Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/25/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 25, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papd, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. A. WORK SESSION: City Hall/Police Building Priority Issue Action Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor said this issue had been identified by the City Council as a strategic priority at its goal-setting retreat. He stated that it was the first of the eight priorities staff had brought before the council in an action plan format. Because of this, he continued, an entire work session would be devoted to the item, to be presented by Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and Principal Facility Project Manager for the Facilities Division Mike Penwell. Mr. Carlson indicated that this was the fifth City Council discussion of this issue since the election in November 2004, at which time the bond measure failed. After the bond was defeated, he recalled that the previous council had decided not to move forward on the building and had deferred further consideration until more ideas could be brought to the table in January 2005, to further determine the scope of the work. The City Council moved $15 million into the Facilities Reserve Fund in anticipation of moving forward with the project in November. He related that the present City Council considered the issue on January 10, 2005, and but no action was taken because Ms. Bettman was not present. He felt it had been clear the council was not ready to embark on a full master planning process. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Carlson continued with a recap of the discussion to date. He said while staff and the council had ruled out the possible co-location of the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO) and the Eugene Police Department (EPD), there still existed the possibility that some space in a new building could be used for purposes other than the direct work of the City. Further discussion was needed on whether to replace or renovate City Hall. He observed there had been general consensus to consolidate existing City services in one place and to cease renting downtown space, though police could be in a separate facility. Mr. Carlson stated that staff continued to believe that a full master planning process with public input would cost $750,000. He agreed that it was a large amount but pointed out that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was embarking on a similar process and planned to spend $1.1 million on initial design work for a new site. He averred that the City's plans were more complicated than those of EWEB. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Penwell reviewed Attachment B: City Hall~Police Building Action Plan. He felt the delay had served to make the action plan better. He hoped the council would authorize $30,000 for the Policy Advisement Phase of the plan. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions from the council. Ms. Taylor thought good work had gone into the plan. She remarked that her continuing objection was that there had not been enough community involvement in such plans. Regarding Phase 1, she wanted more facts and figures. She said until the council decided whether to renovate the existing building or build a new building, she was not prepared to vote on the entire plan. She felt that community experts should be brought in as well as staff experts and the council should have more facts, more possibilities, and figures and not just opinions that said it would cost as much to renovate the existing building as to build a new one. She did not believe that the cost of renovation would be as much as the cost of new construction. She opined that a smaller police building should be built nearby and that the City Hall building should be renovated and expanded. She maintained that more community policing was needed. Ms. Bettman commented that it was essential that the discussion the City took to the community be focused. She hoped there would be as many councilors %n board" as possible. She recommended the council have its policy discussion first and make the ;;big decisions." Ms. Bettman thought the plan should continue be called the City Hall Master Plan. She agreed with Ms. Taylor that the initial decision should be whether to renovate or replace the structure and that a public component was integral to the discussion. She noted that she did not see delineation of the public process in the plan. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there was general support for calling the plan the City Hall Master Plan. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's assessment that a fact-based decision was needed by the City Council prior to accessing public input. He remarked that his perception of public involvement in the first phase was simply to raise public awareness of what was being considered and take in input through normal channels such as email. He predicted that public interest in becoming involved would increase as the Phase 1 discussion moved into where a new building should be located, whether there should be one, and how it would mesh with the Downtown Plan. He liked the idea of a facilitated session but strongly recommended that councilors be briefed individually by the consultant team in order to be able to fully answer fundamental questions that may be asked of them. Mr. Pryor concurred. He liked the plan and how it was phased. Regarding Phase 1, he agreed that the sooner the public was involved, the smoother the process would go. He noted that under Resource Needs, $30,000 had been allocated for a facilitated session with the council. He thought this amount of money probably anticipated a need to do some sort of stakeholder involvement process. He wanted to focus on the process at this point, but averred that it would be prudent to involve the public early. Mr. Papd appreciated the commitment of staff to keep coming back with this item and called the plan the best planning effort to date. He supported the plan and indicated he would support the funding request. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 2 Work Session suggested the formation of an ad hoc committee to help in the information flow between staff and the council and to foster agreement in order to move forward. Mayor Piercy commented that this was a good opportunity to determine how to get neighborhood associa- tions involved and how they wished to interact with the City staff and government in a meaningful way. In response to the first round of comments, Mr. Carlson said staff's concept of the first phase was to hire the consultant team and get it on board and then have the team interact with the councilors and the Mayor. Additionally, he stated that the consultants would have to review all of the existing information generated to date. He pointed out that generation of additional technical information, should it be needed, would take more than $30,000. An example of something that might require more funding would be studies to determine retrofitting costs, even though there was some existing data. Ms. Bettman recommended asking neighborhood associations how they wanted to be involved in the discussion. She underscored the importance of publicizing the City Council's point of view so that members of the community would know what to comment on. Regarding the facility policy discussion, Ms. Bettman averred that one work session was not adequate. Ms. Bettman said it was important to her to include individual councilor offices on the list under Priority Issue Outcomes 4(b). City Manager Taylor recalled that the discussion at the retreat had suggested that some subjects within the priority issues would lend themselves to sessions longer than the traditional work session. He recommended that the first phase policy discussion be held in a longer session. Mr. Kelly reiterated his desire to meet with consultants early in the process so that there would be a clear idea of whether there were new significant technical studies needed in the Phase 1 decisions that would require more money. He felt it was important to find out how the City Council felt about the plans so that the work plan would not be set up to fail through a lack of council agreement. Mr. Kelly recommended using a newspaper insert to educate the public, as well as to request feedback. Mr. Pap~ commented that if the council asked the public whether the City should keep City Hall and the public said yes, the council should be prepared for what lay ahead. He said he would try to be open-minded about the existing building, but he remembered the data from the assessment of 1999. He said he would be hard pressed to change his mind as the building was ~functionally and structurally obsolete." He thought the consultants and not the architects should have a lead role in the process, in order to ask some of the critical questions prior to beginning architectural design. Ms. Taylor thought the neighborhood associations should be made aware of the costs of the plan and should weigh in on whether to rebuild or renovate. She hoped people in the community could change the council's minds even if all eight councilors had decided to proceed in one direction. She underscored that the council was acting on behalf of the community. Regarding the consultants, Ms. Taylor asked who decided if a consultant was an expert or not. Mr. Carlson MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 3 Work Session replied that staff did not know who the consultants would be at this point but would engage in a procurement process with an evaluation component to select them. Mr. Pryor called the decision a balancing act between the external process--comprised of public participa- tion but not necessarily expertise, the internal process--comprised of the results from experts the City would hire and the experience of the people who work in the building, and the measurable reality--how much money was available and the design constraints of the site that would ultimately be developed or renovated. The decision, he averred, would boil down to a process that would foster a balance between the three components. Mr. Penwell said it was difficult to cover all of the possibilities in one work session. He needed to set up a dialogue, starting with the City Council and then moving to the community, including some "back and forth." He cautioned against rushing to resolve issues prematurely. He averred there was value in keeping fluidity in the dialogue. He was concerned that staff would not have a chance to get all of the data before the decision point on renovation versus rebuilding had been reached. Ms. Bettman was troubled to hear Mr. Penwell's remarks as she believed the decision on whether to renovate should be resolved first. She commented that whatever technical data was needed to make that decision and whatever community dialogue would be held in order to make that decision should be '~job one." She opined it would undermine the public process to go out with such a large question on the table. She said the council needed to see the numbers "early on" because if the costs of the two options were far from one another, the decision would be obvious; whereas if they were more similar, the decision would be discretionary in nature. Ms. Bettman observed that design style was not on the list of priorities. She felt that message would come from public conversations. She related that she saw many buildings being constructed in the State that looked just like the new library and asked if the community would want another building like that. She wanted to hold a public hearing that would ask for input about the issues involved in building a new city hall so that it would inform the entire process. She wanted it to be widely advertised. City Manager Taylor ascertained from Ms. Bettman that she wanted a public meeting to be convened in conjunction with a City Council meeting prior to working with the consultants on the development of the material and the date of the facilitated policy workshop. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's points. He felt the outcome of Phase 1 would be a conceptual plan and would not be cast in stone, though it would be a clear indication of momentum. He indicated he would support the provision of additional money to assess the existing building and provide a clear picture of its adequacy or inadequacy and what it would cost to renovate. Mr. Pap~ averred that more public process was needed as it was an important issue. He thought in addition to a public hearing, the City needed a larger public process with solicitation of emails and more, especially given that the City was likely to go out for a bond. He agreed that more answers were needed because of the number of possibilities the plan presented. Ms. Bettman remarked that another important issue was the location of the building. She staunchly supported moving forward with the plan, but only if it was in the downtown area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman indicated she would support allocating more money to the first phase, but stressed that those dollars must include support for exploration of the costs that would be saved by eliminating the need to rent space from other entities. Continuing, Ms. Bettman observed that the planned date for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) was set in July. She felt the City Council should be able to review them when they were submitted and provide a recommen- dation. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Penwell explained that the initial money would be spent on getting the design team up to speed on the history of the issue and on meetings with staff and the councilors in preparation for the facilitated session. He reassured her it was not money for plans for a new building. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to spending any money on a new facility. City Manager Taylor stressed that the $30,000 request did not presume the construction of a new facility or renovation of the old one. Mr. Carlson surmised that this was one of the questions the council wanted answers for in Phase 1. Mayor Piercy agreed that this would be a topic of ongoing discussion in the short term. Ms. Taylor asked the councilors to consider that the public might say that money should be spent on road repairs, if they were given the chance. Mayor Piercy asked staff if any other questions needed discussion. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council wanted to engage the public process early on and wanted firm costs known for possible renovation of the existing building. He indicated he would bring answers to these questions as soon as possible. Mr. Carlson extrapolated from council input an acceptance of the idea of an early public hearing, and that councilors wished for the consultants to work with them to find out what additional information they might need when answering questions for the public. He noted that holding a longer work session had been suggested. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the idea of an early public hearing be broadened to include early public input. Mr. Carlson responded that staff would figure out some way to add to the opportunities for feedback, but he did not know that there would be enough information for a newspaper insert or questionnaire at that point. Mr. Penwell pointed out that the cursory review of the existing City Hall structure conducted five years earlier had cost between $40,000 and $50,000. He added that ongoing expenses for the building, as it stood, were five times more expensive per square foot than the ongoing expenses generated by the new library. He assumed that any cost projection for the existing structure would be based on a "gut and renovate." His cost projection made six years earlier had been closely based on gutting and renovating the building and did not take into consideration Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. He suggested that he return to the council with general costs based on the specific building. He thought a "gut and MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 5 Work Session renovate" might change the entire configuration of the building. Ms. Taylor wished to reinforce her support for public hearings and for reaching out to neighborhood meetings. She wanted to make everyone aware of what the council was contemplating. She opined that even experts had opinions, slants, and preconceived notions of what should happen. She declared that the building was falling apart because of a lack of maintenance. Ms. Bettman averred that the engineers and facilities staff should determine what information the council needed regarding LEED certification and building costs. She also asked what the City would make by selling some of its other assets. She felt it was important to have all of the background information in order to communicate to the community. Mr. Pap~ stated that the City had spent $40,000 on consultants in 1999 for an assessment of the existing structure. He had been impressed by the process. He said he wanted to see what the seismic upgrades for the existing City Hall would cost, as well as the cost of other improvements such as potential Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades. Mr. Carlson underscored that staff had just completed a facilities condition report and had good data on existing deficiencies as well as emerging deficiencies. He thought the question would be how much data was needed to make the decision to renovate or rebuild. Mr. Penwell commented that the other question was whether staff had enough information for the commu- nity to accept staff's recommendation. Mr. Kelly expressed annoyance that staff felt they had enough information. He said ten minutes earlier it had seemed there was not enough information. Mr. Carlson replied that it was not just a decision for staff, it was also a decision of the City Council and the community. He said it was not known prior to engaging in a discussion on the topic whether the council had enough information to make its decision. Mr. Kelly said he had no doubt that staff's professional judgment was based on good data. He suggested that staff should lay out the costs so that it was clearly understood how much it would cost with LEED certification at the gold level versus how much it would cost to do only the minimum. He wanted staff to cite its sources of information. Mr. Pryor called Phase 1 a ~narrowing down" process. He said by definition a lot of the decision-making and winnowing would happen at the top. He averred that ideas that did not belong would need to be taken out of the running, but only based on sound and rational reasons. He wanted to do this in a give-and-take manner and test the ideas as the process unfolded. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the proposed City Hall/Police Building action plan. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve implementing Phase 1 of the ac- tion plan and direct the City Manager to request on a Supplemental Budget up to $30,000 from the Facility Replacement Reserve to implement Phase 1 of the action plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap~ asked if $30,000 was an adequate amount for the initial work. City Manager Taylor reiterated that his initial recommendation had been $750,000. He was willing to return after each phase for funding in a piecemeal fashion. He said the newly adopted action plan was significant and public hearings were forthcoming. He was amenable to leaving the amount at $30,000 for the present. Mr. Pap~ questioned whether $30,000 was an adequate amount for Phase 1. Mr. Penwell replied that he was comfortable with that amount, but that it was unlikely to be the correct amount. Ms. Bettman wished to have whatever technical information necessary to make the early-on priority decisions. She asked if allocating up to $50,000 would cover the "technical piece." Mr. Penwell replied that if it was a review and update of existing information that was expected, $50,000 would be adequate. In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Penwell said he would be able to bring back proposals from architects and engineers to review the existing information and update it within a matter of weeks. City Manager Taylor interjected that, with the help of the consultant group, it could be that the existing data might suggest a recommendation that the council would find acceptable. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion, but she hoped it would be for information only. She reiterated that the commitment at this point was only to conclude the discussion. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to allocate up to $50,000 to implement Phase One of the action plan. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 7 Work Session