HomeMy WebLinkAbout100317_ad_hoc_City_Hall_Reccomendation
Page 1 of 3
Council Business Meeting
October 3, 2017
Title: Recommendation from the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
From: Ann Seltzer Management Analyst
ann.seltzer@ashland.or.us
Kaylea Kathol Project Manager
kaylea.kathol@ashland.or.us
Summary:
The ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee presents its recommendation on the replacement of
City Hall.
Actions, Options, or Potential Motions:
1) I move approval of the recommendation of the ad hoc City hall Advisory Committee to place
a GO Bond on the May 2018 election for $1 million to complete Phase II construction of the
Police Department and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) facility.
2) I move approval of staff’s recommendation to issue an RFQ for Architectural Design
Services.
Staff Recommendation:
1) Staff recommends approval of the Committee recommendation to place a GO Bond of $1
million to complete Phase II construction of the Police Department and EOC facility on the
May 2018 ballot. A 15-year loan at 3% interest will be $0.0319 per $1000 assessed value
(see attachment 2).
Rationale: The Council-approved Scope of Work of the ad hoc City Hall Advisory
Committee requires $1 million to complete Phase II construction of the Police Department
and EOC facility. The committee felt it would be beneficial to have the EOC bond on the
May 2018 ballot.
2) In addition, staff recommends the following action:
Publish an RFQ for Architectural Services for replacing/rebuilding City Hall with a target
budget of $10 million to include the following:
Phase 1. Develop conceptual preliminary drawings with planning level costs for all three
sites noted in the committee recommendation, (current location, Civic Center, and
Briscoe School).
Phase 2. Develop final design.
Phase 3. Construction Administration
COA050296
Page 2 of 3
Rationale: The ad hoc Committee recommendation states that given the uncertain costs
for the three location alternatives, they are unable to recommend a specific general
obligation bond amount for voter approval. Securing design/build concepts for the
proposed sites would provide the community and Council with visual drawings, planning
level costs and functionality of the proposed building and locations. The design of the
concepts would factor in the criteria developed by the ad hoc Committee.
The estimated costs for a new City Hall range from $8.5 million to $11.5 million. Setting
a target budget of $10 million gives the architectural firm a specific budget to work
within in designing the concepts.
The deadline to submit a ballot measure title for publication of notice is February 23 and
the final day to submit the ballot measure language is March 15. Given this timeline, it is
unlikely that an RFQ could be issued, a contract awarded and designs concepts completed
and available for review and a decision to meet the deadline for the May 2018 ballot.
Therefore, the ad hoc Committee recommends placing a GO Bond for City Hall on the
May 2019 ballot, allowing time to complete the phases of the RFQ noted above over the
next 18 months.
The ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee has indicated they would be willing to reconvene to
review the designs and costs.
Discussion Question
Does the City Council want to commission design concepts for all three sites or just the City-
owned sites?
Does the City Council wish to explore the acquisition of Briscoe School? If so, a letter of interest
from the City Council to the Ashland School Board would be a starting point.
Resource Requirements:
The recently approved facilities budget includes $100,000 for facility evaluations and studies. An
estimated $80,000 would be needed for architectural contractual services. The amount will
depend on whether the Council wants design concepts for all three locations: Civic Center,
Briscoe School and the current City Hall location. Staff estimates $40,000 for a single concept
plus $20,000 for each additional site.
Policies, Plans and Goals Supported:
City Council Goal 4.4: Examine city hall replacement and other facility needs.
Background and Additional Information:
In 2015, Council directed to staff to complete a new seismic study on City Hall and to move
forward with a comprehensive examination of options for replacing or rebuilding City Hall. The
City contracted with Miller Engineering to complete the seismic study and with ORW
Architecture to evaluate and develop options for replacing or rebuilding City Hall.
COA050297
Page 3 of 3
In January 2017, the Council reviewed the ORW feasibility study for the replacement of City
Hall and in April of 2017 appointed an ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee to review feasible
alternatives for the replacement of City Hall and to recommend an amount for a GO Bond for a
future election date and include $1 million to complete Phase II construction of the Police
Department and Emergency Operations Center facility.
As noted in the Committee’s final report, the eleven-person committee met ten times over the
past four months. All material related to the work was posted online as a Hot Topic on the City’s
website as well as all the agendas and minutes.
74% of the 2016 Citizen Survey respondents indicated support of making City Hall earthquake
resilient.
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee Members
Juli Di Chiro, chair and former Ashland
School District Superintendent
Ed Finklea, Executive – Natural Gas
Jac Nickels, Architect
Jerry Kenefick, Tax and Finance
Rich Miller, AWAC
Cathy Shaw, Former Ashland Mayor
Roger Pearce, Attorney
Darrell Boldt, Retired Contractor
Meiwin Richards, Retired Banker
George Kramer, Historian
Barry Thalden, Architect
Attachments:
1) Committee report and recommendation
2) Minority opinion from committee member Jac Nickels
3) Draft minutes from final ad hoc committee meeting
4) GO Bond Amortization Schedule
5) Public input
COA050298
COA050299
COA050300
COA050301
COA050302
COA050303
COA050304
COA050305
COA050306
COA050307
COA050308
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
Minority opinion submitted via email to committee Chair Juli Di Chiro and Vice Chair
Roger Pearce by Jac Nickels, committee member.
***************************** September 11, 2017 Juli & Roger,
I would like to further explain my decision for selecting Briscoe as my first choice and
Civic Center as my second choice. Let me first elaborate why I think the existing City Hall is a bad choice. One of the main
reasons is that there is no parking! Even though some folks believe we won’t be using
cars in 10 years, the reality is we will be using more cars than we are today with the
increase of the population. I for one, visit the Community Development building on a regular bases and parking is always a struggle and the problem multiplies from early May till late October. Another big reason I’m against this site is the ramifications of a
seismic event. Even though the new City Hall (whether existing or torn down and built
new) will be designed or retrofitted to meet the standards for an Essential Building-
Category IV, can you imagine what the “plaza” will look like when several of the non-reinforced buildings fall to the ground? I’ve worked on many buildings downtown and I’m very familiar with their construction. How will the City employees be able to function
when they won’t be able to get to work. To look at an even more horrific scenario, what
if Reeder Reservoir failed and all the City employees are stuck inside a building that
survived but are crippled because of all the debris from the flood piled up on the “plaza” If you remember, one of our criteria was to keep the new City Hall out of the path of Reeder Reservoir, but somehow that was eliminated from our list. Another
reason for not choosing that site was the difficulty of construction. Although this a
temporary problem it will most definitely affect the vitality of our City for a couple of
years. I do agree it would be nice to keep a “city” presence downtown but the negatives of this site far out weight the benefits of located the new City Hall on this site. This is not a good choice!
The reason I choose Briscoe as my first choice is that it would avoid all the negative
aspects of the existing City Hall site. It is very accessible and there is plenty of room for parking, the building is large enough to accommodate the City’s needs, the proximity to downtown is close enough for the employees to walk to lunch and it has great visibility
being the first major building you see coming into town from the North plus it’s also a
historic building. Another of the major advantages to this site is that it would retain the
existing playground for the Briscoe neighborhood which would likely disappear if the School District sold the property to a private developer.
The Civic Center of East Main Street was my second choice because it too would avoid
all the negative aspects of the existing City Hall site. It would have plenty of parking
and easy access. The cost of construction would be less as you are starting with a clean slate. The only disadvantage I can see is that you would lose the “downtown”
COA050309
presence. Although, with this site and Briscoe site, the mayor and his support staff could be located in another building downtown, whether it’s in the existing City Hall building or
in the existing Community Development building, if the Community feels that this
presence is a necessity.
In summary, either the Briscoe site or the Civic Center site would be best but not the existing City Hall site. There are way too many problems with that site to justify it.
Thanks,
Jac
Jac Nickels
Principle Architect
518 Washington Street, Suite 4
Ashland, OR 97520
COA050310
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 1
Draft Minutes
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
September 13, 2017
Com Dev, 51 Winburn Way 1:30 p.m
ATTENDANCE
Committee Members: Boldt, Di Chiro, Finklea, Kenefick, Kramer, Miller, Nickels, Pearce, Shaw, Thalden
Staff: Fleury, Kathol, Morrison, Seltzer
Absent: Richards
CALL TO ORDER: Di Chiro called the meeting to order.
Changes to the Minutes of the August 30 Committee Meeting were as follows:
• Page 4 – Shaw made the following changes:
o “Shaw said the best timing for an issue-based election is a mid-term primary election because
you have a difference in the profile of who votes versus who votes on a presidential cycle.
She said the best chance for passing a bond is in a mid-term primary because you have the
lowest voter turnout in part because non-affiliated voters (NAVS) cannot participate in a
partisan race, and mid-term primary voters are the most engaged, so you are dealing with a
different kind of an audience. “
• Page 4 – Shaw cut the sentence: “Shaw said that in a presidential primary you have 10% more
Jackson County voters participating then you typically do.”
• Page 4 – Shaw changed: “……because you can dramatically impact the turnout.”
• Page 4 – Di Chiro changed: “Di Chiro did not think we could agree on only one option.”
• Page 4 - Kramer changed “Kathol had arrived at $8.1 M for Briscoe and that entailed selling
ComDev….”
• Page 5 – Kramer changed ….”but 1b retained the façade, which accounted for the $1.2 M
difference.”
• Page 6 – Shaw changed ‘He” to “She” on Richard’s statement
• Page 7 – Finklea changed his statements to: “Build a new City Hall on the same site but it is
incumbent on the Council to make that choice after more financial analysis.” “He thought that
Briscoe should stay with the City if possible. His first choice is to stay with the existing site and his
second choice is going to the Civic Center.”
• Page 8 – Shaw changed – “Di Chiro and Pearce will work with….”
COA050311
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION by Boldt, second by Pearce to approve the Minutes of the August 30, 2017 ad hoc City Hall
Advisory Committee meeting as amended. Carried unanimously.
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATION:
Di Chiro thanked Pearce for his work and assistance on the draft of the Final Report and Recommendation to
the City Council. Di Chiro said that she reviewed all of the committee Minutes, reviewed Pearce’s first draft,
she and Pearce made changes and sent their draft to City staff for review. The committee members were
then sent the third draft. Di Chiro said the General Comments section were based on recurring themes from
the meeting Minutes. Committee members thanked Di Chiro and Pearce for their work on the Final Report
Draft. Members of the public that were present thanked the committee for their work. Di Chiro then asked
that committee members give their input on the draft, in particular, were the relevant issues captured? Was
anything missed?
Committee input was as follows:
• Kenefick recommended changing on Page 1 the sentence beginning the fifth paragraph to read: “The
costs will depend both on the Council’s final decision on an alternative and on the design of the
project.”
• Kramer recommended changing at the top of Page 2: …..”which should include $1M to implement
the Phase II Police Station project as directed by Council.”
• Shaw recommended changing on Page 5: ….”and the committee felt that abandoning the ComDev
Building was unwise because it is a relatively new building that functions fairly well currently.”
• Shaw recommended changing on Page 5, first bullet under Other alternatives: …. “that building is
relatively new and functions fairly well currently.” Shaw said the voters did not approve the ComDev
building, so that sentence was cut.
• Kramer recommended changing on Page 5: ….”These are close to the same alternative – the only
difference being that 1B would be estimated to cost more but would preserve the historic facade.”
• Kramer corrected on Page 6: “Some members pointed out that parking Downtown is a far larger
problem than just City employees….”
• Kramer asked that somewhere in the comments section it be noted that Briscoe and the Civic Center
were outside of the Hosler Dam concern and were not adjacent to other buildings in the event of an
earthquake.
COA050312
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 3
• Kramer recommended on Page 8 adding another bullet point with the sentence beginning: “The
committee recognizes that existing City facilities are cramped.…” Kramer and Boldt wanted it noted
that space needs are driven by the staffing increases.
• Kenefick wanted it noted that the committee had been asked by Council to include the $1M in the
Bond primarily to construct the Police Phase II. He thought it may be more acceptable to voters if
the wording focused more on the EOC instead of the Police Department.
The next step will be to make corrections and send out the revised Final Report to the committee members.
MOTION by Boldt, second by Shaw to approve as amended the Final Report and Recommendation to
the City Council. Carried unanimously.
Seltzer said that the Final Report and Recommendation will be presented to the City Council by Di Chiro on
October 3, 2017. Seltzer said some of Morrison’s presentation from the May 24 meeting would be included
for the benefit of the Council. Staff cover sheets will include specific recommendations from City staff.
Seltzer said there would be a RFQ for an architect to design concepts with cost estimates for all three sites.
She also said two points to be considered were:
1. The committee is agreeable to reviewing the design concepts once developed;
2. We will not be able to make a May 2018 ballot. The deadline to title and notice is by February 23,
2018 and the final language deadline is March 13, 2018.
Seltzer said that an RFQ would take a while to draft and would likely have to go back to the Council for
approval. We would be asking one firm to develop a concept for three sites, which is unlikely to be done for
inclusion on the May 2018 ballot. Shaw asked if three firms could be hired – one for each site. Seltzer said
that was cost prohibitive. One firm could cost $40,0000 for the first site concept design, and $20,000 for
each additional site concept design. She added that we could direct an architectural firm with a target budget
of $10M and then scale that down, but that we have to give the architectural firm parameters. In addition, we
need to know if the Council is interested in purchasing Briscoe. Why pay for a concept design if Briscoe is
not feasible or not available?
It would be great if the time-line allowed the committee to get design concepts and have them approved, but
that cannot be done by the May 2018 ballot deadlines. It could be March or April by the time the designs
were being reviewed for approval. Di Chiro said that the Council would have the prerogative to only cost
out one or two of the site options. If the City was interested in Briscoe, they could pursue that. The School
COA050313
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 4
District has their bond in the November election. Kramer said he would be willing to help draft bond
language.
Seltzer said that usually an Ad Hoc committee is disbanded once they give their Final Report. However, the
City Hall Ad Hoc committee has generally agreed to reconvene when given design concepts. The committee
members did not feel they could put the cost estimates together. Kramer said the committee could advise the
Council on a reasonable bond amount – ‘here are the three options and each design cost is $____.’ Nickels
disagreed. Kenefick said on the Fire Station bond, the committee knew what was acceptable to the voters
and they did not retool the numbers.
Seltzer said the committee has the benefit of meeting with the architect and giving input to dial down cost
estimates. The committee could work with the architect and on the designs. Kramer said that if the City goes
to a GL bond, it needs to be crafted so it meets with voter approval. Nickels said the committee was not
qualified to come up with a cost estimate for a design they have not seen. Di Chiro thought the Council had
more work to do – City staff cannot advocate for it, but the Council can. Thalden said that we would see
what the architect proposes and then someone has to oversee it – like a Design Committee. The Council
could decide to appoint a new committee, but if they want the current Ad Hoc committee to continue with
their work, then the Ad Hoc committee is willing to. Seltzer said she would explore if a dollar amount was
required to be included in the Title and Notice language.
Setlzer said that in theory, rather than going out for an RFQ, the City could do a direct award to ORW, who
completed all of the initial work. That could save three months on the timeline. The City can do a special
procurement and say to the Council that it would be more cost effective to give the direct award to ORW.
Fleury said that if you make a site selection, you would have to do a formal selection process. Seltzer said
there was budget left in the ORW scope to continue the work.
If we miss the May 2018 election, the next opportunity is a special election the next year. Otherwise, we are
competing with the School Board election. If we miss the May 2018 election, we would have to wait until
2019 and costs would go up. Seltzer said that if the Council wants to vote that the current City Hall location
is best, then the committee recommendation could be to follow forward with design and costs, but she felt it
was awkward asking the Council to pick one of the three site options. Pearce said the Council was free to
select one site. Kenefick said we are worrying about missing the May 2018 timeline, but what was the
hurry? Shaw said the EOC bond could go on the May 2018 ballot and not be combined with the City Hall
bond. The committee members liked that idea.
COA050314
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 5
MOTION by Kenefick, second by Kramer that the Ad Hoc committee recommends that the Council
put the EOC bond on the May 2018 ballot. Motion passed, with Di Chiro a nay.
Di Chiro said her vote was a nay because she felt the recommendation was outside the scope of the
committee’s charge. The committee generally felt it would be to everyone’s benefit to get the EOC bond on
the May 2018 ballot and have it stand on its own.
Seltzer said that forfeiture funds were used to complete Phase 1 of the Ashland Police Station to get it where
it needed to be Phase 2 is to build the EOC and there are not forfeiture funds for this project. Boldt
wondered if tagging the EOC Phase with the City Hall recommendation had an advantage, and Seltzer did
not think there was a specific reason to couple them together. Shaw said they become competing clauses
within themselves.
Seltzer wanted to revisit doing a direct award for the design concept. Fleury said we could do a direct award.
We have some money left in the budget but would have to have a conversation with ORW first. He did not
know ORW’s work load and that could drive the cost up. Even if we give ORW a set time line and they
come back with their prices, Council will have to decide if the schedule can be met or not.
Kramer, Kenefick and Nickels said they would rather wait a year to put the City Hall on the ballot and get it
right. Thalden thought the direct award was a good approach. Fleury said that to save time, the City could
do a full solicitation and scope the project in phases, and based on the outcome of the first phase, you can
continue to negotiate the next phases. Each phase is independent and can be brought to the Council. Nickels
added that if a firm is not performing, the contract can be amended at any time. Shaw thought that would
give the committee a chance to revisit the numbers as we go along. Kramer felt that the EOC independent
bond idea should be included in the committee’s final recommendation to the Council. We are better served
to get it right than do it too quickly.
MOTION by Shaw, second by Thalden to amend the recommendation to reflect that EOC be placed
on the May 2018 ballot independently and if it is not feasible, that it be placed on the ballot in the
Spring of 2019. Carried unanimously.
MOTION by Kramer, second by Shaw to include in the committee recommendation the offer of the
Ad Hoc committee to participate in the process going forward. Carried unanimously.
COA050315
ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee 6
Seltzer said she felt staff received significant direction from the committee. Di Chiro said next steps would
be to:
• Review the September 13 Draft Minutes
• Pearce and Di Chiro will update the Final Report and Recommendation
• City staff is discussing and deciding if they will make a recommendation to make a direct award to
ORW
• Send out the drafts of the Final Report and the September 13 Meeting Minutes for input from
committee members.
Since this was the final committee meeting, the Minutes will remain Draft Minutes, as the committee cannot
vote electronically.
Seltzer thanked all of the committee members for their time and thoughtful discussions. Di Chiro adjourned
the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shelly D. Hensarling
COA050316
Emergency Operation Center (EOC)
$1 Million Emergency Operations Center
Loan Amortization Schedule Assumptions:
15 Years
3% Tax Exempt Municipal Bond Rate
Impact on Assessed Valuations
COA050317
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
1
Email from Rick Vezie
August 8, 2017
From: Rick Vezie [mailto:rvezie@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 7:19 AM
To: Ann Seltzer
Subject: City Hall
Ann, please forward this email to all members of the City Hall Advisory Committee.
Thanks
All members of the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee,
Hopefully we have not reached the point where we are willing to trade off the gifts of our
heritage for the tyranny of convenience.
I attended the 8/2/17 committee meeting and have the following observations and comments –
The point was made that in conversations with citizens regarding the location of City Hall, most
or maybe all didn’t care if it was moved from the downtown. I confess that in the early nineties I
would have agreed, especially if it would have saved money and provided more parking.
I never gave our City Hall’s location any serious thought until numerous letters to the editor
started appearing in the Daily Tidings discussing the issue. After all, what possible difference
could it make? That was back in the early-mid 90’s.
I eventually came to understand that both the location and prominence our City Hall are
extremely important to the economic vitality and well-being of our town. One magazine article
highlighting Ashland several years ago said something to the effect “… where the town itself is
the main attraction.”
Beyond our other attributes, Ashland has three main things going for it – the festival, the
university and the fact that we are Mayberry. We lose any one of those three and it will cost us
dearly. We are to some degree, like a museum of small town America. We preserve our history,
we preserve our traditions and hopefully – we will preserve our heritage.
Are our restaurants and boutiques better than those of other towns? Well maybe, but that’s not
what brings people here. People visit our town because of the combination of unique
components, which provide them with lasting memories of a wonderful small town. The current
COA050318
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
2
location of our City Hall – pointing from its prominent corner toward the plaza and housing the
functioning leadership of our town’s government is a vital component of this combination. And
if our city government represents us, the building housing our leadership should represent us.
Perhaps we can even enhance that representation a bit in the near future.
In the end it really is location, location and location. That’s probably why most of us live here in
the first place.
There are of course – other options. One needs to look no further than Main Street Medford to
see a rather desolate alternative. They do however - have “plenty of parking.”
Rick Vezie
Member of the former City Ad Hoc Space Needs Study Committee
446 Walker Avenue
Ashland, Oregon 97520
********************************************************************
Email from Larry Cooper
August 7, 2017
From: Larry Cooper [mailto:lcooperashland@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:20 PM
To: jerryken@charter.net
Subject: City Hall committee stuff
Hi Jerry,
We spoke after your committee meeting about 3 weeks ago and I said that I would research the
remodel plans of the old City Hall from the early 1990's. I had remembered that the city did
some sort of seismic upgrade then, but it turned out all they did was a small bit of structural work
on the floors, but nothing to hold up the walls in the event of the "big one". Looking at the
structural drawings of that building gave me a sinking feeling that it would be a waste of money
to do much there. It's amazing that the City got away with having staff work in that building
which is a potential death trap in a major earthquake. The adjacent Shakespeare/ Pizza building
was structurally reinforced back in the 90's as well as several other downtown buildings.
COA050319
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
3
Ashland could potentially build a steel I-beam cage on the first floor of the City building that
would make it safe for workers on that floor. That would probably cost well under $1 million. If
I owned the City, I would do that and then build a new 3 story office building at the East Main
Campus to accommodate the rest of City space needs and create a quality work space for the
least cost. Just typing those words makes me realize that Council would almost never consider
such a modest proposal. I'm also of the opinion that the Briscoe School building is of no value to
the City. My kids attended there, and it was always a crappy space but with nice big windows. I
think the School District and the Parks Department need to partner on a solution to make the
Briscoe open space be a permanent park and leave the building to others; perhaps a non-profit
that could raise the money for necessary repairs. Thanks for your service on the committee. Let
me know if you want to talk about any of this. I'm around Ashland through mid September.
Larry Cooper 541 210-1458
***********************************************************************
Email from Sharon Javna
August 3, 2017
Hello Ad Hoc City Hall Committee,
Thank you for your service on the Committee. It’s a tough job, and an important one.
I’d like to follow up with you on my comments at the last meeting, with questions:
Are you interested in preserving the Briscoe building? Located in the Skidmore Academy
Historic District, the oldest residential area in Ashland, Briscoe School is on the National
Register of Historic Places in Jackson County.
It seems clear that City Hall in the current building should be preserved, and should continue to
be used for civic functions. For one, it’s an iconic building, and for another, we need to maintain
the City's title.
But could we keep City Hall as is, with seismic upgrades, possibly used for the Chamber, and
move all other public functions to Briscoe?
Has the Committee studied what could fit in Briscoe? Could it house the Muni Court (doubling
as Council Chambers,) Parks and Rec, and all staff currently working in the Com Dev building?
Have cost savings been examined if the Police used the whole Civic Center building (obviating
COA050320
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
4
the need for an expansion of the police department), the sale/lease of the Com Dev building, the
sale/lease of the Grove, the sale/lease of the present Chamber building, and leasing the upper
floor of City Hall as offices (providing for possible future expansion for new City staff)?
Has anyone studied whether funds are available from government, foundation grants and
individual donations to preserve Briscoe in order to bring down the costs to the voters?
Parking is a huge issue.
Does it make sense to build off-street parking structures at $20,000-$40,000 when the need for
parking is great in the short term, but will markedly decrease in the next 5, 10, 15 years due to
better public transit, more bikes and electric bikes, increased concern with our carbon footprint,
and more staff working remotely?
Would it be possible to get around the Parking Code by creating an exception for municipal
buildings?
Melissa’s parking plan is one option, but maybe we don’t need to change the Briscoe field at
all. The City could claim the 25+ angled spaces on Laurel as staff and visitor parking, claim the
spaces on the Briscoe side of Manzanita, and possibly buildi new ($5,000 to $7,000) angled off-
street parking on the Briscoe side of High Street? As Mellissa has shown, there is ample
additional street parking very close to Briscoe.
Has anyone talked to the Methodist Church about using its parking lot for a few evenings per
month for large public meetings?
Shouldn’t the parking issue be considered in light of new City priorities, including the approved
Climate Energy Action Plan and Parking Plan? Has the Committee examined the CEAP and
Parking Plans? Do you find it ironic that the City Hall Committee meetings are held away from
downtown (practically at Briscoe!) because there is no parking downtown?
Are benefits to Staff one of the criteria? Would staff rather move to the Civic Center, which is
isolated and far from downtown, with few amenities nearby? Or would they prefer Briscoe,
COA050321
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
5
which has its own park, is two blocks from downtown and is easily walkable to cafes,
restaurants, the current City Hall, and Lithia Park?
Would the merchants support more traffic and less parking downtown? Would voters support
expensive new construction and parking lots when instead they could preserve two beautiful,
historic buildings?
A lot of questions. But I think they all deserve answers from the Committee.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sharon
Email from Larry Cooper
July 24, 2017
To the Ad hoc City Hall Committee:
Dear Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to share this. I am very concerned that the study that future city
staff space needs is based on is flawed when it comes to projecting future space needs for city
staff based on staff population. The model that was used to project "workstation" space needs,
etc, was apparently based on what most of us in the room have experienced in our work places:
one desk/cubicle per worker plus some additional "floating" workstations for serving customers.
This model is becoming obsolete as I write this. In more cutting edge work places today, workers
are not tied to specific office spaces. They have their office with them on a phone, tablet or very
lightweight and portable laptop. They often or sometimes always work from wherever in the
world they currently reside. The central corporate or government office is primarily a virtual
space that is cloud based and includes all the data, emails, apps, etc that workers need to
complete their tasks and communicate with co-workers and customers. Weekly staff meetings
COA050322
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
6
happen on line with full video conferencing amenities so that workers do not have to travel and
work spaces do not need large conference rooms in order for collaboration to occur. This is all
happening right now. It is a trend that will, in the next 5-10 years, become the norm in corporate,
professional, and yes, small government organizations. Ashland has been a bit slow to adopt
telecommuting and definitely slow to embrace this future, but it is coming and will be here
before any new building is completed. The point of all this is to point out that the study for future
work space is dictating the need for more space than is unfolding in current reality: fewer
workers work onsite and they don't drive cars to work as often mass transit or not! Please ask
staff about these discrepancies between the study and what is clearly indicated by present work
trends as they move into the near future. Ashland needs a City Hall and staff facilities that fit
future changes. I'm old enough to remember when the City funded and built a sewage treatment
plant based on a similarly flawed analysis that sent the City on the path of building a plant
designed for "present" conditions that turned into an opposite future. We ended up with an
overbuilt, expensive solution that smelled bad for years and we're still feeling financial pain
from. Please don't let a similar thing happen with our current space needs.
Submitted by Larry Cooper, 259 B Street, Ashland 541 210-1458
P.S. I worked for 10 years as an information technology manager in the late 90's and 2000's and
learned many lessons about how quickly change comes upon the work place.
Email from Sharon Javna
July 22, 2017
Hi George,
Thank you for your service on the City Hall Committee. It’s a tough job, and an important one.
I’d like to follow up with you on my comments at the last Committee meeting.
A few questions:
Are you interested in preserving the Briscoe building?
COA050323
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
7
I know your first choice for City Hall is the current building, and I agree that it should continue
to be used for civic functions. For one, it’s an iconic building, and for another, it needs to
continue to house City functions in order to maintain its title.
But could we keep City Hall as is, with seismic upgrades and City use as the Chamber and non-
public City functions, and move all other public functions to Briscoe?
Has the Committee studied if Briscoe could fit all public City functions? Could it house the Muni
Court and all other City staff, including Parks and Rec, and all staff currently working in the
Com Dev building?
Have cost savings been examined if the Police used the whole Civic Center building (obviating
the need for an expansion of the police department), the sale/lease of the Com Dev building, the
sale/lease of the Grove, the lease/sale of the present Chamber building, and leasing the upper
floor of City Hall (providing for possible future expansion for new City staff)?
Has anyone studied whether funds are available from government, foundation grants and
individual donations to preserve Briscoe in order to bring down the costs to the voters?
Parking is a huge issue. Does it make sense to build off-street parking structures at $20,000-
$40,000 when the need for parking is great in the short term, but will markedly decrease in the
next 5, 10, 15 years due to better public transit, more bikes and electric bikes, increased concern
with pollution, and more staff working remotely?
Can we get around the parking Code issue, either by modifying the Code altogether or creating
an exception for municipal buildings?
Melissa’s parking plan is one option, but maybe we don’t need to change the Briscoe field at all,
by claiming the angled spaces on Laurel as staff and visitor parking, claiming spaces on the
Briscoe side of Manzanita, and possibly building new ($5,000 to $7,000) angled off-street
COA050324
Email send to the ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
8
parking on the Briscoe side of High Street? As Mellissa has shown, there is ample additional
street parking very close to Briscoe.
Has anyone talked to the Methodist Church about using its parking lot for a few evenings per
month for large public meetings?
Shouldn’t the parking issue be considered in light of new City priorities, including the recently-
approved Climate Energy Action Plan (with an already budgeted full-time staff position) and the
Parking Plan, for which we paid a huge amount of consulting fees, and which will be adopted in
its present or modified form very soon? Has anyone on the Committee examined the CEAP and
Parking Plans? Do you find it ironic that the City Hall Committee meetings are held away from
downtown (practically at Briscoe!) because there is no parking downtown?
Are benefits to Staff one of the criteria? Would staff rather move to the Civic Center, which is
isolated, far from downtown, and has no amenities nearby, such as a park or restaurants? Or
would they prefer Briscoe, which has its own park, is two blocks from downtown and is easily
walkable to cafes, restaurants, the current City Hall, and Lithia Park?
Would the merchants support more traffic and less parking downtown? Would voters support
expensive new construction and parking lots when instead they could preserve two beautiful,
historic buildings?
A lot of questions. But I think they all deserve answers from the Committee.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sharon
COA050325
Paradigm Shift
Briscoe ~ City Hall
Partnerships & Commitments
Twelve years ago, as chair of the Lithia Arts Guild of Oregon, I finalized the
contract with Ashland Schools, that allowed the ArtWing to become a
reality. I wish to thank the District for their unwavering support of our
program, and welcome the prospect of Briscoe becoming Ashland’s new
City Hall. As Guild Chair I have kept myself abreast of negotiations
between the District, City, Parks, Save Our School Playgrounds (SOSP), and
interested community members. Based upon these observations, I believe
that a decision crafted to satisfy all participants will create a momentum,
through partnership, that will realize our mutual vision.
Historic Commitments
The site of Briscoe Elementary (built in 1949) was purchased by the
Community for the purpose of building a school in 1889. There remains a
basalt stone block, near the school entrance, that was used by children to
mount horses in their day. Although there are no historic obligations
regarding the building, the surrounding property was long ago designated as
part of the City’s commitment to open space. The neighborhood has
matured on the surety of this commitment.
In 1907 our current City Hall was donated to the City, by a prominent
Ashland family, with the stipulation that it would remain a viable City facility
in the years to come.
These commitments are held in trust by the institutions that represent our
community, but as members of the community we share in the
responsibility to maintain them.
A Changing Landscape ~ Paradigm Shift
The synchronicity of Ashland Schools divesting themselves of Briscoe, while
preparing for the promulgation of a 10 year building maintenance/upgrade
bond; and the City’s need of a new City Hall, and concomitant funds for
construction, will require a strong coalition, speaking with one voice, to
insure voter approval.
The School District has acted in good faith, in its willingness to trade the
Briscoe property in exchange for a waiver of building permit fees. My
understanding is: the District is bound, by Federal and State law, to
document and execute the engineering of their construction at a level that
facilitates the job of Ashland Building Inspectors. Thus the burden of this
property/fee exchange would not be onerous.
In choosing Briscoe as Ashland’s new City Hall, the City gains the interior
space and parking it needs, preserves the playground (see design
proposal), gains an activist ally in SOSP, and sidesteps the need to move
during construction. Further, both the Ashland School District and the City
would be celebrated for their roles in “passing the torch” to a finish that
preserves the Briscoe School Playground. (over)::::>
COA050326
Uses for the current City Hall, after remodeling, are numerous as well as
exciting:
1) As a new Parks Headquarters, located adjacent to the Front
Lawn of Lithia Park, there would be room enough for Parks
administration and staff to be located under one roof.
2) A portion of the building could be dedicated as a City Museum, for
an educational addition to the downtown milieu.
3) A Town Hall Community Center could host a variety of meetings
and events. 4th of July, Halloween, the Honey Bee Festival, and Taste
of Ashland all come to mind.
4) The Chamber of Commerce might find a portion of the space to
their liking.
The Design (see plan)
Parking: Parking is laid out to minimize the impact of traffic on the
neighborhood. Visitors and staff would be directed to onsite or angle park,
all via Laurel St.; thus preserving established traffic patterns and making
full use of the stop light at North Main and Laurel. Long term staff parking,
along the length of the building, would relieve potential congestion in this
area. The addition of angle parking on Manzanita would simultaneously
create a compelling entrance into the park, without impacting the width of
the street.
Main & Historic Building Entrances: I see the Historic Entrance remaining
locked, with the exception of special events.
Stairs to the Park: Sight lines for pedestrians and vehicles are much better
at the corner stairway.
Final Thoughts
Nothing we did within the ArtWing compares with the cultural significance of
First Nations Day and MidSummers Dream Art & Music Festivals.
There is freedom in open space: it belongs to no one and is shared by us
all. Artists will always find studio space, but open space? Let us build trust,
and work as partners to fulfill our commitments to parklands and promises.
Once again I would like to thank the City, Ashland Schools, and the Briscoe
Neighborhood for their support of culture, the arts and particularly the
ArtWing over the past 12 years. I find it wonderfully interesting that the
theme of the last MidSummers Dream Art & Music Festival was “Paradigm
Shift”.
James Royce Young
Lithia Arts Guild of Oregon
chair
COA050327
COA050328
COA050329
COA050330
COA050331
COA050332
COA050333