Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: City Council Goal - City Hall Complex ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Workshop: City Council Goal - City Hall Complex Meeting Date: June 20, 2007 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Mike Penwell www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5547 ISSUE STATEMENT The purpose of the workshop is to introduce public opinion research related to a new City Hall, provide an update on public involvement activities, preview design options and related cost and financing information, discuss a conceptual scope for the next phase of work, and verify decisions to be made at the July 11, 2007, work session. BACKGROUND At the February 14, 2007, work session, the council requested the design team to perform statistical public opinion research to inform future work. The research was intended to understand what elements of a new city hall mattered most to voters and test the initial level of voter support. The project team will present research and facilitate a discussion on how it may influence the development of a new city hall. Decisions to be considered at the July 11, 2007, work session include verifying the site selection for city hall, narrowing the city hall design options and associated cost ranges, and approving a scope for future work. See Attachment A for an update on public involvement activities and Attachment B for preliminary information about funding sources for the project. RELATED CITY POLICIES The City Hall Complex master planning and public participation process relates to the following council values: effective, accountable municipal government; safe community; and sustainable development. The council has identified a continuing goal in 2007 to adopt an implementation plan for a parallel process for the construction of a new city hall and police facility. The approved City Hall Complex Action Plan identifies key issues that must be addressed as work toward the goal progresses. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council is asked to provide general direction on design options and other issues in light of the public opinion research, and feedback on the conceptual scope for future work. It is not anticipated that council will be asked to act on specific motions during this workshop. The council will be asked to take action at the July 11 work session to verify the city hall site selection, narrow the city hall design options and associated cost ranges, and approve a scope for future work. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070620\S070620A.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION There are no specific recommendations for this agenda item. SUGGESTED MOTION There are no suggested motions related to this agenda item. ATTACHMENTS A. City Hall Complex Public Involvement Activities Update: June 2007 B. City Hall Complex Preliminary Funding Options The consultant team will walk the council through all additional materials at the workshop in order to facilitate an in-depth discussion of issues. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mike Penwell, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Telephone: 682-5547 Staff E-Mail: michael.j.penwell@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070620\S070620A.doc ATTACHMENT A City Hall Complex Public Involvement Activities Update: June 2007 With public opinion research underway and council decision-making on hold, the Design Team put collaborative public involvement efforts on hold, such as Community Forums and Special Input Groups. This allowed the current public involvement efforts to be weighted toward outreach to new participants, particularly those who have been underrepresented, and to bringing new people up to speed. Outreach to new participants The public involvement team went out with a display to meet and talk with people at: ? The Asian Festival ? Earth Day ? Plaza Latina ? Sheldon Family Fun Night ? Oregon H.S. District Track & Field Meet ? Bethel Schools Latino Family Night ? We are Bethel Festival ? First Friday Art Walk ? Youth Make it Happen To encourage the engagement of our Latino Community, the display was in Spanish, made culturally appropriate, and signs to motivate participation were added that said: ? Nuestras voces son importantes. (Our voices are important.) ? ¡Es su ciudad! (It is your city!) ? Participe para el futuro de sus hijos. (Participate for your children's futures.) ? El ejemplo que damos hoy vive mañana. (The example that we give today will live on tomorrow.) In addition to our bi-lingual outreach, contact was made with numerous African-American and Asian-American community members who are normally not involved in civic discussions. We use a relevant questionnaire (see responses later in this update) and a raffle at outreach venues for communities of color and a relevant questionnaire. The raffle prize is coffee and pastry with the Mayor. Since we are recruiting people who do not typically participate in government processes due to barriers, we are inviting them to a “mini-forum.” This is essentially an opportunity to foster a sense of welcome and belonging, and for new participants to experience how community forums work with childcare, food, clickers, and microphones. Additional outreach is scheduled for several Neighborhood Association picnics, summer concerts in the parks, movies in the park, ongoing outreach at Plaza Latina, Sheldon Multi-Cultural Festival, Joventud Faceta, LEAD, and more. Communication with those already engaged Many constituencies were truly involved in the dialogue and decision-making of 2006. To remain in touch, presentations and written updates were given to the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee, the Chamber’s Young Professionals Network, Birth to Three Latino Parent’s Group, the Eugene Planning Commission, Centro Latino Americano Parent’s Group, Neighborhood Association Leaders, Community Forum participants, and a host of interested organizational newsletters. We continue to maintain a website, www.eugenecityhall.com, where all background materials are posted, and comment lines. We do receive some comments through the website but are redesigning it to be more interactive and useful to new discussion entrants. Community Member Comments Our work this spring was primarily outreach and generated many conversations updating or introducing Eugenians to the project. When we encountered community members with strong feelings about a particular issue we offered to convey their unedited messages to council. The following comments are not representative of all conversations, but are the verbatim responses of those who wished to share their thoughts with the council: Asian Celebration: -I like the new site because it’s right downtown! -Use the existing site!! Use the old GSA while you build the new on existing site. -Use the fairgrounds for City Hall complex (and hospital too). -I worked in courts – we need police near us to be safe. It’s scary! -Where will courthouse parking be? There is no accessible courthouse parking. This really concerns me. -Where will the parking be if you build at the butterfly lot site? -Make sure municipal court is easy to get to – parking, etc. Now it’s sooo confusing. -I don’t want to go downtown unless you get free parking like Salem. -Leave it. Don’t spend the $. -Make it have community spirit. Classroom space. Meeting rooms. Accessibility, openness. Not elite. -I’m mad that the library was built even though we voted against it. It’s beautiful and I use it. But it makes me mad. -A 25 year planning horizon is too short for a building. At least plan how you could expand in the future. -I want Communities of Color Task Forces located in City Hall: African American, Latino, Asian, Native American. Separate task forces, but all in same building. Think Seattle. -Get to schematic design so we can have more realistic cost estimates. Earth Day -Don’t spend money buying land if we have some we can use. -Sustainability is a long term solution. We also need strong regulation now. -I do not want you to buy land, but use existing site. Other -How can you keep working on our City Hall without knowing WHERE it will be???? Eugene needs a Master plan for Down Town. -Socialism has completely amassed the control of the freedom of the local tax payers. All is spent no matter how the vote nor the will. Responses from Communities of Color Questionnaire The team surveyed people from Communities of Color regarding how buildings and services promote a sense of welcome. The following responses were collected between March and May, 2007. Have you visited a building or a place that has made you feel welcomed? What is it about that building or place that makes you feel welcomed? -Volunteers in Medicine: The people are very personable and warm. -New Court House: The door greeters -I have never visited a building or place that made me feel welcomed. -Willamette Peace Health: The staff is always warm and the building is very clean. -Monroe police station: City workers -The library -The library: The first floor staff -The library: People are friendly and open -Office of permits: The workers -School: Teaches children how to learn -The library: The people are very warm/inviting towards the people from different cultures who visit -The Eugene Public Library: They have lots of Latino community programs. -Valley River and Gateway mall: When it is cold outside it is warm inside, and when it is warm outside they have air-conditioning -Centro Latino: There are many friendly/warm women who are able to help and bright colors in the building. -Centro Latino: They have staff that are Spanish speaking and know our culture. -El Centro Latino What would a City Hall look like or what services would it have to make you feel welcomed? -I need to be welcomed by friendly/warm people who are respectful, especially if there is a key person who greets people. -Have cultural representatives, respective to the cultures that are in the community. -Have door greeters who speak languages other than English. -Have minority offices that represent minorities. -It seems as if Eugene is very warm in many of its services. -A diverse city hall. I would like to see more Latino/as employed in City Hall. -Have Spanish speaking staff and good information, orientation, and support. -Just that people care about all people. -An office to learn about business -(Like the) library -Like church – has many services for Mexicans -That there be people from different cultures -To have appropriate spaces for kids and babies - especially when you need to change their diaper or nurse. -They understand the culture and they are part of it. -That we are equal as anyone else -The staff really understands the language, culture, and our needs. -To have openness and not have the doors shut on you. ATTACHMENT B City Hall Complex Preliminary Funding Options Funding Options There are three funding options presented in this analysis for three different scales of project, all of which are funded with internal resources plus General Obligation (“G.O.”) Bonds. These funding options correspond to the estimated project costs of options that will be presented to the council at the workshop. At this point, council does not need to make a decision on the specific funding plan for the City Hall Complex projects. In order to move forward with the next activities in the City Hall com- plex master plan process, however, council should make a choice about the approximate scale of the project to be taken forward for more analysis. This very preliminary funding plan is pro- vided to give council information to inform the choice about the project scale. The following chart summarizes a very preliminary funding option for three different scales of project. The specific funding items are described following the chart. City Hall Complex Preliminary Funding Options $ in millions Option A Option B Option C General Obligation Bonds $130 $110 $90 Internal Resources Facility Reserve $30 $30 $30 Limited Tax Bonds 10 10 10 Asset Sales 0 – 2 0 – 2 0 – 2 Other Miscellaneous Sources 0 – 8 0 – 8 0 – 8 Total Internal Resources $40 – 50 $40 – 50 $40 – 50 Totals $170 – 180 $150 – 160 $130 – 140 General Obligation Bonds: Based on the City’s adopted financial management goals and poli- cies, voter-approved G.O. bonds would be an appropriate funding source for the projects. The policies state that G.O. bonds are to be used for major capital construction or improvements in support of general municipal services. G.O. bonds must be approved by voters, and approval is subject to the double-majority provi- sions of Measure 50. G.O. bonds are repaid with a property tax levy that is outside of Measure 5’s tax rate limits. The uses of G.O. bonds are limited to construction expenses and may not be used for certain other kinds of expenses, such as freestanding equipment, temporary relocation, or moving costs. The next election that is not subject to the double-majority is in November 2008. The City could ask voters for approval to issue G.O. Bonds to fund the portion of the City Hall Complex pro- jects beyond what is available with internal resources. The tax rate impact from the G.O. Bond options is shown in the following chart. Each option shows the impact of G.O. Bonds repaid over 20 years. The tax rate in the first year would be the highest and would go down over time. The 20-year average impacts are shown. The cost to the average tax payer assumes an average home with an assessed value of $143,135 in FY07 (per the Lane County Assessor). G.O. Bond Amount 20 Year (millions) Average Impact Tax Rate Average Cost Option A $130 $0.69 $135 Option B $110 $0.58 $115 Option C $90 $0.47 $95 Facility Reserve: The City has been setting aside funds for replacement of City Hall for several years. As a result, the FY08 budget includes a balance in the Facility Reserve of over $27 mil- lion. Additional funds will be contributed to the reserve during the next few years from capital replacement charges and interest earnings. Therefore, approximately $30 million could be avail- able for funding of the City Hall Complex by FY10 from this source. It is recommended that the furnishings, fixtures and equipment, temporary relocation costs, and moving costs be funded from this source, because G.O. bond proceeds cannot be used for those items. The remainder of the Facility Reserve could be used for general construction costs. City of Eugene Limited Tax Bonds: It is assumed that the City could issue approximately $10 million in limited tax bonds for these projects. Limited tax bonds do not require voter approval and they are secured by the City’s promise to pay the debt service from all available funds. The annual debt service on the bonds will be made from the annual capitalization charge of about $900,000 paid by downtown City office space that is currently directed to the Facility Reserve. Asset Sales: In the case of partial or full consolidation of City Hall, some City-owned property might be available for sale. It should be pointed out, however, that asset sales typically take several years to accomplish, and they frequently do not generate the level of proceeds that have been estimated; therefore, it is difficult to guarantee this funding source for projects unless the sale has occurred and proceeds are already in the City’s coffers. If the asset sale proceeds fall short, another funding source may need to be used to supplement the financing plan. A small placeholder is shown as a funding option from asset sales, but the specific amount or the timing of any funds that could be counted on for this project is not yet known. Other Miscellaneous Funds: Anumber of other miscellaneous funding sources could be applied to this project. For instance, it might be possible to use telecommunications tax funds for the telecommunications portions of the project, to sell energy tax credits, to receive EWEB energy rebates, or to receive grants from other levels of government for the project. Depending on where the project is located and what is included in the project, it might be possible to apply urban renewal funds to a portion of the project cost, such as a parking garage. A small place- holder is shown for these kinds of items. Specific identification of the miscellaneous items that are included in a finance plan will be refined over time. ATTACHMENT B Impact on Debt Burden and Debt Policies It is also essential to examine the impact of the bonding proposals on the City’s debt burden. The chart below sets out the impact of each of the proposals against the City’s debt policy limit of 1.0% of debt to real market value, assuming that the debt is issued in FY09. As shown below, all of the options would result in a debt burden that is within the policy limits. Net Direct Debt Debt to Real GO Bonds Limited Tax Outstanding in Market Value $ in millions Issued Bonds Issued FY09 in FY09 Option A $130 $10 $183 0.81% Option B $110 $10 $163 0.72% Option C $90 $10 $143 0.63% Operating and Maintenance Costs Although not part of the plan for financing the capital costs, it is important to include the esti- mated operating and maintenance costs for the new building. The Multi-Year Financial Plan includes a preliminary estimate of the ongoing O&M costs for a City Hall renovation or replace- ment at about $2.3 million. However, this figure does not reflect the reduction in O&M costs attributable to existing City office space that would be vacated and surplused under the various consolidation options being considered. The actual net increase in O&M costs would depend on the scale of the project undertaken. Given the City’s structural budget imbalance, there is no obvious source of funding for a new ongoing commitment of General Fund dollars of any net increase in O&M costs. If the council decides to authorize construction of this project, and assuming no change in the health of the General Fund, a future year budget process may have to reallocate existing General Fund dollars to the net increase in O&M on this facility. Further analysis will be conducted as the consolida- tion options are narrowed and studied further.