Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/19/05 Workshop M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Workshop Conference Room—Fire Station #1 1320 Willamette Street October 19, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gary Papé. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the City Council Workshop. A. WORKSHOP: City Hall Complex Strategic Issues Jonah Hardy, architect for Thomas Hacker Architects, Incorporated, explained that the workshop was intended to explore strategic issues. He noted that he met individually with councilors and observed many similarities in the approaches councilors wished to take to the City Hall Complex issue. He hoped to present the council with a draft proposal at a later date but no vote was expected at the current session. He underscored that the workshop would be the basis for the proposal. He introduced the project team: ? Thomas Hacker, project designer ? Dana Crawford, project manager ? Gary Moye, local associate architect ? Doug Macey, landscape architect ? K.C. Cooper, public process coordinator ? Ellen Kennedy, local liaison for the process Mr. Hacker shared his excitement about the project. He called it a significant project for the City of Eugene as City Hall represented the grassroots of democracy. He hoped to create a City Hall that lived up to the unique character of Eugene. He reviewed comparable projects undertaken by Thomas Hacker Architects, Inc. in Beaverton, Ashland, and on the Columbia Gorge. He noted that approximately half of his firm’s work was in restoration and renovation. Mr. Kelly wanted to be sure that the consultant team had been put together for the scoping process. He averred that there had been no indication to date that there would be construction at this point. City Manager Taylor affirmed that this was correct. Mr. Hardy noted that there were eight other consultants on the team including six from the City of Eugene. Continuing, he explained that the master plan process was slated to occur in three phases: 1) policy advisement and development (the current phase) – 2006; 2) implementation – 2007; and 3) designing and construction – 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 1 Workshop Ms. Kennedy acted as facilitator for the council discussion. She stressed the importance of being succinct. She listed the project values, as follows: ? the project demonstrate fiscal responsibility; ? the project should produce government efficiency; ? the resulting building should be user-friendly; ? the project should embody environmental stewardship; ? the project should enhance the downtown area; ? the project should inspire civic pride. Ms. Kennedy recommended that these values be shared in the public process in order to find out what they meant to members of the community. She asked the council if it would support engaging the public in a discussion of these values and, if so, if the councilors thought these were the appropriate values. Ms. Solomon responded that the values captured what she had been trying to get at. She supported them. She felt encouraging community members to talk about the values would help them move to the next level in the process. Mr. Papé opined that the fifth and sixth items seemed to move beyond values and into the territory of subjective stylistic judgments. Ms. Kennedy said ‘values’ was a “squishy” word. She underscored that the list came from the important aspects the councilors expressed and wanted to accomplish. Mr. Pryor agreed that the values “got at” what the council sought to accomplish. He felt that the list would work for both the general public and the technical public. Mr. Kelly liked the list. He felt it was a little broad, however. Regarding public involvement, he expressed concern that the council would be asking citizens to weigh in on something it could not deliver. He suggested the council adopt the values in some way and then go to the public to flesh the list out. Mr. Pryor said the list was what the council thought was important but there should be a “back door” in the community in the case of a sentiment that was strongly and widely felt, so that it would be heard by the council. He proposed that the council solicit additional value input but not imply to the public that the list was not made up of key and important vales. Ms. Bettman wanted more clarity in the values. She averred they were too broad and that anything in the community would fit into them. Mr. Kelly remarked that the council would hear about it if anything in the list evoked a strong and fundamental reaction in the community. He reiterated his feeling that the council needed to approve the values in a motion in order to move forward. Mayor Piercy commented that whatever project the City undertook would embody the project values. She noted that there was a difference in values in the process versus values in the project. She wanted everyone to be certain that the resulting project came from the engagement of the public. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 2 Workshop Mr. Pryor observed that the council was talking about what could be the values for the project versus what will be the value of the project. He thought the council would be “telegraphing” to the community that this list would be the values for the project. Ms. Kennedy asked if the council wished to make the list more firm. Ms. Bettman surmised that it would be reasonable at this point not to do so. Ms. Taylor indicated her wish to wait on this action. Ms. Kennedy observed that the council already indicated a commitment to explore the options. City Manager Taylor reiterated that staff and the consultant team hoped to come away from the workshop with a notion of the “leanings” of the council. He said the workshop would be the basis for a summary document. Mr. Papé said while he did not espouse expansion of city government, it was noteworthy that the City had built the City Hall building 40 years ago and now, in 2005, the amount of space was very inadequate for the government’s needs. Ms. Kennedy stated that the process of decision-making also had to reflect some of the values. She related that the team had been studying values-based decisions. She said, in addition to architectural considerations, there was a growing movement in sustainability. However, she pointed out that it cost substantially more to build a “green” building. She stressed the importance of fleshing out all ideas, even those that were not one’s own. Mr. Hardy reviewed the Matrix of Leanings. He underscored that councilors unanimously supported the incorporation of meaningful sustainable design goals. He stated that depending on the level of sustainability in the construction it could add between two and six percent in costs. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Hardy said one could not answer specific questions regarding how expenses would be recouped over time until specific ideas were implemented. Ms. Bettman asked how the council would determine its “leanings.” She pointed out that councilors had been polled separately and had not had a chance to discuss these items on the record as the full council. Mr. Poling averred that the council should find where its differences lay. Mr. Hardy moved on to the topic of the planning horizon. He recommended thinking of the building as a 100-year building. He added that there was a minority opinion relating to the philosophy of no growth. He agreed that one approach would be to not increase staff and work load incrementally with the population. Mr. Hardy related that most agreed that there needed to be some room for growth. He said it should be considered whether the expansion would be vertical or horizontal. He pointed out that vertical expansion could cause trouble because it was difficult to consider space needs in advance and that horizontal expansion presented challenges in that the availability of land tended to change. He noted that the average of the councilors’ views was a 28-year planning horizon. He stressed that the first step would be to conduct a space needs study. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 3 Workshop Mr. Papé asked what the industry norms were for space. Mr. Hardy said it was partly based on a square feet per person equation combined with what City standards might be. Ms. Bettman averred that space needs should be based on credible, externally justifiable figures. Mr. Hardy stated that one of the consultants was a master plan consultant for city services with a long background in this sort of work. Mr. Pryor said there were different kinds of future planning. He observed that from five years out such planning was “pretty speculative” and once the planning went beyond 20 years it was guesswork. He asserted that one had to have some kind of context for a building that was planned to last 50 years. Mr. Kelly thought reserving horizontal site space would provide some insurance against the unpredictability of how the land would be used in the area. He declared that whatever proposal the council arrived at should demonstrate that it would satisfy the need but not overbuild. He underscored the importance of the space needs study to demonstrate the assumptions that went into its conclusion. Mayor Piercy expressed hope that the council would not limit its vision. She stressed the importance of adequately meeting future needs. Mr. Hardy showed the Matrix of Leaning for the topic of consolidation. He clarified that consolidation in this case was considered without the Police Department. He indicated that all councilors were in agreement that City services should be consolidated. Mr. Moye showed, with the aid of a map, where services were currently located. He pointed to several inefficiencies that could be resolved by consolidation into one location. He pointed out that the City currently used 165,000 square feet and that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) used another 35,000 square feet. Mr. Carlson pointed out that some functions were meant to be in another location and not all of the services were targeted to be part of a consolidation. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Crawford clarified that the team had been “crunching lots of numbers since September 14.” She stated that the special needs of certain services would be resolved, but for the present, the numbers were “squishy.” Mr. Hardy showed several density models, including a four-story, full-block building, a one-half block eight- story building, multiple block two-story buildings and a combination. He stressed that consolidation would require a certain amount of square footage and that the exact number would not be known until the space needs study was completed. He noted that a choice to renovate the existing building would present challenges in this respect. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Hardy stated that a 300,000 square foot number had only been used for the request for proposal (RFP) process. He noted that the City would not likely need 300,000 square feet. He predicted that the space needs study would find inefficiencies in space use. Mr. Hardy proceeded into the discussion of whether to consolidate City Hall and EPD functions. He related MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 4 Workshop that there was a strong interest in gaining public input on this issue. He noted that some people felt that City Hall should be open to the public and that some members of the public could find uniformed officers to be intimidating. He reiterated that the EPD facility would be required by law to be constructed to higher standards. He reviewed some consolidation models that could be considered. City Manager’s Office employee Jan Bohman was photographing the process in order to document it. Mr. Kelly objected to this, stating that he “had a problem with City staff spending energy on taking pictures.” No further pictures were taken. Mr. Hardy stated that the next step would be to gain public input and identify the police service delivery model that the community wanted to utilize. Ms. Taylor asked if the new substations had to meet the higher seismic standards. Mr. Hardy replied that anything new had to be built to those standards. Ms. Ortiz thought there was a difference between a precinct and a substation and that substations did not have to meet the higher standard. Ms. Bettman felt that before the next steps could be looked into, the City needed to consider what it could afford. She did not believe that the consolidation issue was germane to the discussion of the building issue. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the models the council had been presented with. He did not believe he had sufficient material on which to base a decision at this point, however. Mr. Papé commented that he was uncertain as to what the cart was and what the horse was. He asked if the police chief was ready to get out in front of this. Police Chief Bob Lehner responded that there were more models to consider, one of which would locate police administration in City Hall and then deliver services from two precincts. He averred that the more patrols were housed in neighborhoods, the closer the City was to having a precinct model for policing. He stated that this was the most expensive model for policing. He pointed out, though, that the second most expensive model was to have all of the services in one location downtown. He added that locating everything together would also cost the most per square foot. He asked how much money the community would want to spend. He stressed that the discussion was primarily a financial one. He stated that the current model, one with a downtown station and public safety stations, was likely the most fiscally prudent. Mayor Piercy asked if the precinct models were required to be built to seismic standards. Chief Lehner responded that when speaking of a precinct, it was understood to be a place from which patrol cars were deployed. Because of this, the precincts would have to meet the higher seismic standards. He guessed that the Records Division, as an example, would not be required to be housed in a structure built to the higher standards. Ms. Cooper called this conflict a perfect example of some of the quandaries that would have to be addressed. She underscored that the public wants a high level of service and at the same time people want government to be financially conservative. Ms. Bettman asked how it had been determined that keeping the EPD in the downtown area would be the most expensive model. She commented that having two precincts might be a good idea, but she wanted the one on the south side of the river to be connected to City Hall. She wanted the police to be housed in the same area as the elected officials. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 5 Workshop Mr. Hardy responded that the space needs study would provide the council with different scenarios. Ms. Ortiz commented that she had been thinking that it would be good to separate City Hall from the EPD, but she thought the two-precinct model was a good one. Ms. Bettman expressed concern regarding the ballot implications of a new structure. Mayor Piercy observed that the last time the complex had gone on the ballot it had been proposed to be shared by other service entities that dove-tailed with law enforcement. Mr. Hardy moved on to the topic of combining uses. He called the response, in the Matrix of Leaning a qualified yes. He said councilors indicated a preference for collocation over collaboration. He related that the City wanted to retain control of the space. He felt there were opportunities to collocate with the County, but such collocation probably would not work. He also noted a concern that housing private businesses could potentially compete unfairly with other downtown businesses. Ms. Bettman opined that collocating with the County was a discrete issue. Mr. Kelly agreed. He commented that this idea had been “floated around for years” and no progress had been made on it. He asserted that the council should decide one way or the other prior to initiation of a public process. Mr. Papé pointed out that the City could plan for collocation of other agencies and then as the City’s space needs increased, the space would be there. Ms. Ortiz said when going to the community it was a good idea to talk about having other agencies, but the main focus should be on City government. She felt the space could be rented out after it was built but until then it should not be specific to one entity other than the City. Ms. Taylor opposed collocating with other agencies. She averred that she would not want to rent to Womenspace, for instance, and then have to evict the agency in ten years. Mayor Piercy wanted to know what people wanted. She was uncertain what the need or viability of it was and needed to know this first. City Manager Taylor explained that the kinds of collocation that had been considered in the past had included the school district and compatible agencies that were likely to be involved with law enforcement. Mr. Papé wanted to hear from the public on this item. Ms. Bettman suggested that simplicity be listed as a value. Ms. Kennedy noted that this piece would be resolved in the November meeting. Mr. Poling surmised from the last vote on the ballot measure that the citizens did not want victim services to be collocated with the City Hall complex. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 6 Workshop Regarding parking, Mr. Hardy related that most councilors thought it would be prudent to have parking within two blocks, but that it should not be funded by the project. He said this tied in with site selection as parking needed to be available. He noted that most felt that public parking should be close by but staff parking could be farther away. Continuing, Mr. Hardy stated that most councilors felt that public transportation should be a high priority. He said several possibilities included the installation of a Lane Transit District (LTD) stop or reinstitution of a “Breeze” bus line. Ms. Bettman remarked that embedded parking was a related issue. Mr. Hardy indicated that this would be a topic of later discussion. Ms. Crawford added that it would be partly affected by the site the council chose. City Manager Taylor indicated that there would be a parking study after the assumptions were better known. Mr. Poling announced that he had to leave at 2 p.m. He requested that no action be taken should a regular session of the council be convened after the executive session scheduled for 4 p.m. He exited the meeting at that point. Ms. Hardy reviewed the Matrix of Leaning regarding site selection. He said it indicated that councilors were open to the idea of considering other locations and, though there was support for remaining in the same location, it was less. Mr. Macey pointed to the site analysis for the public library in Olympia, Washington, as an example of how such an analysis was conducted. He underscored that having a civic building that reinforced the downtown area was an element for consideration as well as whether a site was available and what it would cost. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Hardy explained that the determining factors for site selection would be part of the site option study. He added that the space needs study would have a big impact on it. Ms. Kennedy called for a ten-minute break. After reconvening, Mr. Hardy moved on to the Matrix of Leaning for whether to renovate the existing building or replace it. He related that there was strong support for replacement of the facility. He noted that there was a strong vocal minority that supported recognition of the existing building for its historic significance. He said in order to renovate, the need for 200,000 feet of space would have to be addressed, given that the existing facility was 30,000 square feet. The existing facility had also been built to lower seismic standards and was not energy efficient. Mr. Papé asked why seismic standards had increased 450 percent since the 1960s. Staff explained that each increase in standards had followed an earthquake. Mr. Hardy added that it was also based on an increased awareness of geological time. He stated that in the 1960s, the earth’s history was not as well known as it is in 2005. Mr. Hardy stated that the compelling reasons to save an existing building were because of its historic value, the emotional attachment citizens had to it, or because it still met the City’s needs. He stressed that it was generally more expensive to renovate than to replace a building. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 7 Workshop Ms. Bettman said she wanted some kind of data that would inform the public numerically why a decision to replace the building would be made. Mr. Kelly concurred. He noted that there had been some past studies on seismic retrofits that could be consulted. Mr. Hacker commented that a fairly convincing study on the pros and cons of renovation could be conducted, if one was not concerned with accuracy. He said Mr. Kelly was correct with regard to the past studies and that his firm had copies of them. Ms. Taylor asserted that the public should be consulted about whether the City should renovate the existing building or build a new one. She averred that staff should present material impartially. She also wondered if some functions, such as Human Resources and Risk Services (HRRS), could be moved out to create more space. She opined that earthquakes did not keep getting worse. Mr. Hacker reiterated that the earthquake issue was based in code. Mr. Pryor asserted that this issue should be “put to bed right away.” He recommended presenting the public with the current and predicted square footage needs. But he thought this decision needed to be made within the body of the City Council. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what the public thought about this. She was concerned that confidence in City government could be lost. She reiterated that the workshop should have been televised. Mr. Papé commented that in accepting the project values, a renovation would have to have as a goal the desire to inspire civic pride. Ms. Ortiz wanted to remain clear in the focus. She averred that the council should make a decision as to which direction it should take. Mr. Kelly noted that when he had spoken about using the City Hall for something else he did not mean something necessarily related to government. Mayor Piercy thought whether the City Hall had enough significance to save was a question for the community. She noted that there was some interest in a visual arts center in the downtown area. Ms. Kennedy suggested that this question be taken to the public in a modified way. Ms. Bettman thought the question should be whether one wanted to save the building versus whether it was worth saving. She echoed Ms. Taylor’s desire to have the meetings cable-cast. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hacker stated that he would have a cost of the rough study for the next work session. Mr. Papé asked if the existing City Hall would have to be seismically upgraded for other uses. Mr. Hacker responded that it would have to be completely refitted structurally and mechanically and it would have to have electrical upgrades as well. Mr. Penwell reminded the council that much of the maintenance had been deferred over the last four to five years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 8 Workshop Ms. Bettman asked if the Council Chamber could be isolated from the rest of the building. She thought if it could be separated it could be put to a bid, sold, and possibly moved. Ms. Cooper presented the public involvement process. She stressed the importance of meaningful and appropriate involvement at each phase. She listed the public participation core values, as follows: ? To seek a public voice in things that affect lives. ? It includes the possibility to influence the outcome. ? Everyone has a voice, including the decision-makers. ? It facilitates involvement of those affected by the outcome. ? The public needs to decide how they will participate. ? The public is provided information on which to base decisions. ? The public needs to know how they influenced the outcome. Ms. Cooper provided an overview of Public Participation Spectrum and Tools, an attachment included in the council packet. She next reviewed the Public Involvement Draft Plan Phase 2 – Development. She underscored the team’s desire to initiate the process as soon as possible. Regarding Component 1, she said the first step would seek to develop a list of 40 to 50 people in the community to engage in a stakeholder process, providing them with an overview of the issues and hoping to gauge their level of interest in the existing building or moving to a new structure. She indicated that Component 2 – Community Forum was the primary way to exchange information and vet the resulting decision. She reviewed the Community Forum Model. She noted that money had to be part of the equation. Mr. Kelly thought the recruitment criteria spoke against having an “average” person at the forum. Ms. Cooper replied that it was important to select names carefully. She noted that a person did not have to meet all of the criteria, rather the criteria served to identify the areas of high interest. Ms. Kennedy underscored that this was to give direction to what would be fleshed out in November 2006. She asked if the ideas that had been presented were things the council would like to see developed for future consideration. Mayor Piercy expressed concern about the parts of Eugene that remained disengaged. She said it would be important to figure out how to engage and move the people. She noted that the Bethel area was a sizable block that would vote against any money issue. Ms. Cooper indicated that there was a wide range of levels of public relations. She likened the public outreach to cars and said they could provide the “Lambergini” of campaigns should the elected officials desire it. Mayor Piercy responded that she would not want the cheapest model for a campaign but wanted to ensure the model that was being rolled out was sustainable. Ms. Cooper commented that the team would look at how well this process tied into the Neighborhood Initiative. She wanted to ensure this process helped to build knowledge of how to work with the City. Mr. Pryor remarked that the greatest complaint on public processes was that they lacked sincerity and that the decision looked like it had already been made. He wished to stress to the public that the decision had not been made at this point. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 9 Workshop Ms. Cooper commented that some decisions would likely have to be made initially. Ms. Taylor said it seemed the most basic decision to replace the building and not to renovate it had already been made. Ms. Cooper responded that the question could be framed so that the people could make the choice. Mr. Kelly recommended inclusion of the ‘no-build’ scenario in the public forum process. Ms. Bettman averred that neighborhood groups were needed as part of the model for public input. Ms. Cooper stressed that the team members conducting the public outreach had to maintain neutrality. Ms. Kennedy remarked that she like the idea of creating trust and an infrastructure for future processes. Ms. Taylor recalled that the City had conducted a growth management study ten years earlier. She thought it had been very well done and could be of use to the process. Mayor Piercy hoped that when the council nominated people to participate in the Community Forum that the team members would “push” the council to make the forum representative of the community. Mr. Papé suggested finding the average citizen through the local newspaper. Mr. Kelly thought empowering the neighborhood associations would increase attendance. Mr. Hardy provided a brief overview of the Proposed Work Structure, copies of which were included in council packets. Ms. Bettman asked if the plan for four full council sessions on the process was purely for discussion or if there would be decision points through the process. Mr. Hardy replied that it seemed that there was a need for two levels of meetings. Ms. Bettman supported having meetings scheduled for decision points. She objected to individual interviews with councilors. She asserted that all of the process should be held in open sessions. She also opined that the community forum should hold as a value that the people should get something from what each person had to say. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Hardy assured him that staff was required to attend the technical work group. Mr. Kelly felt the councilor interviews were a valuable one-time experience but he agreed that it would not be appropriate to go forward with them. Ms. Ortiz also thought the individual interviews had been valuable in the beginning. She believed one more individual interview could be good, though two seemed too many. Mayor Piercy thought individual interviews were a good exercise if they were check-ins to see how things were going. She underscored that such interviews would not be for decision making. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 10 Workshop Ms. Taylor preferred to have no more individual interviews. She thought everything should be said in the public. Mr. Papé supported continuing to have individual interviews. Ms. Bettman remarked that the council represented constituents and councilors should be comfortable speaking in public. Ms. Solomon observed that constituents could ask for councilor opinions. She was amenable to holding individual interviews. Mr. Pryor did not have a preference. Ms. Kennedy thought the council had provided enough direction to proceed and come back to the council in November. She thanked the council and her colleagues. Mr. Hacker remarked that the team saw the project, at its essence, as being about the freedom of people in the United States to participate in democracy. He hoped everyone would remain open to this participation. He wanted the end result to be a place that helped to unite people. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for participating. B. EXECUTIVE SESSION The council entered into executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(e). The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2005 Page 11 Workshop