Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/19/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 19, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She encouraged the public to continue to provide input to the council on a City Hall complex throughout the process. A. WORK SESSION: City Hall Complex Priority Issue City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced consultants Jonah Cohen and Thomas Hacker of Thomas Hacker Architects to discuss the community forums and City Hall complex issue. Mr. Cohen reviewed the status of the project and the decisions the council was being asked to make. He said the project was in the development plan phase during the current calendar year, and that phase consisted of technical studies and obtaining public feedback to assist the council in making informed policy decisions, which would form the basis of the conceptual design of the project that would occur later in the year. He said the project architectural design would be developed during the implementation phase in 2007 and issues such as financing and phasing would be explored. Mr. Cohen said the development plan phase consisted of four decision-making cycles, each consisting of three steps: a council work shop, a public forum to educate the public and solicit specific feedback requested by the council and a follow-up council work session to reduce possible options for further consideration to give the design team clear direction for moving forward. He noted the current work session was the final step in the second cycle and would focus on whether a consolidated City Hall complex should involve renovation of the existing City Hall, all new construction or a combination of both. He emphasized that the council was not being asked to select a site; that process would begin with a review of the first draft of site selection criteria and site selection would be the subject of the next cycle of meetings. Mr. Cohen stated that the current cycle began with the development of six approaches—two each for renovation, hybrid and new—intended to explore how the project could be developed. He said a draft list of criteria for evaluating those decisions was revised into a final list of criteria based on the council’s input. He said construction cost models were developed for each option using multiple sources of information and expanded to include the costs of land, demolition and relocation as well as the cost of maintenance and utility costs for a period of 50 years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Cohen said public input was solicited through a community forum and many other venues identified in the agenda materials and feedback was recorded and included in writing as part of the reports to the council. He said the project website was continually updated with all information and reports as part of the ongoing communication process. He reminded the council that the options being considered were not architectural designs but rather mental models intended to convey the implications of some of the specific choices facing the council. Ms. Taylor said she attended both public meetings and her impression was that the process had not been as broad or as deep as she anticipated for the investment that was made in a public process. She felt a few people were aware of the project but the process had only skimmed the surface. She expected to hear people with opposing views debating in public, broadly publicized meetings in every neighborhood, and a City Club meeting with two opposing views on how to proceed. She was distressed that the council was ready to make a decision without public input. She said there were claims that deferred maintenance made it difficult to preserve the existing building but the same thing could occur if maintenance was deferred on a new building. She was willing to change her opinion of the project if there was a broad public desire for a totally new building, but she was not yet convinced of that. She preferred to continue with a public process instead of making an immediate decision that could eliminate other decisions. Mr. Papé disagreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He felt that the public forum was well-attended with a broad base of people from the community. He appreciated how the meeting was conducted and how votes were recorded on many different issues. He said the issue had been discussed in the community since 1999 and he received little input in support of retaining the existing facility, including a discussion by the City Club. He thought the building could be preserved for other functions but could no longer serve as a City Hall since it could not accommodate consolidation of City offices, had no main entrance, systems were outdated, and the building did not meet seismic codes for an emergency facility. He was ready to move on and believed the community was as well. Mr. Kelly thought the process had been good, was widely reported in the press at each stage, and the meetings were well publicized. He agreed with Mr. Papé that public participation could be encouraged but not forced and the milestones established by the process should be followed unless there was a compelling reason to modify them. He noted that with the exception of the second renovation option, there was relatively little cost variation among the options. He felt that other criteria beside cost should drive the council’s decision and there was value to preserving the existing building and offering it for an alternate use. Ms. Bettman said she received extensive feedback from two forum participants with differing opinions. She agreed that the council committed to a timeline and there were decisions that had to be made as it was not feasible to submit every possible variation to the public for comment. She did not object to the proposed motion, but thought the decision should be based on very technical analyses and that case needed to be made to the public. She said that the process used to develop the cost estimates for options should be transparent and available to the public to avoid casting doubt on whether the council made a decision without substanti- ating the fiscal implications of each option. Mr. Poling indicated he had a bias toward taking some action related to City Hall. He was pleased with how the process was going to address issues one at a time and narrow the decision-making process based on public input. He said those to whom he had spoken and who had attended the public sessions felt the same way. He was ready to move to the next step. He was not concerned with site selection at this point and would await public comment. He was pleased with the work done to date on the City Hall complex project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she received little feedback from the public. She attended a Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting in June and most of those present were supportive of the need for a new building. Her impression of the current building was that it was not very welcoming for the public or user friendly. She felt that the public participation process to date had been adequate. Ms. Solomon echoed support for the process. She said the design team made a presentation to the Active Bethel Citizens for the purpose of introducing the topic and linking people to opportunities for public input. She asked if the expectation was that people attend each of the forums or if each forum was a different opportunity to comment on the project. Mr. Cohen said that the forums were iterative and each built on information from the previous one. He said that was explained to participants and they were encouraged to continue to attend all of the forums. He said written information was provided at each forum to bring new participants up-to-date and a brief review was presented at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Piercy observed that general discussion of a new City Hall complex at this point in the process was not as exciting to the public as the council would wish, but interest was likely to increase as a vision emerged. She indicated she was willing to extend an invitation to people to return to participate in subsequent meetings. Ms. Taylor, referring to the limited amount of time in the forums for public process, said the City Hall charettes conducted a few years ago were all-day meetings that allowed time for in-depth discussions. Her conversations with participants indicated a preponderance of opinion to preserve the existing building. She said too often earlier public input on an issue was forgotten in favor of a new planning process. Ms. Bettman asked if videos of the meetings were being cablecast. City Manager Taylor said the meetings were held in locations where a cablecast was not possible. Ms. Bettman asked staff to announce the dates of meetings and contact information as the council work session was being cablecast. She asked if part of the analysis would consider the value and marketability of the existing building. Mr. Cohen said that would be included in the site evaluation process. Mr. Hacker added that the economic value of the existing building would be assessed, including how it could be used in other ways. Ms. Bettman observed that the recommendation in the agenda packet was for the two new options in the agenda materials. Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell said the proposed motion did specifically carry forward those two options but emphasized that the options were not architectural solutions; they were mental models to assist the council in thinking about the differences among renovate, hybrid and new options. He said when the process was completed a specific architectural design would be developed that might be based on one of the two models but could be somewhat different. He said the council could amend the motion to provide greater flexibility. Mr. Kelly asked for assurance that both the generic full- and half-block options were actively studied but did not exclude other possibilities, such as a two-thirds block option. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about making the derivation of the cost estimates very visible to the public. He thought the attachments in the agenda packet did a good job of providing that information, with the exception of previous broad project costs. He suggested those be broken down into tables to explain how they were determined. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding preserving the existing building. He said that the site selection process should include solid information and feedback from the community about potential reuse of the building. City Manager Taylor replied that while that information would not be a part of the formal site selection analysis, it should be possible to ascertain the level of community interest in alternate uses for the building prior to the next work session. Mr. Penwell said that Planning and Development Department staff could assist in that effort and use their contacts in the community and among nonprofit agencies to determine interest in the building. He understood the request to be: 1) determine the potential market value of the site and 2) determine if there is community interest in paying that market value to acquire the building for reuse. Mr. Papé agreed that a full analysis of the existing facility was necessary along with a determination of the community’s interest in preserving it. He said that some in the community viewed the building as period architecture. Ms. Piercy remarked that there had been some discussion of the building’s appropriateness for a visual art center or cultural center. She said there could also be a discussion of how to connect a new building to the public, perhaps through including a visual arts or cultural center to provide connection and access. Mr. Poling urged that the site selection process include an early determination that any potential site owned by another governmental entity would be available for acquisition because the owner was willing to sell. Ms. Bettman said that new options reviewed at a previous meeting included a non-contiguous Police services function. She said the proposed motion was not explicit that the new construction options were those included in the agenda packet or included non-contiguous options. Mr. Cohen said the intent was to carry forward with the council’s direction at a previous meeting regarding police consolidation. Mr. Penwell clarified that the intent of the process was to address three major issues: 1) police consolidation, 2) renovate, new or hybrid, and 3) site. He said each issue was to be analyzed individually with multiple options, those options reduced and the issue returned for consideration during the conceptual design phase. He said all options for police consolidation were still on the table and the council was not being asked to make further decisions on that; renovate, hybrid and new options were being considered as a separate issue. Ms. Bettman said it appeared that the motion would include the two options in the agenda materials, plus the options with a non-contiguous police function. Mr. Penwell said the options in their full presentation at the community forums and workshop did include all options. Ms. Bettman said the motion was about all options presented at the last work session, both contiguous and non-contiguous, and she would vote against the motion. Mr. Kelly supported involving Planning and Development Department staff in determining community interest in the current building. He was interested in obtaining responses to an informal and well-publicized request to solicit interest from entities in the community about possible reuse of the building, along with possible scenarios regarding the City’s role in preparing the facility for sale, from staff prior to the council’s next decision meeting. He said that did not exclude analysis of the site as one of the preferred sites. He asked staff for an action plan at the council’s August meeting related to providing that information. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to eliminate the “Renovation” and “Hybrid” options and adopt “New” construction options for use in future planning MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 4 Work Session studies until the council is prepared to adopt a single option in relation to an overall development plan. Ms. Taylor questioned why an organization would buy the existing building if it was determined by the City to be in such bad shape that it would cost more to renovate than build new. She said if the current building was abandoned for City uses and made available for other purposes it would make a great site for a youth center. Ms. Bettman said that upgrading and expanding the current building for all of the City functions it needed to accommodate was a lot different than recycling it for another purpose. She said she was unclear about the options before the council and urged the design team to be much more explicit in the information it provided to the public. Mr. Papé noted that feedback from the Chamber of Commerce urged the council to fill potholes before moving on the City Hall issue. He said it was important to address other critical City issues before trying to obtain community support to finance a new City Hall. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 5 Work Session