HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 24 17 email to Juli1
July 24, 2017
July 24, 2017
Hi Juli,
I will be out of town the rest of this week and want to let you know I’ve divided the time
allocation for the August 2 meeting as follows: 45 minutes for the presentation on GO Bonds, 45
minutes for the committee to review and discuss the criteria and 10 minutes for John Karns to
speak about the requirement for the committee to include $1 million for Phase 2 of the Police
Station. At the last meeting, it appeared as though some members think the expansion is not
necessary and the EOC could be accommodated at the Grove. NOT including $1 million for
Phase 2 is not an option.
In addition, I want to offer the following as food for thought and perhaps a spring board for
discussion regarding the criteria. I apologize in advance if this seems nit-picky, but it is
important the committee be able to articulate their rationale in their recommendation both to the
City Council and to voters and therefore the committee needs to be clear on the meaning of the
criteria they use.
1) Option is cost effective (rank #1)
This criteria received 29 votes but staff is confused about the practical application of this criteria
and how the committee will/can use it as a means to evaluate all of the options. Since there
aren’t established standards that apply to “cost effective” the committee should discuss this in
more detail and narrow down what they mean and how it will be used.
A quick google search of “cost effective” as it applies to building design and construction offers
the following:
• Is it the design with the lowest operative and maintenance cost?
• Is it the option with the longest life span?
• Is it the facility in which users are most productive?
• Is it the building that offers the greatest return on investment?
• Is it the option with the least cost per square foot?
Since the committee isn’t evaluating building design and construction we wonder if the
committee means for the criteria to read “Option is least expensive” rather than “Cost Effective”.
If so, the least expensive option negates all of the options that are higher in cost and by default
becomes a selection choice rather than a standard by which to judge the other options.
2) Preserves the historic use of City Hall (rank tied for #2)
This criteria received 22 votes and is also puzzling. There is only one option that can be
judged/evaluated using this criteria: tear down City Hall and build a new one. In essence, the
committee has stated (rather strongly) an alternative, rather than a criteria. Applying this criteria
as stated negates the evaluation of the other options. Perhaps what the group means, is they want
some sort of civic function to continue in the existing City Hall but not necessarily the current
administrative functions of a City Hall? It should be acknowledged that every alternative could
COA050050
2
July 24, 2017
meet this criteria, as the existing City Hall could continue to be used on a periodic basis for civic
functions regardless of where the new City Hall building is located. Staff wishes to emphasize
that the building has housed a wide variety of civic functions over the past century, so there is
precedent for using the building other than for administrative functions. If this is indeed the
committee’s intentions, the committee can include this desire and state it as a preference in the
recommendation to the City Council.
3) Option provides flexibility (ranking tied #2)
The committee should clarify what they mean by flexible. We’re guessing they mean flexible
architecture such as adaptable interior to accommodate evolving functions, moveable walls, open
floor plans, etc. But since this applies to a building design and not a site location this would be
better used as a statement of preference in the recommendation to the City Council.
4) Acceptable to Voters (ranked #3)
How can/will this be used as an objective evaluation on the options? And how does the
committee know what is acceptable to voters other than their own personal opinions? One person
may think “acceptable to voters” relates to cost, another may think it relates to location, another
may think it relates to function. Staff encourages the committee to re-visit the original wording
of this criteria, which provides that the alternative is “saleable to voters”. Saleable suggest that
the Committee’s choice is defensible when weighed against objective criteria.
Thanks for taking the time to read the above and to give it some thought. I’ll send the agenda
and draft minutes to the committee next Monday, July 31. Do you think I should include the
above information or will it look like staff is trying to drive the boat?
Thanks, Ann
COA050051