but it could be added at the time when the new City Hall is being considered. The
specific facilities to be included in any future project will be determined by Council as they review the imple-
mentation plan for each new building.
What is the cost of the DTSP? Cost estimates were developed assuming that the facilities would provide space
to meet the anticipated needs of the City functions included in the plan until the year 2020 (although there is a
tabled Council motion to change this assumption). In 2001 dollars, the total cost of the remaining projects in the
plan was originally estimated to be $68.4 million. If the project costs are inflated out to the expected year of
construction, the cost was $84.9 million. These figures do not include any costs for parking. The specific cost
for each facility will be brought to Council for review as part of an implementation plan.
How will the City pay for the projects in the DTSP? The City will look for internal funding sources where
possible for these projects. There is a funding gap of $60 million, however, for the unfunded projects remaining
in the plan. Council has dedicated proceeds from the sale of certain assets, as well as any balance in the Facility
Reserve, to DTSP projects. In addition, a "capitalization component" of the facility charge for functions located
in City-owned office space in the downtown area was implemented in FY03. Tthis charge will be an on-going
funding source dedicated to the DTSP projects. The specific funding plan for each facility will be brought to
Council prior to implementation.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
What progress has been made to implement the DTSP? The two highest priority projects have been funded
and are underway. On May 21, 2002, Eugene voters approved a General Obligation Bond measure to fund
replacement of Fire Station # 1 and construction of a live fire training building. Additional funding for the
project came from the Facility Reserve. It is anticipated that the fire station will be ready for occupancy by
January 2005. On May 22, 2002, Council directed staff to go forward with a plan for a Police facility to be
located at Roosevelt and Garfield. The $3.9 million building, funded from the Facility Reserve, will initially
house the Forensic Evidence and Property Control Units, and will be ready for occupancy in May, 2004. When
a new downtown Police headquarters facility is constructed, these units would be combined into the downtown
headquarters facility. At that time, the Police Special Operations units now housed in the Lincoln Street facility
would relocate to the Roosevelt building.
Where can I get more information? Summary information on the plan is included on this sheet. Glen
Svendsen, Facility Management Division Manager (682-5008), is the project manager for the Downtown Space
Plan. Sue Cutsogeorge, Treasury Officer (682-5589), is the lead on finance issues for the DTSP.
CHART 1: Summary of Scenario C -- "Demolish and Build New"
(Long-Range Projects Only)
Function Current Location New Location Sq Ft Cost (20015)
Police City Hall Headquarters Building 92,500 $24,980,000
CMO, CRO, HRRS, City Hall and leased For costing purposes only,
Muni Court storage space new bldg on current site 58,300 18,160,000
Finance, ISD, PW Aster, Jacobs, 858 Pearl, For costing purposes only,
Central Bldg, Hotel new bldg on current site 9T300 25~290~000
Totals 248,100 $68,430,000
CHART 2: Funding of Long-Range Downtown Space Plan
(funded projects updated; unfunded project costs as adopted in 2001)
Funded Unfunded
Project Costs Downtown Fire Station - 20035 $7,970,000 -
Police FEU/PCU Building- 20035 3,965,000 -
Police Headquarters - 20065 - $29,900,000
City Hall - 20095 - 55~000~000
Total Project Costs $11,935,000 $84,900,000
Funding Sources Facility Reserve $4,235,000 $7,700,000
Asset Sales - 1,650,000
Other One-Time Funding - as available
General Obligation Bonds 7,700,000 to be
determined
General Fund-Backed Bonds - $14~800~000
Total Funding Sources $11,935,000 $24,150,000
FUNDING GAP - $60,750,000
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
ATTACHMENT B
COUNCIL ACTION HISTORY ON DOWNTOWN SPACE PLAN
On April 11,2001, council was presented with the concept of developing a long-range plan for re-
placing downtown office space. The plan included both potential short-term and long-term actions.
Council directed staff to research a variety of ways to procure City buildings, including design-build,
and report back to council before the planning phase begins for the next new City building.
On April 25, 2001, council was offered several potential short-term actions to create a safer, more
efficient environment for staff located in City Hall. Council directed the City Manager to (i) develop
programming, space needs, and site requirements for relocating certain police functions; (ii) develop a
long-term master plan for future use of the property in Roosevelt Yards by the Police and Public
Works Departments and a financial plan for implementation, including consideration of redevelopment
options for more efficient land use; (iii) dedicate the proceeds from the sale of four surplus properties
to the Facility Replacement Reserve; and (iv) identify and recommend an appropriate downtown site
for purchase for Fire Station #1, with a report back to council with final site selection prior to purchase.
On May 16, 2001, council directed the City Manager to develop a financial strategy and implemen-
tation plan for replacing City Hall and other downtown City office space with new buildings. The
council's direction included: consideration of possible joint development with other agencies; consoli-
dation; locations along 8th Avenue from Oak Street to the river as well as possible sites for joint devel-
opment with other agencies; and, potential for use of some of the warehouse and historic structures
east of Mill.
The 2001-2002 Council Goals included an action priority to "Develop a strategy and implementation
plan for City downtown office and public safety facilities." One of the three work items was to adopt a
policy framework for long range plans to help guide decisions on reinvestment in existing City build-
ings downtown. A policy for the maintenance and preservation of City Hall and the Public Works
Building was presented to council on July 5, 2001. This policy reduced the level ofreinvestment to
provide for an expected 8 to 10 years of continued use.
On September 19, 2001, council addressed near-term and long-term projects by directing that reloca-
tion of Special Operations and EPD personnel in the basement of City Hall, and relocation of Fire
Station # 1 should be the first priority of projects in the Downtown Space Plan. Construction of a new
Police Services building and City Hall were the next projects, with design for the Police Services
building projected to begin in FY05, and a replacement of City Hall was targeted to begin design in
FY08.
The September 19, 2001, council item on the Downtown Space Plan included a description of internal
and external funding sources to implement the eventual replacement of City Hall with new buildings.
Council approved the staff recommendation that the projected funding gap be met with a combination
of the dedication of additional General Fund resources and General Obligation Bonds. One of the pro-
posed internal mechanisms, the payment of market based "rent" by services that would be located in
new downtown buildings, was the topic of a work session on November 26, 2001. The "market rent"
concept was incorporated as an on-going City practice beginning in the adopted FY03 Budget.
On February 25, 2002, council approved a resolution to fund the construction of the new Fire Station
#1 through General Obligation Bonds, with City resources funding non-bond eligible capital costs.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
At a May 22, 2002, work session, council approved the location of the Roosevelt Police Facility, a
financing plan over two fiscal years using City resources from the Facility Reserve, and the use of a
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) form of construction management. Council
adopted funding for the Roosevelt Police Facility on FY02 SB #3 and on FY03 SB #1.
On October 29, 2003, council held a work session on the Downtown Space Plan, focusing specifically
on the need for a new Police services building. Council directed staff to bring recommendations back
on the preliminary planning, cost and financing of a new Police Services building. Several councilors
asked for more information on how a new Police building would fit with future plans to replace City
Hall, and for development of a more general "civic center" concept.
On November 17, 2003, staff presented the Multi-Year Financial Plan to the Budget Committee. This
plan identified both the capital and operating needs for the entire organization over a six-year period.
The police building was listed as a high priority need in the MYFP, and replacement of City Hall was
also included as a future project.
On November 19, 2003, council held a work session on sequencing of financial measures to be pre-
sented to the voters. The staff materials indicated that a bond measure for a police building would be
the next potential item to be presented to voters in November 2004. Council discussed the materials,
but did not provide any direction or make any decisions at the work session.
On February 25, 2004, council held an informational work session on the Civic Center Design Char-
rette and the Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee. On April 28, 2004, a work session was
held to update council on the Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee and on financing plan
options, borrowing methods and construction methods that could be applied to a new police facility.
On June 16, 2004, council reviewed the report of the Mayor's committee and asked that a public hear-
ing be held on the proposed policy principles that would guide future Civic Center development. A
public information session was held on July 8 and the public hearing on July 12.
On July 14, 2004, council held a work session on the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee Report and
adopted a revised set of Civic Center policy principles. They also determined that a City Hall and
Police Building would be located on City-owned property on 8th Avenue.
On July 21, 2004, council continued discussion of a potential bond measure for the November 2004
ballot. The council directed the City Manager to develop a resolution to place a measure on the ballot
based on an option that would combine near-term space needs with modest Civic Center amenities.
On July 26, 2004 council placed a $6.79 million bond measure on the November 2004 ballot. The
measure was to fund social service agency space, police expansion space, improvements to the parks
th ~ ,,
blocks, and improvements to make 8 Avenue a Civic Street . On November 2, 2004, voters rejected
ballot measure 20-88 by a margin of 60% to 40%.
On November 22, council approved the transfer of $15.4 million into the Facility Replacement Reserve
and agreed, in concept, to move forward with a master planning and public participation process for
the purpose of informing future decisions related to City Hall and/or a Public Safety Building. On SB
#1 on December 8, council approved the budget actions to make these transfers.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
ATTACHMENT C
Council Comments on Process Design for a City Government Complex Master Plan
From the January 10, 2005, Work Session
During the January 10th work session on design of a City Hall Complex master plan, council offered a
broad range of comments and suggestions that are summarized below. A number of comments related
to the process itself and focused on how the work to design a larger public participation process should
be structured. These comments have been sorted into two conceptual groups. One set of comments
placed more emphasis on the Council addressing policy issues, and the other set places more emphasis
on the public's role in resolving policy questions. Another set of comments have various financial,
timing or other process related suggestions. Finally, council commented on a number of specific
issues that need to be addressed in the master plan, regardless of the specific process used.
Process Comments
Council Role
1. Council needs to deliberate and decide a few defining issues from the start to afford the new
Council the chance to see where we have common ground. (Bettman)
2. By deciding fundamental issues up front, a process can be developed to articulate comprehen-
sively what the public process can best address. (Bettman)
3. Provide a more realistic and focused parameter for the public to work from, during the process.
(Bettman)
4. Council' s responsibility is to delineate exactly what to ask the public in this process and be
clear about what we will do with the input. (Bettman)
5. The more of that work Council is willing to do the more cost-effective we can be with the use
of consultants. (Bettman)
Public Role
6. Want public outreach (Taylor)
7. Ask opinions from Neighborhood Councils (Taylor)
8. Ask opinions from other groups listed in outreach plan (Taylor)
9. Look for opportunities for (free) publicity to ask what people think (Taylor)
10. Process needs to be collaborative (Kelly)
11. Outreach, rather than "selling" (Pryor)
12. Ensure conversation with public is thorough (Pryor)
13. Process should be wide open to comment on all issues (Bettman, per Kelly)
14. The rehab vs. replace decision should include a built-in public involvement component. A work
session with public comment, or a different model to receive feedback than a PH. Staff should
generate and accommodate maximum public exposure, provide a comprehensive presentation,
and have a way for the public to provide feedback before council takes action, to help inform
our decision. (Bettman)
15. Work with consultants on concept of a citizen jury: (Kelly)
a. 16 to 20 member group
b. chosen at random
c. deliberate issues over time
d. come to recommendations to Council
16. Provide background facts and info to the public so they can make a good decision (Kelly)
Other Process Suggestions
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
17. $75,000 is too much (Taylor, Pryor, Kelly, Solomon)
18. Need to break costs of process down so public knows how the funds are being spent (Poling)
19. Include a public hearing (Taylor)
20. It is not what you decide but how you decide that spells success (Pryor)
21. Process should be quick - 12 to 18 months (Pryor)
22. Outreach and participation by the public should be focused and strategic to avoid "process
fatigue". (Bettman)
23. Don't design a process that is too long and too costly (Solomon)
24. Solution-Designing process that is focused on the real opportunities. (Bettman)
25. How will we know when we have had "enough" process - Need to be able to say that process
is sufficient for Council to make a decision (Solomon)
26. People need to understand that the issues are not just aesthetics and low-cost fixes, and we have
work getting to that point (Piercy)
27. Process needs to bring public on board (Kelly)
28. Process needs to collect and understand what the public is saying when they comment on info
and react to it (Kelly)
29. Process needs to work for the majority of the community (Kelly)
30. Process results in broad input, not just meeting junkies (Kelly)
31. Structure 4 or 5 scenarios for public to comment on, as a way of framing issues, and helping
elicit a wide range of comments, rather than starting from a "blank slate" that public has to
create the scenarios as well as react (Kelly)
32. Process outline: (Kelly)
a. reach out to consultants
b. put together a draft process
c. contact 4 to 5 key stakeholder groups to review
d. publicize draft
e. put on web for comment
f. invite feedback at a Council session
g. let Council decide how to proceed
h. $25,000to $30,0000 process
i. keep process reasonably focused
Issues to Address
1. Rebuild or replace City Hall (Taylor, Kelly)
2. Is rehab or rebuild the most cost effective approach? (Bettman)
3. How could City Hall be remodeled and expanded? (Taylor)
4. Is City Hall a priority for the public? (Taylor)
5. Need to understand what is the benefit to the average person and to all of the community
(Ortiz)
6. Is City Hall a priority for the Council? (Bettman)
7. Define Council' s baseline for the minimum service areas and non-profits that need to be
included in order for Councilors to support a project (Bettman)
8. Council should decide the partner governments/agencies co-location issue. (Bettman)
9. Should City Government be in a central location? (Poling)
10. Is consolidation a goal? (Taylor, Kelly, Poling)
11. Services considered for consolidation should take into account the customer oriented services,
not consolidation for the staff' s needs (Taylor)
12. Single versus multiple buildings at one location? (Taylor)
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc
13. What are the constraints and opportunities to co-locate or build City Hall and Police Services
contiguously? (Bettman)
14. EPD connected, adjacent or up to a few blocks away? (Taylor)
15. EPD should be separate from City Hall (Ortiz)
16. Atrium sale or retention for other services? (Taylor)
17. Focus discussion on City government issues, collaboration with other governments and non-
profits, not on larger issues of Downtown plan and redevelopment (Kelly)
18. Is the scope of project strictly a City Govt. Center facility/facilities; or are we going to expand
that to include streets, park blocks, open space (aside from on-site "courtyard,") etc. - a full
"Civic Visioning" master plan? (Bettman)
19. Lead to decision on future bond issue, or need to come up with a "plan B" (Kelly)
20. Need to address future of City Hall pretty quickly (Poling)
21. Costs need to include the infrastructure (technology, etc) that keeps City Hall running (Piercy)
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050223\S050223B.doc