Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1977 Meeting , ~- M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL November 1, 1977 Special meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 6:20 p.m. on November 1, 1977, in the Colonade Room at the Eugene Hotel with the following Councilors present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Ed Smith, Acting City Manager, said the special meeting had been called for Council to select an architect for the Civic Center, as recommended by the Civic Center Commission which Council had received. Dean Baumgartner and members of the Commission were available to make presentations. Dean Baumgartner introduced the following Commission members: Les Anderson, Chairperson; Dorie McGillivary; Adrienne Lannom; and Councilors Obie and Lieuallen. Mr. Baumgartner said in late August and early September the Com- mission had invited solicitation of responses from local and national archi- tectural firms for the project. Eleven local responses and 16 national re- sponses had been received for evaluation for a total of 27. The Civic Center Commission appointed a five-member subcommittee to screen the 27 e applications and recommend the three best firms to the Commission. The subcom- mittee interviewed five local and four national firms, and recommended the following: The Luckman Partnership, Inc., Los Angeles; Amundson Associates, Springfield; and Hardy, Holzman, and Pfeiffer Associates, New York City. The Commission received the subcommittee1s recommendation and accepted it. Mr. Baumgartner said there had been much discussion regarding a local versus a national firm, but the Commission had decided to accept the recommendation of awarding the contract to the Luckman Partnership of Los Angeles. Public hearing was opened. Verva Giustina, 3220 Bryceler Drive, served for several terms on the Board of the Lane County Auditorium Association. She expressed great support for the letter Council received from the Eugene Chamber of Commerce supporting the selection of a local firm for the architectural portion of the civic center. She said citizens in the community would be asked to support the civic center with tax dollars at some point in time, and it would be easier to sell to the community if a local architectural firm had been chosen. She also felt there were many local architectural firms with national reputations in our community who could do the job well. Lee Mahoney, 1529 Garfield Place, also stated he felt the project should be given to a local architectural firm to keep the money in this area. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Council--11/1/77 - 1 8lL . Mr. Hamel asked how many Eugene firms were interviewed and who they were. e Mr. Baumgartner replied that there were seven individual firms and three joint firms responding, and listed the following local firms: Briscoe Barry; Childress, Childress, and Ullman; Danielson; Lutes and Sanatel; Moreland, Unruh, and Smith; John E. Stafford; Unthank, Seder, and Poticha; Balhizer, Longwood, Smith, Paul, and Anderson; Amundson Associates; and Wegroup. Mr. Hamel then wondered why those firms were not given more consideration and how the final three were arrived at. Mr. Baumgartner said five of those local firms were interviewed by the subcommittee. He said each firm was asked to respond to a 27-part detailed questionnaire, with a personal interview consisting of a 15-minute portion for the firm to give supplemental information that had not been covered in the questionnaire, followed by a 30-minute question and answer period. Based on those questionnaires and the interviews conducted, the selection of the three firms was made by the subcommittee. Mr. Lieuallen explained the problem of reducing the original number of 27 down to a number more easily handled. He said there was the possibility of design competition, but that was not accepted too well in the architectural community. The procedure worked out was to pare down the number and select a smaller number for interviews. Some firms were not considered because they were too small to handle the entire project. He noted there were several local and several national firms who had good qualifications. The interview process was used for those who were qualified, and all firms presented materials about their profes- sional accomplishments. Mr. Baumgartner had sent detailed questionnaires to all firms so all could respond to the same questions and be evaluated in the same manner. A list of names was sent back to the Commission with the subcommittee's understanding that the firms could be combined. Mr. Lieuallen noted this was a e misunderstanding. The subcommittee met again and resubmitted three names to the Commission, regardless of area of location, those three it felt to be best. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt confident Amundson Associates could do the job, noting the amount of money involved and the fact the community would have to vote for use of tax dollars for this center. He thought it important in that light to have a local firm do the architectural work. Mr. Obie said as a member of the Commission, he had the impression the sub- committee was presenting the three firms in their order of priority in terms of the subcommittee's feelings. He asked Mr. Lieuallen if that were correct. Mr. Lieuallen said that was his understanding. However, he said when the three firms were picked, the subcommittee was unanimous in the Luckman Partnership and Amundson Associates. He asked Mr. Anderson, Chairperson of the Commission, whether that was a correct understanding. Mr. Anderson said considerable time had been spent discussing that issue. He said the fact that one was considered over another was not important at that time as they moved toward the final decision. The subcommittee did favor Luckman Partnership. He said presumably the issue was whether or not the two firms would be compatible in working together. He did not think that was important in the final decision. Once the issue of a working relationship between a local and national firm was decided, the subcommittee was pretty unanimous in its decision. , Mr. Delay asked why the contract should not be awarded to a local firm. He asked in regard to the three firms submitted, whether there was a big e Council--lljlj77 - 2 K~ ~ . :1 disparate difference among the three, or if the three were all well-qualified. e He wondered if there were any major differences in the three selected. Mr. Anderson said he thought Council should go back to the responsibilities that were charged to the Commission by ordinance. It was charged to make a recom- mendation which the Commission thought was in the best interests of the City of Eugene in developing this project. Consequently, the Commission followed the correct procedure' in delegating the matter to a subcommittee. He noted the number of hours of time it took to sift through the 27 applications and reduce that number to a manageable number to interview, with considerable additional time taken for the interviews. As to whether or not there was an effort to make a comparison that would show one over the other as being best, he said he could not answer. In view of the mandate given to the subcommittee, he specifically recalled they were to come back with the best three firms. Never at any time was there any effort made by anyone outside the Commission to indicate that only local architectural firms should be considered. He said if that were the situation, City Council should have notified the Commis- sion that that issue was to be determined before calling in the 27 applicants and screening them. He felt it unfair to have taken so much of the applicants' time if only local firms were to be considered. Adriene Lannom, a member of the Civic Center Commission, said the Commission had recommended to the Council three names they felt to be best. The first two names were prioritized because there was no disagreement on those two. On the issue of a local versus a national firm, she said she felt that was not the Commission's decision, as they were not so directed by Council. e Mr. Haws extended apologies that the Commission did not know he himself wanted a local firm to be selected. He said he did not approach any of the Commission or subcommittee members, as he did not feel it was proper for him to put pressure on them. He acknowledged the amount of time and work they had invested and apologized to them for the misunderstanding. However, he would like City Council to select a local firm, and by local, he meant one from the city of Eugene and not from the surrounding area. Mr. Lieuallen said Mr. Anderson's comments were correct, in that no one had given the Commission or subcommittee specific charge to deal only with local firms. Perhaps Council should deal with the local versus national issue now. He felt confidence in the Amundson Associates to do a very good job, noting they were local enough and he could support that selection. In comparing the first two selections presented, he said the issue of local tax dollars was a big one, and he felt the job should go to Amundson's. Mr. Bradley asked how many dollars were being talked about leaving the community if a national firm were selected. Mr. Baumgartner said that was an unknown factor, but on a basis of standard operating procedures, it would be roughly six percent of the total cost of the facility. Mr. Bradley then wondered if he had an opinion as to how much of the six percent would stay in the community. Mr. Baumgartner said each of the three firms had expressed a desire to associate with a local firm, or open their own office in Eugene, if that were the case. That discussion developed into another one as to which architectural firm would take the lead role. He continued that he felt any of the three firms selected would lead to a majority of the dollars staying e Council-ll/l/77 - 3 8l~ ~ - " .. . 'L in the community, irrespective of the architectural firm that is selected. e Ms. Smith wondered if the committee had taken into consideration a local firm who would bring in a national firm to work with them. Mr. Lieuallen replied initially the subcommittee considered picking two firms, one from this area who would pick a national firm. But, he continued, the charge from the Commission was to present the three best firms, not to decide the working relationship. One of the concerns was forcing a partnership that mi gh t not work. Mr. Obie said he had made the argument of a local versus a national firm, and had argued in favor of a local firm at the last Civic Center Commission meeting. However, he said the direction to the subcommittee was to bring the best three firms to the Commission. He had the distinct impression that Luckman Partnership was the top choice of the subcommittee. He felt there was a moral situation regarding when a subcommittee is spending time to do the job for the Commission, he would like to go out of his way to support that subcommittee's decision. He had been troubled with the local versus national issue from a personal business standpoint. He felt he would hire a local firm and ask them to pick people from the outside if they needed more expertise. However, he continued, if tonight the Council did not accept the Civic Center Commission's recommendation, then he felt Council should present 'an alternative. Council should apologize and ask the Commission to make a recommendation regarding a local firm without reflecting whether or not it should be the Amundson firm. He questioned whether Council should in fact accept a national firm or ask the Commission to search out a local firm. He said he would argue in that direction. Mayor Keller said it seemed City Council felt obligated to dictate to the e Commission, when in fact the Commission was obligated to just recommend to Council. He thought the instructions to the Commission were to come up with the best alternates that were possible. He said it appears Council is now saying to the subcommittee or the Commission they should have done what Council wanted them to do. Now Council was saying to the Commission in general perhaps they erred in their interpretation~ He said he hoped the City never gets into the place where they are dictating to any committee or commission or board what the Council wants to hear back from them. He said there were many questions and dectsions, involved and he felt it was appropriate if Council was not satisfied with the work being done by the Commission, then Council should take it upon themselves to do that work. However, he continued, Council did not have the expertise, and he himself would rather see the committee do the work. He said when trying to decide what is best, there are always problems. However, he cautiored Council to take a good hard look at what it was discussing this evening. Mr. Williams said, as a local businessman, he probably should have concern re- garding the extent to which the City does or does not patronize local businesses. He said over the years the City had purchased whatever it needed to purchase wherever it wanted to purchase. He cited the instance of the bread serving the jail being purchased out of Portland. He said the City bids and tries to get the best prices in a competitive market, noting that is what business is all about. He wondered in the selection of this architectural service, whether e Counc;1--11/1/77 - 4 8~ ~ . . . . the City should depart from that policy. If Council were going to take that e posture, he felt it seemed at a minimum, Council should advise in advance that is what is going to happen. He said he had no reason to believe one was more qualified, but Luckman Partnership had spent considerable time and money to visit and present their qualifications, being led to believe they were being seriously considered for the job. He felt if Council were going to change the rules at this point, that was no light matter. He felt such a decision by Council to consider only local firms would create many ill feelings. In request- ing responses from national firms, using their time and money to come to Eugene for interviews, and then changing the rules and saying only local firms will be considered, was not a recognized, accepted, appreciated process in business, and he hoped Council did not do it. Dorie McGillivary, member of the Commission, noted Scott Lieuallen, as Chair- person of the subcommittee, was 45 minutes late at the last meeting and missed the entire discussion that centered around this issue. She noted all of these issues had come up in those previous 45 minutes. In response to Mr. Obie's question regarding the prioritizing of recommenda- tions, Mr. Baumgartner said the list was a priority list. It was presented in the exact order of the motion made at the meeting. Mr. Delay agreed with the elements of everything everyone was saying. However, he noted Council could prejudice a subcommittee by asking them to look only at local firms. By the same token, the Commission had carried out its charge. It had made a recommendation to Council in saying two firms are equally suitable. He said City Council could now objectively screen those two, and wondered why e Council could not select a local firm that was tied to the community, knows the community, and would lead to more citizen involvement. He said the subcommittee had done an excellent job, and he felt it perfectly reasonable to take other considerations into Council deliberations. He was in favor of either returning the matter to the Commission to have them recommend whether a local firm do the job, or move to accept Amundson at this time. Mr. Smith cautioned Council whether it should change the rules of the game at this stage. He said the Commission had fulfilled its obligation. He also noted if Council decided to consider only local firms, there might be other firms who would like to have the opportunity to participate and apply, and Council should consider that consequence. Mr. Delay thought in fact, not preprejudicing it that way so that people just competed on the basis of their own perception, of how well they could compete for that kind of job is to establish an objective framework. To turn around and say only local firms would be considred would be a disservice to the process. Mr. Anderson disagreed with Mr. Delay's statement. He said the posture of a lot of local firms would definitely change if City Council were to confine its selection to only local firms. Most local firms were aware national firms were competing, and many felt they should be a part of the process but did not think e Council--ll/l/77 - 5 82b I . '. . '. they stood a chance. That could be a position by many of the local firms. If the national finns were eliminated and the same process used, there would be two e more local finns on the final list. That could have a definite bearing on the Commission's reaction to the subcommittee's recommendation. He said the issue involves having a Commission and subcommittee that both have done an excellent job of screening and a Commission that has said these are three finns that could do the best job. The issue of local versus national firms did not enter into the final decision. In reviewing the qualified applicants, the Commission is recommending the three that were best. He sai d the questi oni s whether Council wants to select the fi nn that its Commission has suggested is the best, or whether Council wants to institute a new policy for selection of an architectural finn. He did not think, if Council instituted new policies at this time, the Commission should be charged once again with going through the entire screening and selection process. He felt it would be asking quite a bit to have the rules changed and to go through the whole process again. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to authorize City Manager to enter into contract agreement with Amundson Associates. Mr. Obie felt if Council were going to ignore recommendations from the Commission and center its selection around the issue of local versus national firms, then the entire rebidding should be opened again. Mr. Lieuallen, in a question of legality, wondered if council was obligated e to take a recommendation from a commission. However, he continued, Council was not dealing with a finn that was not recommended. Mr. Delay said he sup- ported the motion because of his own feelings that in the absence of some very substantial reasons not to, Council ought to keep the work and the money in the community. Ms. Smith felt if only a local firm were to be considered as indicated by the motion, that the committee make a total reconsideration of all local firms. Vote was taken on the motion which failed with Bradley, Lieuallen, and Delay voting aye; Williams, Hamel, Haws Smith and Obie voting no. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen to accept the Commission's recommendation of awarding the contract to Luckman Partnership, Inc. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to amend the motion that City Council ask the City Manager or Dean Baumgartner to explore with Luckman Partnership, Inc. the specific vehicle whereby commitment to and use of local finns would be produced, and to bring that proposal back for council cons i derati on. -- Council--ll/l/77 - 6 811 . . ~ ~ Mr. Williams said he would like to know exactly what Luckman Partnership, Inc. e intends to do in working with local firms, and would like to have that spelled out in specific detail. Mr. Obie wondered if awarding the contract to Luckman was contingent upon that proposal. Mr. Williams said that would be the intent of his motion. Luckman would present a proposal as to how they would would work with local firms and Council would consider that before accepting the entire package. Mr. Baumgartner thought he might already have the answer to that ques- tion and read from the questionnaires some of the specific answers from Luckman as to its intended relationship with local architectural firms. He said Luckman intended to associate with a strong local firm who would playa strong role; the best qualified firm would be selected, upon advice and approval of City Council and staff. Mr. Williams said his intent was to go beyond that language, noting City Council was entitled to more precise information. Mr. Delay said it seemed now Council was asking for a particular kind of pro- posal, noting maybe another firm might have a better proposal. He felt this would be changing the ground rules to a much greater extent. Also, he said Council should have something against which to gauge the presentation. Mr. Obie did not want a token local architect on the project, and wanted to know what the economic impact on Eugene would be with participation by a local firm. e Ms. Smith wondered if she should abstain; Chair ruled no. In response to a question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Williams said this was a conditional selection of Luckman Partnership as the architectural firm, if the firm were to come back with an adequate response for Council regarding involvement of a local firm. Mr. Baumgartner said there were two ways this proposal could occur. The response could be in aligning with a strong local architectural firm who would take the lead role; however if the local firm did not have strong capability, they would take the lesser role and Luckman would have the leadership role. He said this could be accomplished by contract to align with a local firm, with ~ advice and consent of both Council and the Commission. A vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which passed with Delay, Lieuallen, Hamel, and Bradley voting no; Smith, Williams, Haws, and Obie voting aye; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. A vote was taken on the main motion which carried with Lieuallen, Haws, and Delay voting no; Hamel, Bradley, Smith, Williams, and Obie voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned. e Signed: EDWARD SMITH, Acting/ City M~ DT:mgl/CM26al ~~ g28