Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/08/06 Workshop M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Workshop Conference Room #1—Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services Building nd 1705 West 2 Avenue—Eugene, Oregon March 8, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. A. WORKSHOP: City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex Mayor Kitty Piercy called the workshop of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined for the item by Thomas Hacker, Jonah Cohen, and Dana Ing of Thomas Hacker Architects; Ellen Teninty of T ‘N T Consultants; Doug Macy and Ken Pirie of Walker Macy; Dave Wilson and Rick Rehfeldt of McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie; and Kyle Brown of J. D. White Company. Police Chief Robert Lehner, Nan Laurence of the Planning Division, and Glen Svendsen and Mike Penwell of the Facilities Division were also present. Mr. Cohen reviewed the agenda for the workshop. 1. Introduction—Road map, Schedule, Phase 1 Refresher, Defining the Problem 2. Preliminary Space Needs 3. Site Evaluation Criteria 4. Public Involvement 5. Forum Preview There were no questions about the agenda. 1. Introduction—Road map, Schedule, Phase 1 Refresher, Defining the Problem Mr. Cohen reviewed the Phase 2 schedule. Mr. Cohen called attention to the project values identified by the council and indicated the consultants would take them forward into the public input process. 1. Exercise fiscal responsibility 2. Produce government efficiency 3. Be user-friendly 4. Embody environmental stewardship 5. Enhance downtown MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 1 Work Shop 6. Inspire civic pride 7. Maximize the use of City Hall public spaces by the public and their access to government and its representatives 8. Strive for simplicity 9. Plan for the future Mr. Cohen noted the points of agreement among councilors voiced at a previous workshop: 1) the project should incorporate meaningful, sustainable design goals; 2) the project should accommodate growth over a 25-30 year period; 3) departments should be consolidated to the greatest practical extent; 4) the Downtown Plan should be consulted; 5) some public amenities should be included; 6) there should be public parking within a few blocks and access to public transportation; and 7) the council should consider sites other than the current city hall site. He further noted less than unanimous agreement among councilors that the current site was the appropriate location for a new city hall and that the existing city hall should likely be replaced. There was no unanimity about the question of whether the project should support the Great Street concept, co-location of non-city hall functions, and whether police patrol functions should be part of a consolidated city hall. Mr. Cohen noted the council’s interest in having public input on the inclusion of non-city hall functions, the criteria for site selection and ultimately the chosen site, the inclusion of police patrol in a consolidated model, and whether the current structure should be renovated, expanded, or replaced. Mr. Cohen provided an overview of the problems that led to the study, which included dispersed services, energy consumption, security and safety issues. With regard to seismic safety, Mr. Cohen said that when the current building was designed in the 1960s, it met the codes of that time. Since that time, scientists believed the area was likely to experience a much larger earthquake and codes had been adjusted accord- ingly. If the council chose to remodel the existing building, Mr. Cohen emphasized the consultants would be able to deal with the earthquake and seismic issues in the most cost-effective way possible, relative to other program goals for the project. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Cohen discussed the issue of civic presence and connectivity, saying the council needed to ask itself what facilities that represent municipal government should be, and what level of civic presence and connection should they provide. 2. Preliminary Space Needs Mr. Cohen reviewed the methodology used by the consultants to arrive at a picture of how government was conducted in Eugene. A report would be produced that was based on demonstrated need, efficiencies, and precedents established by other municipal government projects. The report would also discuss growth needs. Mr. Cohen shared a bubble diagram showing preliminary City space needs by program area that reflected desired relationships in a new facility. He said that parking needs had not been fully considered much to this point but at least 200 spaces were needed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 2 Work Shop Councilors asked questions clarifying the information illustrated by the bubble diagram. Mr. Cohen shared four consolidation options related to police functions. Option A was a one-building, full consolidation option; Option B was a campus model with police functions in a separate wing; Option C had police functions separate and within walking distance of a consolidated city hall; and Option D showed police functions remote from city hall. He called attention to a list of considerations relative to each option; those considerations included civic presence, public safety presence, access to internal affairs, public oversight of police activities, efficiency of staff communication, response time, essential services structure, sufficient lot size to accommodate programming, capacity for expansion, cost of land, cost of structured versus surface parking, and construction costs. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the meaning of the reference to public oversight of police activities, Mr. Cohen acknowledged the meaning was not clear and further discussion might be warranted. The consultants were aware it was an issue and wanted to introduce it as a consideration. Ms. Teninty facilitated the discussion for the remainder of the meeting. She solicited questions. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the options could work with a precinct or centralized model. Mr. Cohen said yes; that decision was independent of the physical implications of the model. Mr. Kelly suggested that in the case of Option D, the size of the patrol building would differ depending on the number of precincts. Mr. Cohen agreed, but suggested such a precinct approach, if adopted, would be implemented over time and could be anticipated in the design. Mr. Kelly expressed interest in how Police Chief Robert Lehner felt about the different models and their relationship to a precinct design. He requested a memorandum from Chief Lehner on the topic prior to the next workshop on April 26. Ms. Taylor asked if a separate building near City Hall containing both patrol functions and administration was an option. Mr. Cohen said it was not included in the options but could be added. Ms. Taylor requested feedback from Chief Lehner on the idea. Mr. Papé agreed it was important to get the input of the chief and the department about the options. He asked if Chief Lehner felt it was important to be closer to the City Manager’s Office or closer to the patrol function. Mr. Cohen said there was a strong connection between police administration and other City Hall administrative functions, and that was taken into account. If administration was too far away from City Hall, that could be an issue. Mr. Papé suggested that was the reason the option put forth by Ms. Taylor was not listed. Mr. Cohen agreed. Mr. Wilson said the chief wanted to be near the City Manager's Office but felt comfortable with the commanders being associated with their respective patrol functions. He said his firm could look at the adjacency relationships created by a nearby facility. One option not investigated was locating all police functions outside of downtown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 3 Work Shop Chief Lehner said the relationship between police administrative functions and the remainder of City Hall were stronger and more direct than the administration’s relationship with the line staff. He did not personally direct operations, but rather set the policies carried out by Command staff that affected operations. With regard to a separate building, as long as the administrative function was close to City Hall, it did not matter if it was in a separate building. The one place there were interrelationships between the future precinct model and the options was in terms of sizing. The time frame of the discussion did not affect that issue significantly. Mr. Kelly said his question was somewhat broader; he was also asking the chief’s position on which of the four options he preferred and why. Chief Lehner said any option would work for the department to deliver police services; the most efficient approaches appeared to be options B, C, and D. All three were better than Option A. He believed the best balance between cost, benefit, and relationship on a broad scale was represented by Option B. Mr. Pryor saw a tradeoff between the public interface and internal access in each of the options; Option C appeared to create the best balance, without creating a negative balance between internal and external access. Mr. Papé determined from Mr. Cohen that the options had not been weighted and that the consultants saw that as a task for the council. Ms. Bettman asked if the consultants had looked at the cost of travel time for patrol staff to reach the location of police administration. Mr. Wilson said yes; he pointed out that with regard to travel, the patrol officers would be in the field already. There would be some travel required for commanders to meet with the chief, and one of those individuals was already not in the downtown area now. Mr. Papé determined from Mr. Cohen the consultants assumed the Forensics Unit would remain in its current location. Mr. Papé did not want the fact the unit was housed in its own building now to influence the outcome of the issue. Ms. Bettman recalled that the Forensics Unit was to be housed separately on a temporary basis and then reunited with other police functions once consolidation of those services occurred. She questioned the assumption that the function would stay in the building in which it was currently housed, as the building was built to accommodate other uses once consolidation occurred. Mr. Wilson said at the outset the consultants considered the facility and determined that forensics was a function commonly located away from the police headquarters location. Its relocation could be explored, but it was a function which did not need to be located downtown. Mr. Papé thought the Forensics Unit should be reflected on the bubble diagram. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about how the options could be narrowed into an option that would be forwarded to the voters in the form of a bond measure, Mr. Cohen hoped to narrow down the options as the public process moved forward. During the summer, the consultants would test a few models with the public and potentially, there might be multiple approaches for the voters to consider. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 4 Work Shop Ms. Bettman recalled that the schedule called for the council to make a decision on an option in April. She asked how multiple options could be offered to the community if the council chose one in April. Mr. Cohen anticipated that the council would choose the option that made the most sense and then the consultants would apply the program to the other variables, the site options and the fate of the existing building. The options before the council addressed the programming element of the issue. Ms. Teninty anticipated a multi- year planning process and said the decisions the council would be making would describe the process to the degree conceptual designs could be created. At that time, the council could begin to discuss the issues of financing and phasing. Ms. Bettman thought once the council made its decision in April it should no longer pretend there would be multiple options for the public to consider. Ms. Teninty clarified that there would no longer be multiple options on how to structure police services. There would be multiple options regarding phasing, financing, and what should be built first. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Cohen the public would consider the options at a forum later in the month and there would be input for the council to consider in April. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé about including the Forensics Unit and Property Control in a bubble diagram. Mr. Kelly said neither the public nor council wanted to be told one thing one year and a different thing another year. When the council discussed the Forensics Unit and Property Control functions it heard a clear message from staff that the need for space existed and the department could not wait for a police building. It was implied at that time that the building housing those functions would become part of the Public Works campus. It was confusing and disconcerting to him that the council was now being given a different message than it had originally heard. Ms. Teninty asked the council if the considerations listed by the consultants were the correct considerations. Ms. Bettman asked what was meant by “essential services structure.” Mr. Wilson said the code mandated a higher level of structural resistance for public safety providers to allow them to provide emergency response after an emergency event. Ms. Bettman suggested that government decision makers should also be able to operate in an emergency because they were just as important as public safety providers. She thought the considerations seemed subjective. Mr. Wilson said the consultants were responding to the minimum requirements in the code. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wilson said the consultants have yet not estimated the costs of meeting those requirements. Mr. Kelly left the meeting. There was brief council discussion of the meaning of the consideration “public oversight of police activities.” Councilors acknowledged that the consideration was different from the external auditor function and accepted a suggestion from Mr. Wilson to supplant “oversight” with “awareness” to make that clear. Ms. Taylor wanted to replace the word “awareness” with the word “integration.” Ms. Teninty listed the suggestion separately. Councilors agreed there was value to keeping the consideration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Shop Ms. Bettman suggested that where the consultants had identified City Hall and other related functions, it should footnote that it included the Police Auditor’s Office. She believed that it was an administrative function that would have to communicate with other City administrative functions. Mayor Piercy questioned whether the presence of police in City Hall added to the perception of public safety. Ms. Bettman believed that it did. Ms. Ortiz found the presence of police cars in her neighborhood a cause for alarm. Mr. Papé said he liked having a police presence in the area. Ms. Teninty indicated she would note different positions on the part of councilors. Ms. Bettman found the rankings for the considerations to be relatively subjective in the light of supportive analysis. For example, with regard to the cost of land, the City owned land downtown and did not own land outside downtown, but that was ranked as negative. She found it misleading information. She acknowl- edged, in response to a question from Ms. Teninty, that the considerations were generally those the council had in mind but she believed the rankings were discretionary. Mr. Papé asked how other communities of similar size to Eugene, such as Boulder, Colorado, and Salem, Oregon, operated their police functions, and suggested that research be done in that regard. Mr. Cohen said that when the consultants shared the considerations with the public, it would not include the rankings and would solicit feedback on the issue. He did not anticipate universal agreement on the rankings. Ms. Teninty asked the council what further information it needed before the April meeting. Mayor Piercy anticipated that the council would weigh the considerations against one another to reach a decision. She said that some considerations may be a higher priority for some councilors. Ms. Teninty suggested that might be a discussion that required a separate meeting. Mr. Pryor suggested the public forums would provide the council with some direction regarding the community’s values as they related to the considerations. He wanted a summary of that information prior to the council’s April meeting. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s concerns, Ms. Wilson said that the consultant team debated about whether to rank the considerations and decided to include them to stimulate a conversation about the values that existed. He concurred they were subjective. Mr. Wilson agreed some revision might be needed, but the construction cost related to a location downtown was objectively greater, particularly if structured parking was required. That drove the ranking before the council. He said the consultant team could attach a number to that consideration if desired by the council. The council took a brief break. 3. Site Evaluation Criteria Mr. Wilson provided a brief overview of the preliminary site selection screening process, anticipating the outcome would be the identification of five or six sites for further examination. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 6 Work Shop Mr. Wilson shared some density models for the City Hall Complex Master Plan. Mr. Hacker called attention to the preliminary and Level Two site evaluation criteria developed by the consultant team. He invited additions and indicated that the public would also be asked to comment on the criteria. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wilson said the consultant team agreed to focus on sites that seemed viable inside the boundaries of the Downtown Plan area. Ms. Laurence reviewed the boundaries of the plan area. Ms. Bettman suggested that the consultant team review the criteria to eliminate those not related to a downtown location given that decision had been made. Mr. Hacker concurred. 4. Public Involvement Ms. Teninty provided an overview of the proposed public involvement plan, emphasizing the use of the values-based decision model. She noted the goals associated with the public participation spectrum and various associated outreach tools. Ms. Teninty summarized the results of the interviews she had conducted regarding public involvement, noting recommendations for additional avenues for public input other than the forums and the inclusion of an “unprogrammed voice,” which she interpreted as surveys and other arbitrary ways to seek opinions from those who do not generally attend hearings or forums. She said she also heard recommendations the council not seek input on decisions that had already been made, and a focus on the need for council leadership in this area. People expressed a desire that the council reach unanimity in as many areas as possible to build public support for the project, and a desire that the relationship of the project to other plans be made clear. People wanted the values of the project to be identified in many categories. Continuing, Ms. Teninty said there was support voiced for sustainability in the broadest, non-experimental sense. Skepticism was voiced about options that retained the current city hall building, but people were willing to consider all information before a final decision was made. She indicated she would provide a summary of the citizen interviews to the council and a list of those interviewed. Ms. Teninty noted the suggestions for additions and changes to the project values from those interviewed and asked the council if it was interested in carrying any forward. Suggested Additions: ? Safety ? Aesthetics ? Well-being of the work force ? Transparency MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Shop Suggested Changes: ? #2 Facilitate government efficiency ? #8 Strive for focus ? #7 Rewrite Ms. Teninty clarified that “transparency” referred to transparency of the process surrounding the project. The council agreed that the consultant team would rewrite #7 of the project values to reflect the input that had been received in regard to the need for city hall to be reflect inclusivity and access to government as well as welcoming to the public and a place where people could meet their friends before going to an event. Ms. Bettman suggested the wording “maximizes or supports public access to the public’s representatives and city government.” 5. Forum Preview Ms. Teninty reported that people could sign up to participate in the forum at www.eugenecityhall.com. The forum was scheduled to occur on March 23 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at First United Methodist Church. Ms. Teninty previewed the agenda for the upcoming community forum. Councilors asked questions clarifying the information to be presented and offered suggestions for changes, including a suggestion from Ms. Bettman for the addition of an open-ended question regarding the public’s criteria for selecting a model and elimination of the small group sessions. Speaking to the latter suggestion, Ms. Teninty indicated the consultant team would attempt to minimize the use of small groups but would use some small group formats in order to hear from more people. She said that participants would also fill out surveys at the end of the event and could express their thoughts through that instrument. Mr. Hacker expressed support for not showing the public the criteria but rather asking them an open-ended question regarding what they thought important in a site. Ms. Bettman suggested that it was not necessary to solicit public comment on the project values as those would be used by the council and she did not envision a productive discussion would ensue. She thought input on the other two major topics was more needed. Mayor Piercy suggested that starting with a discussion of values would help engage people and they could use the values as a filter for the other decisions they would be asked to make. Ms. Taylor concurred with the remarks of Ms. Bettman with regard to the value of an open-ended question and the elimination of the small group sessions. Ms. Teninty suggested the consultant team refer to the project values in the opening remarks and solicit written feedback on them. There was council concurrence. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Shop Mayor Piercy said she wanted to know what was most important to people with regard to a new city hall, and what would make a difference to them to influence them to support a new city hall. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 9 Work Shop