Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/16/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Ha11--777 Pearl Street May 16, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Betty Taylor called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Long-Range Downtown City Space Planning Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson introduced the item. He noted the inclusion of more detail about the background information related to City office space needs as well as some very preliminary cost estimates. Those figures were an order of magnitude estimate that would allow the council to compare the three options before it. Mr. Carlson reviewed the three scenarios presented to the council: 1) the status quo, rehabilitate City Hall to a higher standard for use into the future and lease or buy space on the market in downtown; 2) rehabilitate City Hall for long-term use and construct another City office building in downtown to house consolidated City departments; and 3) no further long-term investments in City Hall, and construction of three new buildings in downtown to satisfy City office space needs. Glen Svendsen of the Administrative Services Department reviewed changes to the packet materials made since the last council work session. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting at 12:10 p.m. Mr. Svendsen distributed copies of the map in the last meeting packet and a list of long-range actions. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Svendsen that the City leased the first floor and basement of the Eugene Hotel building. He questioned if the space owned by the City was being used in the most appropriate way, and if staff had looked at moving services around so consolidation could be considered in a logical way. Mr. Svendsen said yes, to some degree; staff had been more focused on the suitability of City structures and on a large structure to achieve maximum efficiency, but staff could examine different approaches to consolidation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Speaking to Mr. Meisner's question, Mr. Johnson said that the organization had been managed over 20 years at a variety of locations, and while it worked, it was not the ideal situation. He thought consolidation would be an improvement. Mr. Johnson noted that currently, departments were located in different places. Mr. Meisner asked if more services could be consolidated in the Atrium Building and the leased uses in that structure moved out. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that the financing strategy for the building depended on the rental stream from those leases. He also reminded the council that two services now paying rent in other leased locations would be moving to the new library. Mr. Kelly indicated he had distributed an alternate motion to the staff-prepared motion via e-mail and asked for staff input. Mr. Johnson thought staff could work within the parameters it established. Ms. Bettman said the criteria she would use to make the decision would be to eliminate all leases, consolidate all services except Fire & Emergency Medical Services, the Eugene Police Department special functions, and the library in one building. She wanted the building to be located on 8th Avenue in downtown and to be of quality construction so it lasted a century. She said that once consolidation occurred, she wanted to sell buildings like the Atrium Building and City Hall. Ms. Bettman said that once the City decided to invest in a new city hall, it would increase the value of property in downtown. She asked what the City could contribute to the new building by selling its old buildings. Mr. Farr asked if the City was contemplating building on land it currently owned. Mr. Johnson said there were options; those options could include consolidation with other units of government. That could include property owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). He said that staff had not discussed the potential with EWEB staff and noted that the downtown vision was clear about its focus on 8th Avenue. Mr. Farr requested a map of the entire city showing both EWEB-owned property and City-owned property. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about the type of construction and the location of a new city hall. Ms. Nathanson said a fundamental question was whether the City should lease property at all. She preferred to own rather than lease public facilities. However, in light of new trends toward e- government and telecommuting, she questioned how much the City needed to be flexible and maintain a baseline square footage. Given the need for internal efficiencies and the need to help create a sense of community and a center for local democracy, she asked if the physical size of offices should stay the same. Mr. Johnson said he agreed the City should own its buildings and they should have flexibility. He thought a future city council would have a better idea of the efficiencies gained from telecommuting and e-government. He wanted to provide that council with flexibility and money to build a new city hall. He said that consolidation did result in a need for ten percent less square footage. Ms. Nathanson favored consolidation as much as was reasonable, owning over leasing, and said she preferred to build for ten to fifteen years rather than forty. If the City built more square footage, she wanted to consider leasing it to other governments or nonprofit organizations, and not necessarily count on occupying space for which the need was speculative. Mr. Rayor thought the City government should be located downtown and that it should own its buildings. He said the City should try to be in new buildings but he was concerned that there are many substantial buildings in downtown that are underused or not used at all. For the sake of due MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 2 Work Session diligence, Mr. Rayor wanted to know what the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did in Salem to reinforce the former Sears building against earthquake risk and what those costs had been. He said that he wanted to focus staff on a design-build approach. He wanted minimal staff input into the construction of a building. He thought the City had more oversight staff than the private sector did. Mr. Rayor said City department heads should do their job rather than oversee construction. He wanted more information about efficiency of service delivery. Mr. Pap~ was in favor of the City owning buildings if it was financially feasible. He referred the council to page 32 of attachment B and confirmed with Mr. Svendsen that the present value of scenarios A and B were the same, and scenarios B and C differed by about $5 million. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how the estimates were arrived at, Mr. Svendsen reviewed the methodology. Ms. Taylor favored office consolidation, wanted to retain and rehabilitate City Hall, and would consider private/public partnerships. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a financial strategy and implementation plan for replacing City Hall and other downtown City office space with new buildings. 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; and potential for use of some of the warehouse and historic structures east of Mill for some City functions. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He said that basic principles for him included quality construction, City ownership of its buildings, and consolidation of City services. He did not favor retaining City Hall, which he found to be a building of extremely poor urban design. He acknowledged Ms. Nathanson's comments regarding telecommuting, but pointed out that over the last ten to twelve years City space had increased dramatically beyond the population, and he did not think the council had seen any efficiencies yet. Regarding the potential of joint development, he was very concerned about the possibility and said he would be wary of that approach. Ms. Nathanson shared Mr. Meisner's concern about joint development. She was more interested in constructing a new building and leasing space out to other agencies. To Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding City space expansion, Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the City had taken on more responsibilities at the behest of its citizens or as a result of mandates from the State and federal government. The City had fewer staff per capita than it had ten to twelve years previously. She confirmed with Mr. Kelly that the element of his motion related to historic structures was intended to allow examination of the possible lease or purchase of historic structures, which could both save money and preserve the integrity of those buildings. While Ms. Nathanson thought it was great to have the latitude of looking at sites for joint development, she did not want to undercut the downtown vision by council actions. That vision established a great street as a civic street, and that would not be realized if activities were located outside the downtown. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to allocate five more minutes to the item. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman also expressed concern about the focus of the motion on joint development and on the proposed use of historic structures and warehouses east of Mill Street, which seemed contrary to the concept of consolidation. She preferred to be in the vicinity of the current City Hall to maintain the great streets concept in the downtown vision. Mayor Torrey arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly said his substitute motion was predicated on the fact the packet was self-contradictory as to the location of the building; he wanted to be clear that staff should have wide latitude to look at several possibilities. He said the reference to 8th Avenue from Oak Street to the river was taken from the Downtown Vision's description of the civic street. Mr. Kelly too was pessimistic about joint development but did not want to exclude the potential, noting interest by members of the Board of County Commissioners. His suggestion for the use of warehouse and historic structures was in response to input from his constituents. Mr. Kelly suggested, for example, that one of those warehouses might be suitable to garage equipment for Special Operations. Mr. Fart reiterated his interest in pursuing office consolidation possibilities with EWEB. He believed Mr. Kelly's motion gave staff latitude and reflected some of the issues the council had discussed. Mr. Pap~ said that a missing criteria was consolidation, which was critical to him. Mr. Kelly accepted inclusion of the examination of consolidation as a friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. Rayor did not support the motion, preferring the original motion. He continued to be interested in the Sears building and did not support an approach that limited the staff's examination. Ms. Taylor opposed the motion because she thought a public process was needed first. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Johnson said that the action taken by the council was direction to staff to limit expenditures on City Hall for the next ten years. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved that the planning be based on year 2020 office space needs of 158,000 square feet, rather than 173,000. Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to table the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey assumed the chair. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 4 Work Session B. Work Session: TransPlan The council was joined for the item by Traffic Engineer David Reinhard, Planning Director Jan Childs, Senior Planner Tom Schwetz of Lane Council of Governments, Tom Stinchfield of Lane County Public Works, and Ken Hamm of the Lane Transit District. Ms. Childs called attention to and briefly reviewed motions distributed prior to the meeting. She also noted the distribution of a May 14 memorandum summarizing the actions of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) the previous week. Ms. Childs recommended that the council approve the actions taken by the MPC. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the MPC's May 10 recommendations for amendments to the May 1999 draft TransPlan, as outlined in the memorandum from staff dated May 14, 2001. Mr. Kelly reported that the Land Conservation and Development Commission had approved the alternative measures with certain conditions and guidelines. Mr. Kelly referred to page 333 of the meeting packet and asked if staffknew when the evidence requested by the council that the final TransPlan had components which would enable the alternative measure targets to be achieved would be available. He requested a memorandum from staff about how the big changes made by the joint adopting officials affected the model, and what that showed. Ms. Childs indicated that information was forthcoming. Mr. Rayor supported the motion and thanked Mr. Schwetz and LCOG staff for their work. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to retain Unit lA of the West Eugene Parkway on the "20-Year Financially Constrained" project list and Unit lB on the "Future" list pending completion of a study of transportation improvements in West Eugene, and add a note in the project description for Units lA and lB that further study is expected to result in amendments to those projects and potentially other projects in TransPlan; delete Unit 2A and 2B from TransPlan; and delete Project 484, Terry Street from Roosevelt Boulevard to West Eugene Parkway, from the "Future" list. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to separate the motion into two motions, ending the first motion after the first semi-colon. Mr. Kelly did not support the motion to separate, pointing out the staff goal in preparing the motion was to provide consistency with the council's actions on April 23. Ms. Nathanson said that the council had several lengthy and difficult discussions about the topic; she feared that if the council separated the issues, it would feel compelled to have extensive discussions as it had originally. She did not think any single councilor was 100 percent satisfied with the outcome of the vote, but it was the position a majority of councilors supported. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Nathanson, saying she was willing to work toward the decision the council had already taken. She thought the council would be back to "square one" if it separated the motion, and encouraged the maker of the motion to withdraw it. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said the two halves of the motion worked together. He pointed out that the entire council had said it wanted the study called for in the first half of the motion. The motion to separate failed, 3:5; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Papd, and Mr. Fart voting yes. The main motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Fart, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Papd voting no. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the council's vote would be interpreted. Ms. Childs said that she considered the motion a housekeeping adjustment to the TransPlan project list that ratified the actions the council had previously taken. Ms. Nathanson said that confirmed her view. Mayor Torrey suggested that Mr. Kelly present his position on operations, preservation, and maintenance to the council so it could fully understand it. Mr. Kelly agreed. Mayor Torrey said he wanted the council to know what it meant to spend no money on anything but operations, maintenance, and preservation. Mr. Kelly suggested that prior to the discussion of operations, maintenance, and preservation, staff provide information to the council regarding funding sources, the thoughts of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee regarding transportation financing, and the list of current road projects, associated dollars, and whether the dollars were fungible. Ms. Bettman also wanted that discussion to encompass some of the issues that had come up at the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee about the use of nonlocal, fungible dollars on projects that enhance capacity, and whether that funding was recoverable through the systems development charge. Mr. Reinhard reported the charette on west Eugene transportation issues would be held on June 18-19, the location to be announced. The first day would be an all-day event, and he anticipated the second day's session would be completed by mid-day. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 16, 2001 Page 6 Work Session