Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 04/28/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 28, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: David Kelly. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. WORK SESSION: Civic Center Update City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting an advisory committee, the Civic Center Visioning Committee, had been formed to oversee the civic center planning process and was in the process of completing its work. The committee's last meeting would occur on May 18, and the council would hold a work session on its recommendations on June 16, 2004. He noted that Facilities Manager Glen Svendsen and Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge were present for the item. Mr. Pap~ arrived. Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff was in the process of determining the scope of the civic center project and did not yet know costs or how the project would be financed. She anticipated staff would have a recommenda- tion on June 16, although the details may not all be fixed. Ms. Cutsogeorge discussed financing options for a civic center. She called the council's attention to Attachment B in the meeting packet, which was a list of the various sources of funds and the purposes for which they could be used. Attachment C was a list of direct borrowing methods. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the only borrowing method that came with any money attached to it was general obligation bonds. Other borrowing methods required the City to have funding available in the budget to make annual payments. She thought it would be impossible to fund the project without some general obligation bonding unless the council wanted to save for the purpose, meaning the cost of the project would be greater in the future, or the council could reprioritize services and place more money in a capital reserve. She thought the cost of the latter option would be too high, but indicated she would bring such an option back in June. Speaking to the issue of borrowing, Ms. Cutsogeorge said it was important to first determine what money would be used to pay for the project; either up-front cash, or make payments over time. She said Oregon was fortunate in that municipalities had access to various direct borrowing methods. Once the scope of the project was known and the council had decided the source of funds for repayment of loans, staff could determine the exact vehicle to employ for borrowing for the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mr. Svendsen referred the council to two handouts distributed prior to the meeting: 1) Comparison of Civic Center/Police Facility Projects; and 2) How to Get the Best Value for Your Construction Dollars A Primer on Construction Delivery Methods. He distinguished between construction methods and pub- lic/private partnerships. He said that the City's construction management method involved the private sector in design or construction. He believed that when some people discussed public/private partnerships, they were discussing a situation in which the private sector had equity in a project. That was independent of the construction method employed. Referring the council to the second document, Mr. Svendsen briefly noted some of the different construction delivery methods and called the council's attention to some of the advantages and disadvantages listed under each. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. Mr. Meisner discussed what he wanted to see in a civic center. He wanted a center that brought together City government operations, and that had implications for what City properties could be sold and what moneys were assembled. He said that raised the question of what the City's capital priorities were. Mr. Meisner suggested that had the council decided the center was a high priority two years ago it was likely it would not have voted to fund some other capital projects. He asked if, in fact, the civic center represented the City's highest capital priority, and further asked how the City could focus on that and begin to move away from maintenance of downtown facilities. Mr. Svendsen said the goal of the process was to consolidate staff and sell assets in downtown, as well as get staff out of leased spaces downtown. He thought a decision on the Atrium Building had yet to be made. Mr. Meisner requested information about the amount of square feet needed in a civic center to replace the space used by the City in the Atrium building, what would be realized from the sale, and what would be saved if the City stopped putting money into improvements into it. He also wanted to know what the City could realize from bonding against leases. He wanted a sense of how much money the City could ultimately assemble. Mr. Papd wanted Mr. Meisner's information request extended to include other City properties downtown. He wanted to have all staff housed in one place. Mr. Pap~ suggested that another approach was to have a developer build the project and then lease it to the City with a 20-year minimum lease with a dollar option. Mr. Svendsen said that was a financing strategy as opposed to a construction methodology. Mr. Pap~ said that construction management would be turned over to a developer. Mr. Svendsen said that was similar to what occurred with the Pearl Street Garage, which the City merely paid for when complete, although it was somewhat involved in the design of the facility. Mr. Pap~ believed the City wanted to be involved in the design, but beyond that thought a private developer could take over and deliver the product. Mr. Svendsen said that approach was a combination of the last two methods in the comparison, ~Design/Build (Possible Leaseback)" and ~Bridging." Ms. Bettman thought a combined police station/city hall was the City's highest capital priority. She wanted to know what it would take to succeed in getting such a facility built. She agreed with a committee member MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session who called for the development of a master plan to illustrate to the public what it was purchasing. She agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner regarding ways to offset the cost through the sale of assets and bonding against leases. That made the project more fiscally responsible and acceptable to the community. Ms. Bettman thought the project needed to be the City's police headquarters and City Hall. She thought it important to preserve the identity of the municipality. She said if the City was to build the center it had to be a City facility, although it may contain additional capacity that could be rented to other jurisdictions until needed. She thought the City needed to distinguish between public and private space and to place people- intensive uses instead of storage, for example, in downtown. Ms. Taylor thought the council should first discover if the public wanted new buildings. She did not think that had been determined. She said that there were many people who thought the existing city hall could be retrofitted and retained, but that idea seemed to have been dropped. She wanted to know how much space the building could accommodate when the police and fire staff were relocated to other facilities. She agreed with Ms. Bettman about people-intensive uses downtown. Ms. Taylor said the City Council should not consider putting a police station bond measure on the ballot unless it was sure it would succeed. She said the council needed to consider whether the time was right. Mayor Torrey said he would like to see a matrix of projects the City had done over the last five years showing the impact of interest rates on the bond. He said that now was a favorable financial time to construct a building because of low interest rates, and the council should consider taking advantage of that in face of the needs that existed. Mayor Torrey said that no one had taken the current building off the list of options. He wanted to know if the building was strong enough to sustain multi-story development on the north edge. He liked a concept he had heard at the design forum regarding possible modifications that could be made to the building. Speaking to Mr. Papa's comments, Mayor Torrey pointed out his suggestion about the 20-year dollar arrangement included a lease-back, and the money that supported the lease would come out of the General Fund; he questioned how the City would pay for that. He acknowledged that cities do take that approach, but it then became an operating cost for those who use the facilities. Ms. Nathanson thought there were internal and organizational efficiencies to be gained from a new civic center. She raised the question of what services were located in a civic center downtown, where the land values and construction costs were high. While she agreed with the goal of consolidating services to the extent possible, Ms. Nathanson suggested that some services did not need to be downtown because their presence did not contribute to organizational efficiency or were unnecessary in downtown. She anticipated the City would continue to have several buildings and not all services would be housed in one place. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City had ever employed a combined general obligation/revenue bond approach to fund a project. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes, in the case of the airport. She said more than one kind of bond could be used, and confirmed, in response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, that staff was developing such scenarios. Ms. Bettman looked forward to seeing the ~framework of facts" Mr. Carlson had promised the advisory committee. She was also interested in seeing a project time line. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman shared the mayor's interest in the idea to renovate City Hall that had been raised at the design charette. She questioned how a transition to a new city hall would happen, how much time that would take, and how that impacted the financing. City Manager Taylor agreed that project phasing was an issue. Ms. Bettman asked for some "ballpark" projections. Ms. Bettman said that in terms of financial strategies, the "simpler the better." She preferred the "Competi- tive Bid" and "Competitive Sealed Proposals" construction methods as they would give the public an idea of how the project would look. She thought the council needed to give the public a good reason to vote yes, and that meant presenting a well-defined project. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the need for a well-defined project. He did not agree with Ms. Taylor about the current City Hall. Although he thought the renovation idea was interesting, he also thought it would be very costly. He had no desire to maintain the facility in its current condition as it was obsolete and could not easily accommodate new technology. No one knew where the front door was. It did not serve the public well. If it was to be preserved and not remodeled, the building should be sold. Mr. Pap~ suggested the council visit some of the sites listed by staff to see what different communities had done. Mr. Meisner wanted the organization to act as efficiently as possible and did not want staff in many different locations. He reminded the council that the City built a fourth floor on the library for expansion by bonding against the rents of the Information Services and Finance divisions, and further noted those services would need a new home in ten years when the space was needed for library services. Mr. Meisner wanted to ensure that space planning was done in conjunction with service planning and projections. He did not want to build a civic center complex for services the City was in the process of contracting and reducing on an annual basis. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Pap~ that a field trip would be a good idea. Speaking to the issue of the existing City Hall, she said she did not want to discard a building that could still be used, and pointed out the acoustics were better in the McNutt Room than in the new Bascom-Tykeson Room at the library. Mayor Torrey agreed about the acoustics of the library meeting room. Ms. Bettman also endorsed the idea of a field trip. She asked for some information about City Hall, and whether it could be renovated and reused. She questioned the building's marketability in light of Mr. Papa's comments. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see council offices included in a new city hall, which she thought would help the council to serve the community better. Mr. Svendsen indicated the primary issue related to the renovation of the existing city hall was that of cost. He said he would return with information on that issue. Mayor Torrey questioned whether the City could find a better site for a new city hall than the site of the existing City Hall. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 4 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Amending the November 1999 Street Classification Map Adopted by Ordinance No. 20181 to Designate Collector Streets in the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood Gary McNeel and Chris Henry of the Public Works Department were present for the item. Mr. McNeel reviewed the history of the Street Classification Study and noted that during the study adoption process in 1999, the council had directed staff to do a separate study of Crest Drive area streets because of controversy about the study. That had been done, and the study had been processed through the Planning Commission. The results of that work were before the council. The study identified one north-south corridor and one east- west corridor through the area for neighborhood collector classification. He said adoption of the ordinance would complete the classification of all streets in Eugene. Mr. McNeel called attention to Figure 60, the Street Classification Map, in the meeting packet and used the map to illustrate the staff recommendation. Mr. McNeel said the study focused on design characteristics for the roadways in question, which were located in a steep wooded area. Staff had identified the need for context-sensitive design standards intended to ensure future roadway construction in the area preserved and protected natural resources. Changes to the standards would not be included in the action taken by the council. Mr. McNeel noted the three options before the council: 1) proceed with the public hearing scheduled for May 10, 2004; 2) table the issue, thereby making no changes to the Street Classification Map; and 3) identify additional modifications to the November 1999 Street Classification Map and draft ordinances that staff should address prior to the hearing. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor acknowledged the amount of staff and citizen effort that had gone into the process, but said some of those affected by the classification only knew about the project for a couple of months. She agreed the improvements were needed and commended the context-sensitive standards but said many who supported some level of improvement doubted the need for Crest Drive to be a collector and believed the extension of Chambers Street would address the need. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to table the item until July 12, 2004. Ms. Taylor said the council and affected citizens should see the standards before the public hearing. That would also give the neighborhood time to hold its neighborhood meeting. Delay would give people time to become acquainted with the issue, and the councilors could tour the area. Mr. Pap~ did not think the public was ready for the street designation. He hoped the City would embark on a process to make the neighborhood familiar with the options and the consequences. He favored slowing the process down so the council could consider alternatives. Mr. Pap~ did not think some of the citizens in the area wanted the streets improved, and wanted to ensure that there was at a minimum safe bicycle and pedestrian passage through the area. Ms. Bettman declared a potential conflict of interest given her residence at the north end of Friendly Street, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 6 Work Session which might be affected by the project. Ms. Bettman supported the motion to postpone the item. She thought the street could be designed in a way that provided mobility while maintaining livability. She thought the City needed to be clear with residents about what they would get before the ordinance was adopted. She wanted to know what the standards looked like and whether they would do what was needed. Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the motion brought the item back to the council too quickly. He suggested a two-part process involving a meeting between the council and residents with staff present; the concerns could be recorded, and then another meeting could be scheduled to bring about a feeling of trust. He said the roads in question were terrible, but the residents did not trust the council, and he wanted to address the trust issue before the road issue was addressed. While the council and residents might not eventually agree, at least the residents would feel heard. Ms. Taylor favored postponing the item until November, and commended the mayor's suggestion. She said the issue of who paid for the improvements was also an issue for some people. They were concerned both about the character of the neighborhood and cost. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pap~ agreed to change the date in the motion to October 25, 2004. Ms. Solomon determined from staff that the change in classification was only that and the ordinance would not lead to a project. Mr. McNeel said that no money was available for modernization projects at this time. There was a process to initiate a project, but it was a long-term process. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Taylor that more neighborhood awareness was needed, and given how long it would take for the street to be improved, she thought a few months' more delay insignificant. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion. He said the classifications made sense given how traffic moved through the neighborhood, but the standards needed to be made clear to the public in a public process. He hoped that the City looked at context-friendly street design standards on a community-wide basis. Mr. McNeel said that was what was envisioned. Mr. Meisner said he had been contacted by citizens who hoped that %ontext-friendly" was not limited to natural resources, but to residents' front yards as well. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. McNeel said the City was building narrower streets. The street that would be built in this area would be narrow and would be designed in a way that communicated it was a residential street. In addition, traffic calming efforts were included in such projects to avoid future retrofits that might have unintended consequences. Open ditch areas could be retained with the use of slotted curbs, helping to retain the rural character. Sidewalks would be installed on one side of the roadway. Staff intended to keep all improvements within the existing right-of-way and the existing roadway prism. He said the City's standard was for set-back sidewalks, but it might be possible that the sidewalk would be a curbside sidewalk given geographic constraints. Mr. Pap~ requested a memorandum from staff within 30 days regarding what was planned in terms of communicating with the residents of the area. Ms. Nathanson noted that Warren Street in her own neighborhood faced similar issues. She said it was another good example of where context-sensitive standards would be used. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson suggested the potential for pull-outs for parking on narrow streets to accommodate visitors. She said when thinking of competing goals, there was that of safer feel of setback sidewalks and the fact that meandering sidewalks can discourage use, particularly when someone was actually trying to get somewhere quickly. Ms. Bettman said the ordinance, if adopted, did not initiate a project but it enabled a project to occur. She said the only money available for the project at this time was the assessment that would be paid by the property owners. Ms. Bettman asked the width of the existing right-of-way. Mr. McNeel said that generally it was 50 or 55 feet. There were some segments with 60 feet of right-of-way. Ms. Bettman asked if the entire right-of-way would be used in all segments. Ms. Bettman reiterated her interest in seeing the design standards, once available. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor that it was critical the residents felt listened to. She said it was also important to take their input into account. She thought there was a way to meet all the needs that existed. She thought that was also the approach to be taken to the two-way conversion of Willamette Street. Ms. Taylor said even though an improvement project was not scheduled, people were still concerned about the project costs. Mr. Pap6 saw no reason for haste given that the area in question was not experiencing much development and was largely already developed. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the nature of context-sensitive design standards, Mr. McNeel said that the affected public would be extensively consulted so the roadway fit the surround- ings. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 8 Work Session