HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2006 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2006
The City of Springfield Council met in a special work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Thursday, January 26,2006 at 12:18 p.m., with Council
President John Woodrow presiding.
A1lENDANCE
Present were Councilors Ballew, Lundberg, Fitch, Ralston, Woodrow, and Pishioneri. Also
present were Interim City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder
Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken was absent (excused).
I. Justice Center Site Design Options - P50434.
Councilor Woodrow reminded Council that there were a lot of members of the church in the
downtown and a lot of emotions tied to the church. As Counci11ooked at the options presented,
Council needed to keep in mind that although the drawings indicated public parking on certain
options, that parking was still in the possession of the church and the Carter building and was not
public parking. He said the architects were aware of that.
.
Councilor Woodrow also noted that the public meeting scheduled for February 6 would be
moved to February 21 to allow time to invite all members of the Washburne Neighborhood to
provide public input. Staff would also provide traffic counts for 4th and B Streets during the
February 21 meeting.
Project Manager Carole Knape1 presented the staff report on this item. On November 28, 2005,
the Council approved an Agreement with Robertson Sherwood for the design of the Justice
Center facility. The contract requires the architect to develop four site design concepts to be
considered by the City. At this Work Session, the four options will be presented.
When the City selected the architect for the Justice Center project, the selection criteria
addressed the importance of this project and the impact that this facility would have in the
. downtown area. Because of this issue, the contract with Robertson Sherwood Architects required
that four initial site design options be developed. The development of four options allows the
City of Springfield to compare the site designs and select the one best suited to the City's vision
and requirements.
To develop the options, the architects met with the User Groups (courts, police, city prosecutor
staff), City technical staff, the Executive Team and the Community Advisory Committee.
Initially the architects prepared and presented fourteen concepts and presented these to each of
the groups in December. The review and discussion of these concepts resulted in the
development of the options presented in Attachment A.
.
City of Springfield
Council Special Work Session Minutes
January 26, 2006
Page 2
.
The development of each of the options in Attachment A includes an analysis of the benefits and
challenges of each option. In addition, the cost of each site design option has been compared and
the cost premiums have been identified.
These four options have been presented to the User Groups, the City technical staff, the
Executive Team and the Community Advisory Committee. A Public Forum was also conducted
on January l8 in order to obtain input from all interested community members. Notices for the
forum were published in the paper. Another Public Forum would be held the fIrst week in
February, Invitations would be sent out to surrounding property owners for this forum. Staff
would return to Council on February 21 with the input from all groups and forums and seek
direction from Council on which design they would choose.
Ms. Knapel thanked Council for taking time from their busy schedules to attend this special
meeting. She acknowledged the architects who would be giving the presentation. She
introduced Carl Sherwood from the Architectural Firm, Robertson Sherwood Architects.
Mr. Sherwood gave a summary ofthe process. He said additional information had been included
to address questions received last week.
.
Buddy Golson, Rosser International Architects started the power point presentation and
discussed the four options. He said the options were not rated in any way. These were not
architectural designs, but site diagrams used to analyze how this project could fit on the site, how
the parking could work and how the buildings could work. The next phase would include an
architectural design, including floor plans. Mr. Golson described the location and design of each
option. He discussed the pros and cons of each option as noted in Attachment A included in the
Agenda Packet and displayed on the power point presentation.
Mr. Golson said there was interest by some to look back at some of the original fourteen options
that included stacking the Jail and the Courts. He said if the building was stacked, there would
be more land for parking and it would improve the movement of inmates to the Court. He
discussed some of the issues with building ajai1 above office space, including possible
intentional flooding by the inmates in their jail cells. He also noted that if the jail was not
originally built and it was later added on top of the Police and Courts, it would be very disruptive
and cost more. He discussed the option of building the jail under the Police and Courts.
Someone had asked if only the shell of the jail could be built below and finished later. He noted
the difficulties in doing that because of the complexity of the construction of the jail. He said the
shell would need to be almost complete because of the many small components of the jail. He
discussed issues with foundational structures built for a second story.
In summary, Mr. Golson said the stacked approach was an option, but the problems were greater
than with the other options. He said they had asked the Contract Manager (CM) partners to look
at the costing for both stacking options.
Mr. Sherwood introduced Frank Shepard, Project Manager for Heery International, heading up
the Heery/Hy1and team who would be discussing the comparative cost analysis.
.
Mr. Shepard said they had been tasked with cost estimating on the different options. He said
Option 2 had been used for the baseline because it had the fewest impacts regarding costs,
although it did relocate the Police. He referred to the power point presentation which showed the
Comparative Cost Analysis for each option. This information was also included in Attachment
in the agenda packet. He discussed the Comparative Cost AnalySis and explained the differences
City of Springfield
Council Special Work Session Minutes
January 26, 2006
Page 3
.
in each option. He said the figures did not include the cost for land acquired because they were
not yet sure of those costs. He said the stacking option would cost an additional $1,300,000 with
a parking deck.
Ms. Knapel noted that Councilor Ballew had asked a specific question regarding a parking deck
and any of the options could include a parking deck. The cost of building a parking deck that
would hold approximately 100 cars would be $1,100,000.
Councilor Fitch asked if that was a total of 100 cars or 100 on each deck.
Mr. Shepard said it would be 100 on each deck.
Councilor Ballew asked if she could have side by side comparisons of the costs of the Facility.
Ms. Knapel said she had intended to provide Council with that information in an upcoming
Communication Packet. That would also include information on the stacked options and the
parking deck costs.
Ms. Pappas asked if Councilor Ballew was asking for total costs of each option on one sheet.
Yes.
Councilor Fitch asked what the amount was on Option 2 as the baseline.
.
Ms. Knape1 said the cost estimating that had been done so far came out ofthe Program document
in which Liebert and Associates gave an estimate per square foot. She said the costing that was
done at that time was based on those numbers from past experience of typical construction costs
for like construction. She said the cost of Option 2 fit most closely with the Program document
and were in line with the budgeted amount from the bond measure.
Councilor Fitch asked if Option 2 could be built within the budget from the bond measure that
was passed.
Ms. Knapel said that was the assumption.
Councilor Fitch asked if the facility could be built with additional funds left over, or if anything
extra added would put them over budget.
Ms. Knape1 said Option 2 would fit into the budget, and any of the other options would require
additional funding or taking away of elements of the Program to fit within the budget. She said
Option 2 was the best estimate of what could be built within the bond measure.
Discussion was held regarding the additional cost of the other options and how they could be
reduced to fit within the budget.
Councilor Fitch asked what the range included.
Ms. Knape1 said the next step, once the design selection was made, was to prepare a detailed
analysis that would give the costs.
.
Councilor Fitch said it seemed that solid numbers needed to be known by Council before they
could make a decision on the design option.
City of Springfield
Council Special Work Session Minutes
January 26, 2006
Page 4
.
Mr. Sherwood said this was a site development exercise, to look at issues such as street closures
and property acquisitions. He explained how the other options could be adjusted to fit within the
budget. If adjustments were not made, additional funding would be needed.
Mr. Golson discussed parking issues with Option 2.
Ms. Knapel said the original budget from the bond measure did include money for leasing space
from other property owners for parking.
Councilor Lundberg discussed the new contract with Liebert and the amount of money being
spent on this project for design work, architects and CM/GC. She said for all the money spent at
this point, she expected to see four options that fit within the budget. She said her assumption
was that this project would not go outside the budget. She said the question for Council was
whether or not they wanted to stay within the parameters of the bond measure budget. She said
none of the options seemed to be within what the voters had approved.
Councilor Ralston said it was simple to him. Option 4 was not an option. Option 2 was the only
option that would allow the Police to operate in their current location while the new Police
Facility was being built. He said he didn't want anything that interfered with the existing church
or Carter property.
.
Councilor Ballew said Option 2 was not viable because it would close B Street and reroute traffic
into the Washburne Neighborhood, her neighborhood. She said a lot of money had been spent to
improve and widen B Street and it was an excellent arterial street between 14th Street and Pioneer
Parkway. She also noted that 4th Street was also a good north/south street, but she would be
more willing to close 4th than B Street.
Councilor Ralston said once the facility was built as Option 2, people would take different routes
anyway.
Councilor Woodrow said that question was brought up in the Citizen Advisory Committee
meetings. He noted that traffic counts for both B Street and 4th Street would be provided at the
next meeting that would separate public traffic.
Councilor Ballew said whatever traffic was diverted would go into a neighborhood.
Councilor Fitch asked if one of the original options included reversing the block and putting the
Jail where the Police Court was and the Police Court on B Street, with stacked parking across the
street in the current parking lot. That could close 4th Street, which was less of an issue, but
would eliminate the relocation and reduce the l.8 to l. This would be similar to Option 4, but
keeping it all on the City's existing land with the closure of 4th between A and B Streets. She
said it didn't include the improvement of A Street, but B Street could be the entrance.
.
Councilor Pishioneri noted that the Police, Courts, Jail and secure parking needed to be
connected physically, requiring a lot of square footage and adjacent property. He said the only
available square footage would be street footage. He discussed the benefit of Option 2 and not
haying to cross the street. He discussed the diversion of traffic ifB Street were closed. Option 2
had less financial impact and better connectivity. Only the alley would have to be moved, which
included only a small amount of infrastructure.
City of Springfield
Council Special Work Session Minutes
January 26, 2006
Page 5
.
Mr. Sherwood reviewed what Councilor Fitch had suggested. He said the fatal flaw in that
approach was that there was no direct relationship between the Police/Courts and their secure
parking. He said that was one of the key features of all options. He said the Program called for
seventy- five secure parking spaces.
Councilor Ballew asked how much secure parking was needed and ifthe Police had it now.
Chief Smith said currently the City had sixty spaces. He explained the vehicles that used that
parking and the need for that number of spaces. He noted that officers were coming and going at
all times and were not all there at one time. Other agencies also used the parking when they
came to the Police facility. He said what was built today needed to be effective fifty years from
now.
Councilor Lundberg asked about functionality.
Mr. Sherwood said they had discussed that with the User Groups.
.
Ms. Knapel said the function worked for each of the four options, and included the same number
of staffing. Options 1 and 2 provided the best connection between the Police/Courts building to
the Jail, making it more efficient. Option 2 had the advantage of having the ancillary building
adjacent to'the Police/Courts building which would have significant impacts on the Police staff.
Items stored in the ancillary building would be needed by Police staff. Options 3 and 4 had a
hallway connection between those functions making them less efficient. She said the Jail would
be designed to have video arraignment, but there would be people held in the Jail that would
need to go to trials and other hearings that would need to be transported through those hallways.
She addressed the issue of secure parking. Option 1 had secure parking limited to what would fit
below building. Option 2 had a better ability to expand the parking in the future. Option 3 also
had good flexibility for secure parking. Option 4 had a limited number of secure parking spaces
and no opportunity to expand.
Councilor Lundberg said Option 2 was the best option for functionality and had the baseline cost.
Councilor Ralston said there was another possibility. He said he did not want to disrupt the
church, but the Carter property was still on the table. He asked what would happen if the City
got access to the Carter parking and gave it to the church for their parking. B Street could be left
open and at the end of the Police/Courts would be the secure parking. He asked if that could be
configured to give enough secure parking. There would still be some employee parking across
the street, but B Street could be left open.
Mr. Sherwood reviewed that option. With that option, the entrance to the Court building would
be off B Street.
Mr. Golson said that option had not been considered because they had determined that if the
Carter property were acquired, it would be used for a building and not parking. He also noted
that the ancillary building would be across the street.
Mr. Sherwood said itwas that type of hybrid approach of Options 2 and 4 that would be required
to keep B Street open.
.
Mr. Shepard said the cost element would include purchasing the Carter property and demolishing
the building which would be about $70,000 plus the cost of purchasing the property.
City of Springfield
Council Special Work Session Minutes
January 26, 2006
Page 6
.
Ms. Pappas said staff could give Council a summary of the results of the Citizen Advisory
Committee (CAC) meetings.
Ms. Knapel noted that there were several members and the Chair of the CAC in the audience.
Councilor Ballew suggested using the Booth Kelly site for additional staff parking.
Ms. Knape1 said the CAC saw the same presentation that Council was seeing and hosted a Public
Forum Open House, They talked with members of the public who looked at the options and
received input from the citizens. The CAC reconvened that evening and voted on their
preferences. She said there was a tie with half the votes going to Option 2 and half going to
Option 4. She said one ofthe primary issues was trying to save the church and not use the
church property. Option 2 gained support because of the functionality issues and secure parking.
Those who preferred Option 4 were looking at the development along 5th Street as part of the
potential impact of developing downtown Springfield.
.
Councilor Fitch said she would like to get input from the Washburne neighbors at the next public
meeting. She suggested looking at other communities for examples. She said the City needed to
be very careful before closing major streets and was not sure there was justification for closing B
Street. She said 4th Street could be closed with justification. She had a concern that the project
was built within the budget. All questions needed to be considered creatively so there would not
be a shortage of funds at the end of the project. She said it was too early to choose an option and
staff conflIlIled that Council did not need to make that choice tonight. She said it had been a
good discussion and needed to continue. More citizens would be providing feedback.
Councilor Lundberg said she wanted to see the options without a jail because at this time there
was no funding for jail operations. She would like to see which option would be the most viable
and the costs.
Councilor Ballew asked why the Public Safety Facility couldn't be place on the Booth Kelly
property since the City already owned it.
Mr. Tamu10nis said most of Booth Kelly was unconsolidated fill and would require pilings for
most buildings. He said those options were considered ten to fifteen years ago and that type of
foundation would raise the cost about twenty to twenty-five percent.
Ms. Pappas noted that leasing the space at Booth Kelly generated funds for the City.
Councilor Ballew said there was room to keep the existing buildings and add the new building.
Councilor Pishioneri discussed the church and said concentration needed to be on the project.
He said the church was private property and may not be a church tomorrow. He said it was out
of the City's control and could be sold at any time.
.
Councilor Woodrow said a lot of people on the CAC were from the Washburne District. He said
moving the public hearing to February 2l would allow more time to receive input from the
neighbors and the citizens in general. He said the options presented by the architects were just
options to consider and were not architectural drawings, but site plan potentials. He said it was
important to get input from the councilors and citizens to get an idea of what everyone wanted,
what was affordable and how we could provide a Police and Jail facility. .
City of Springfield
Council Special Work Session Minutes
January 26, 2006
Page 7
.
Ms. Pappas said staff received a request from the Lane County Justice Court to ask if the Public
Safety Facility could accommodate the continued use of some Lane County Justice Court use.
She said she wanted Council to consider that request. That issue would be discussed at a future
meeting. She said information would be sent in the Communication Packet to address Council's
questions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1 :20 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
Am~M~
City Recorder
.
.