Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 07/21/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 21, 2004 12 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Papd, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. His Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: November 2004 Bond Issue Options City Manager Dennis Taylor said the item was a continuation of the council's discussion at its July 14, 2004, meeting regarding the proposed Civic Center, City Hall, and Community Safety facilities. He said that staff had developed responses to a number of issues that were raised at that meeting, as well as addressed a new option. He asked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson to summarize the information in the packet. Mr. Carlson thanked City staff members Sue Cutsogeorge, Glen Svendsen, and Mike Penwell for the comprehensive work they had done in developing the information for the agenda packet within a short timeframe. He expressed appreciation for the council's previous direction on civic vision policy principles and on siting of the Civic Center facilities on City-owned land along 8th Avenue. He asked the council to provide direction on the next step for the Civic Center vision, particularly for the Community Safety Building and City Hall. Mr. Carlson briefly reviewed the options and noted that Option A would allow the City to build a new Community Safety Building that would meet current needs with internal financial resources. He noted that there was some risk associated with some of the resources and referred to details in the Agenda Item Summary. He said the new Option A+ was developed following comments by a number of councilors about the high cost of redeveloping the Lane County %utterfly" lot. He said the assumption was that Option A would be built and then the voters would be asked for a $6.79 million General Obligation (GO) bond measure to add space for growth, additional space for victims' services agencies, improvements to the Park Blocks and Civic Street improvements. Mr. Carlson said the primary difference between options A+ and B was the elimination of the purchase, demolition, and replacement of parking at the Lane County butterfly lot. He said that Option A+ did include improvements on the existing Farmers Market site on the northwest comer of 8th Avenue and Oak Street. He said that preliminary discussions with the county administrator had indicated that was acceptable to the County. Mr. Carlson said that Option B would add more elements from the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee, particularly the butterfly lot. He said it would completely restore the northwest MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 1 Work Session comer of 8th Avenue and Oak Street as one of the Park Blocks. He indicated that the option would require asking voters for a $12.6 million bond measure. Mr. Carlson explained that Option C was included to show what a 20-year Community Safety facility, including Civic Center amenities and consolidation of all functions, would cost. Two financial strategies for Option C were provided; one strategy had a high level of internal funding and the other had minimal internal funding. Mr. Carlson concluded his review with Option D, which showed the cost of replacing all the functions in the existing City Hall and consolidation of other downtown City office uses, including two new buildings on current City-owned land. He said some additional internal funding was possible in that option based on future facility reserve contributions; however, the option would still result in a $70 million bond measure. Mr. Carlson said that all five options fit within the debt policy limits established by the Budget Committee, but Option D would leave the City with little debt capacity for several years. He said that staff recommended Option A+ and action had been tentatively scheduled for July 26, 2004, on a civic facility revenue measure should the council provide direction to proceed. Responding to issues that were raised since the July 14, 2004, meeting, Mr. Carlson said there were no designs for either the Community Safety Building or City Hall, but staff intent was to design the facilities with horizontal expansion capacity. Regarding the current City Hall building, he remarked that remodeling the fire station space for office use was not feasible due to the cost and the fact that it did not meet current seismic standards, although the Fire Marshal's space was usable. He said the existing police space could be remodeled for offices, particularly if use was intended for five years or less. He said that City Hall accounted for 52 percent of deficiencies in the last facilities report, while accounting for only 12 percent of space. Mr. Carlson commented that availability of the current Federal Building had been discussed with the General Services Administration (GSA) and GSA maintained the position that all space in the building was still needed for federal functions. The City remained interested in courtroom space at the Federal Building for the Municipal Court once the new Federal Courthouse was completed. The Federal Building did not meet current seismic standards, could not be used for police functions without substantial rehabilitation, and provided no secure parking currently on the site. Mr. Carlson reiterated that staff recommended the suggested motion be changed to reflect Option A+ instead of Option B and requested direction to prepare the appropriate resolution for the July 26, 2004, meeting. Mr. Poling observed that, ideally, Option D was the appropriate direction to plan for the future, but the cost was prohibitive and unlikely to be supported by taxpayers. He believed the City needed to move forward with a new Community Safety Building and supported Option A+ as the most realistic approach to achieving that goal. Ms. Solomon asked how much of Option A+ would be internally funded. Mr. Carlson replied that $29 million of a $36 million project would be internally funded. Ms. Solomon said the project would have considerable credibility if the City could contribute that amount. She said she had reflected on a number of reasons why Option D was desirable, but thought it was unlikely that most voters would support a new City Hall. She expressed strong MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 Work Session support for a new police facility, particularly combining support services through social services agencies with law enforcement functions. She said she was inclined to support Option A+. Mr. Meisner remarked that Option D was what the City needed, but he agreed that it was not feasible at the present time for the November ballot. He supported Option A+ and expressed hope that the education process for the public regarding the City's long-term facility requirements and the need for Option D would be undertaken promptly, regardless of what was placed on the November ballot. He noted that most people were familiar with the concept of spending more than a structure was worth for maintenance and City Hall was approaching that point. He agreed that the butterfly lot project could be done with other revenue sources such as urban renewal district or parking funds. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Meisner's comments. He said that past councils had recognized the limited lifespan of the current City Hall and worked with staff to develop long-range plans to meet facility needs and identify financing strategies. He congratulated the council and staff for moving in the right direction and said he could support options A+ through D and while Option D was the best choice to address long-term needs, the timing was poor and he would consider options A+ and B. Ms. Nathanson commented that she would like to implement the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee's recommendation, but recognized that it was not possible to accomplish it all at once or in one project. She felt that Option A+ would begin the process of continuing improvements to downtown and City facilities in a sensible way that conserved money and moved the City forward toward its vision. She stated her support for options A+, B, or others, but Option D was too ambitious. She expressed concern about the description of Option A+ and whether it would limit options for space occupied by other entities in the facility. Mr. Kelly commented that there was no question that City Hall needed to be replaced and all of the arguments for replacing police facilities also applied to replacement of City Hall general facilities. He said he could not support Option A+ because of concerns that future expansion might never occur and the building as planned only provided for space needs to 2018. He said he was apprehensive about the chance for any measure to win on the November ballot. He stated that if any measure was placed on the November ballot, it ought to be Option D. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not think any option should be placed on the ballot until 2006. She said she preferred Option B of those presented. She said that the public should be allowed to vote on the use of any internal funds for such projects. She encouraged the council to consider placing Option B on the ballot in 2006, with a different location instead of directly across 8th Avenue. Ms. Bettman declared she was pleased to see support for Option D as any other option was short- sighted because of the potential to prejudice future ballot measures and the fact that the City's need for expanded capacity would not be fully met. She urged the council to demonstrate leadership by educating the public about the need for new City Hall and police facilities. She said she did not feel there was support in the community for either Option A+ or B. Mayor Torrey said he would support Option D if a majority of the council supported it, but asked where the funding for a campaign for the ballot measure would be obtained. He said that no one in the community had come forward in support of a large bond measure. He commented that as a practical matter, a new police facility would need to be built so that police functions could be moved out of City Hall and into a secure facility that met the seismic code, and he therefore saw MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 3 Work Session the value of Option A+ as a first step if Option D did not pass, as it would allow the City to maintain all of the rest of the options. He said the public support about the use of internal funds to build a new police facility was clear as public safety was essential. Ms. Taylor remarked that the need for a new City Hall was not a unanimous opinion and she was not convinced that the current building could not be retrofitted. She asked for an external, independent, expert opinion on whether the building could be retrofitted. She said it was as important to protect the people in City Hall from an earthquake as it was to protect police personnel. She reiterated her position that citizens should be able to vote on the use of internal funds. Mr. Pap6 stated, in response to Ms. Taylor's comments, that the issue of retrofitting City Hall had been investigated in 1999 and the estimated cost at that time was approximately $8 million for seismic retrofitting that did not include additional space. With respect to a vote on the use of internal funds, he said that councilors were elected to represent citizens and at some point needed to show leadership, as they did with the public library bond measure. Referring to Option B and providing space for agency partners in a public service building, Mr. Pap6 asked why those partners would not be charged rent or a rent equivalent. Mr. Carlson said the City's policy was to charge itself rent and the intent was the charge partners a rental rate that would cover the cost of facility operations and maintenance. Mr. Kelly asked if lease-to-own calculations had been conducted for any of the options. Mr. Carlson said that staff had examined lease-to-own issues extensively. He said his recollection was that between $3 million and $4 millions dollars per year from general funds would be required to make lease-to-own payments on a police facility. Mr. Kelly asked for a more extensive analysis of the issue. He acknowledged the validity of Mayor Torrey's comments regarding funding for a campaign, but said there was some value to a campaign for complete replacement of City Hall. He said that such a campaign would be a different discussion with voters from those held previously about police buildings. He shared Ms. Taylor's concerns about the negative perception of another measure for a police building and said that a broader conversation about the need to replace an inadequate facility could be helpful. He did not feel that Option A+ would pass because of current perceptions in the community about the Police Department. Mr. Carlson responded in support of Mayor Torrey's comments regarding reasons for constructing the police facility first. He said the Police Department was the largest user of space in City Hall and required a specialized facility that met enhanced seismic code standards. He said the other functions in City Hall were Municipal Court, the City Manager's Office, and Human Resource and Risk Services (HRRS). He said that all except Municipal Court could locate in generic office space. He said that Option A+ was a logical next step in the progression toward replacement of City Hall. Mr. Taylor commended the council and staff for their work since 2001 to begin the process with achievable goals, engaging the voters, identifying internal funding strategies, moving the Fire Station and some police functions, all while keeping the longer term goal of replacing City Hall as the vision. He hoped that the next logical step to bring City functions together and replace antiquated facilities could be taken. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Meisner said that if the motion to place Option D on the ballot was before the council he would vote for it, but not for the November 2004 ballot. He indicated that if the council wanted to present a consolidated package to the public it needed to start that process now and build support over the next two years. He commented that Option A+ made sense and required a minimum amount of support from the public, but he had mixed feelings because of the need to return in the future with another funding request. He urged the media to accurately represent the impact of Option A+ on the typical homeowner over the life of the bond measure. Ms. Bettman observed that it was obvious why the City preferred the incremental approach represented by Option A+, but it was %ut of sync" with the community. She said she would not support any option except a modified version of Option D for a conjoined facility on the City Hall site that would combine all functions, current services, and victims' services and preserve the site across the street for a parking garage. She hoped that if the council was not prepared to support rebuilding City Hall in 2004, no action would be taken in order to conserve internal funds for two more years while working to bring the community up to the necessary level of understanding about the need to rebuild City Hall. She said that the entire package, with more internal funding, could then be placed on the November 2006 ballot. Ms. Nathanson asked for elaboration on the issue of parking and whether a parking structure could be located on the site across the street along with the police facility. She also asked whether building to capacity needs in 2018 would generate community opposition because of the short span of time before capacity needed to be expanded. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's question regarding parking, Mr. Carlson said that all options included the assumption that there would be a full layer of parking beneath each building. He said the police building would have secure parking beneath it and the area adjacent could be used for surface parking. Police Chief Bob Lehner said that Option A+ actually provided more options for the future than did Option D with respect to the Police Department aspect of building to meet 2018 needs. He said that as technology and the way police services were delivered changed, space needs could change. He illustrated his point with the precinct model of policing, which was not currently used by the City. He said that if a precinct model was used, space allocation as anticipated in Option A+ was sized well into the future beyond 2018 and a patrol capacity would be designed to be delivered somewhere other than that facility. He said that Option A+ could accommodate patrol needs through 2018, in addition to administration, investigation, and other support functions that would remain in that facility for the foreseeable long-term future. Mayor Torrey stated he could not support Ms. Bettman's proposal as housing police functions in a secure facility that met enhanced seismic standards was both a State and federal requirement and the City currently had no such facility available. He said that biggest cost overrun factor on large projects was inflation and the longer the City waited to construct a facility the more expensive it would become. Referring to Ms. Taylor's hope that the current City Hall could be remodeled, Mayor Torrey said that Option A+ provided that option, although he did not support remodeling because the cost was typically far greater than anticipated. He said that the City would have to deal with repercussions from the misconduct of two police officers regardless of whether a bond measure for a police facility was on the ballot and he had confidence that the City Manager, Police Chief, Police Commission, and City Council would address that separate issue in a straight forward manner and not use it as a reason not to proceed with a new facility. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Chief Lehner that substations could be an attractive way to deliver services in the future, but commented that the City had struggled in past years to keep %torefront" satellite police facilities open. He did not feel that Option D eliminated the option of substations. He agreed with Mayor Torrey's remarks that the incidents of police officer misconduct was a separate matter, but was concerned that it was not separate in the voters' minds. He agreed with earlier comments regarding the difficulty of putting a City Hall replacement measure on the ballot in November 2004 and the suggestion that it be postponed until 2006. He asked whether police personnel could be temporarily located in a facility that did not meet seismic code requirements while a new facility was being built. Mike Penwell with Facilities Management replied that under Oregon law that was not possible. Mr. Taylor drew the council's attention to other finance measures scheduled for the ballot in 2006, specifically the possibility of a parks and open space bond issue and the library levy, and a tentatively scheduled discussion in 2008 about replacement of City Hall. He suggested that there was time to fully investigate the question of whether to renovate the current facility or move forward with a new facility and to have that conversation with the community well in advance of placing the issue on the ballot. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct staff to develop a bond measure for the November ballot based on the Civic Center Option A+, as described in new Attachment A. Ms. Bettman stated that she could not support the motion and was in favor of a modified Option D. She said that even if Option D failed in 2004, rebuilding City Hall was a new issue for the voters and the option could be returned to the ballot in 2006. She said that replacement of City Hall was the top capital project for the City and moving forward with Option A+ jeopardized the ability to rebuild City Hall in the future because internal funds would be exhausted. She said she preferred to have nothing on the ballot in 2004 in order to increase internal funds. She said she did not believe that $100,000 was necessary to campaign for Option D as there was not likely to be an organized opposition and if council members showed leadership by advocating for the measure and educating the community they could build momentum. She said there was no longer an urgent need to move personnel out of City Hall and no pressure to move forward immediately, allowing the opportunity to wait two years if necessary to increase internal funding. Mr. Pap6 referred to the recent parks and open space bond issue, which was well-publicized and well-received in the community, and noted that $70,000 was spent on that campaign. He agreed with Mayor Torrey's assessment of the estimated cost of $100,000 for a bond measure campaign. He asked if the project would be easier to finance if other agencies were paying market rate rents. Mr. Carlson said that charging agencies more rent would not generate a sufficient revenue stream to make up the difference of $6.79 million. Mr. Pap6 agreed that it was prudent to fully investigate a lease-to-own financing mechanism. He noted that Option D would use up to 98 percent of the City's bonding capacity. He asked how that would limit a parks and open space bond in two years. Mr. Carlson said the council would have to change the current policy established by the Budget Committee of one percent of real market value. He said the State law was three percent of real market value. Mr. Pap~ asked if changes to the policy would affect the City's bond rating. Finance and Court Services Director Cindi Hamm responded that the City's bond rating was very high because it was conservative with debt and the debt capacity policy was only one of the factors that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 6 Work Session determined the rating although changing it could have an affect and any change should be carefully considered. Ms. Nathanson remarked that changing the bond rating even slightly could cost several hundred thousand dollars. She contrasted options A+ and D by noting that the issues were what the City organization could afford and what the voters perceived they could afford. She said the City's uncertain revenue picture could send a mixed message if the voters were asked to fund a very large project and the City lost revenue for operations and was forced to lay off more staff. She expressed concern that Option D would expend voter goodwill and capacity to pay on one project. Ms. Taylor said she did not agree with the suggestion to combine the police facility with City Hall, but did agree that the initial pressure to move police personnel no longer existed. She also agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about public perception regarding the Police Department and expressed confidence in Chief Lehner's ability to change that perception. She agreed that the parks measure should not be on the ballot at the same time as replacement of City Hall and suggested that the parks measure could pass in 2004, which would address improvements to the Park Blocks. She expressed the opinion that nothing related to a police facility should be placed on the ballot in 2004. Mr. Meisner remarked that measures should be placed on the ballot based on priorities, rather than opportunism and Option A+ represented opportunism. He said he also could not support Option D for the reasons he stated previously, but acknowledged current police needs and did not want to postpone addressing them indefinitely. He stated that whatever his vote was and whatever the council decided to place on the ballot he would campaign for and personally support. He expressed concern that Option A+ would not have the full support of the council and that in addition to the cost of a campaign there was the need for people to conduct it and he had not seen evidence of volunteers. He asked staff to investigate the lease-to-own strategy, although not for a 25-year building or the quality of building the City would construct. Mayor Torrey encouraged council members to support the motion. He stated he would support Option D, campaign for it, and raise funds if that was what the council decided, but cautioned that a campaign would require the active involvement of the council to be successful as there was not currently community support for a new City Hall. The community was aware that a new police facility had been the City's first priority for several years and it was time for the council move forward. Mr. Kelly complimented the council on the substantive discussion of the issues. He said he could not support the motion because of the reasons stated by Ms. Bettman and based on the City's polling and constituent feedback, which indicated the measure would fail. Mr. Kelly offered a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to create a work plan that would lead to a full City Hall replacement measure in 2006. Ms. Bettman provided the second. Mr. Kelly clarified that he was speaking at the concept level to avoid trying to identify specific details of Option D to be included and fine tune the steps to be taken. Mayor Torrey clarified that if the substitute motion passed Option A+ was no longer on the table. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments, Ms. Bettman said the City's highest priority was to move police personnel out of the basement because it was explicitly unsafe, and that had been accomplished. The need to move remaining police personnel was no greater than the need to move other City staff and the public out of the building. She supported the substitute motion and a conjoined facility remained her preference. Mr. Pap~ asked if the information on operating and maintenance costs on page 24 of the Agenda Item Summary represented an incremental increase in costs or only the costs for new facilities, not taking into account a reduction for costs of the current facility. Mr. Carlson said the figures were gross because there was not currently a strategy for eliminating the operation and maintenance costs in existing City Hall, although that was the goal. Mr. Pap~ asked for estimated figures based on elimination of costs for the existing City Hall. He clarified that under State law, police personnel could be grandfathered into existing space, but any relocation would have to be to space that met seismic code requirements. Mr. Penwell agreed with that clarification. Mayor Torrey announced that in the event of a tie vote, he would vote against the motion. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Pap~ commented that the public supported a partnership between the City and the County to build one facility to house police functions and encouraged the City to continue discussion with the County. Mr. Kelly noted that the County was in a financial situation that prevented it from collaborating on a new police facility and, while he understood the need for a new facility, he also understood the liability of placing what appeared to be the same measure for the third time on the ballot. Ms. Nathanson said the measure had new features such as combining certain types of community and social services to provide the best services to the public and she felt it was worth presenting to the voters. She remarked that the decision was a difficult one for her because she wanted it done right instead of fast and she was concerned that there was not enough council support for the measure to instill confidence in the community. Mr. Meisner stated he would reluctantly support the motion without high expectations and with the express commitment to help with the campaign. He asked what the deadline was for removing a measure from the ballot. He requested evidence in the form of names of community members who would conduct the campaign before he would vote in a final decision to put the measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman remarked that while $28 million was internal funds, it was still funds from the taxpayers. She asked if the City would move forward with the police station using internal funds if the pieces related to amenities such as the Parks Block improvements, Civic Center improvements and additional space for agencies failed at the ballot. Mr. Taylor stated his hope that staff would receive direction to pursue Option A using existing resources. Ms. Bettman said that failure of the bond measure would be a clear message from the public that it did not want a new police station and questioned whether the City should proceed with internal funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey gave Mr. Meisner his commitment to raise funds and campaign on behalf of a bond measure. He agreed with Mr. Papd's suggestion that the City and County work collaboratively and noted that the federal courthouse would present an opportunity. He felt that it was possible to communicate with the public in a timely matter on the November bond measure and achieve a positive outcome. Mr. Pap~ again urged the City and County to continue their discussions about co-location. Mr. Carlson noted that when the civic vision principles were adopted the previous week, the first principle was specifically changed to address consolidating City office functions, but he was not certain there was consensus on the council to consolidate City and County functions. Mr. Meisner pointed out that he requested the change to emphasize City consolidation because there was another policy that addressed partnerships and consolidation with other governments. Mr. Pap~ stated that he would raise funds and assist with a campaign if the council decided to place a measure on the ballot. Ms. Nathanson asserted her hope for a shared criminal justice building and acknowledged that the timing was not right for other governments to participate in the discussion. She asked if 15,000 additional square feet was adequate. Mr. Carlson said the number was based on analysis of the first floor functions that included public meeting spaces in addition to space for nonprofit agencies. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her hope that shared space was not limited only to nonprofit social service agencies if there were other entities interested in sharing space. She emphasized the need to begin working on new buildings and taking steps toward the future. Ms. Bettman observed that the issue of sharing space with the County had been kept alive by the Mayor and some members of the council, and there should be a definitive vote by the full council on that issue as not everyone supported it. Mr. Pap~ said he could support any of the options presented and would help pass whatever measure was placed on the ballot. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 9 Work Session