HomeMy WebLinkAboutResults of Criteria Identification and rankingResults of Criteria Identification and ranking
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
Requirements
• Must meet 2030 space needs
• Must be seismically sound
Ranking of Criteria to Evaluate City Hall Options
RANK CRITERIA VOTES NEEDS
CLARIFICATION
1 Cost effective 29 see note 1
2 Preserves historic use of City Hall 25 see note 2
3 Provides flexibility 22 see note 3
4 Acceptable to voters 15 see note 4
5 Retains downtown presence 11
6 Provides off-street parking for
employees, customers
7
7 Provides parking that can be converted to other uses 6
8 Services are conveniently located 5
9 Provides consolidated services (CY
Hall + Com Dev)
4
10 On the Plaza 4
11 Preserves historic façade 3
12 Potential to increase public parking 3
13 Avoids legal cloud relating to 1884 deed 2
14 Construction impact 1
15 Outside Hosler Dam Inundation Zone 1
Note 1: Option is cost effective.
Staff is confused about the practical application of this criteria and how the committee will/can
use it as a means to evaluate all the options. Since there aren’t established standards that apply
COA050630
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 operating 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?
Does the committee means the least expensive option 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.
Sorry if this is nitpicky but it is important that the committee be able to articulate their rationale
in their recommendation both the City Council and to voters.
Note 2: Preserves the historic civic use of City Hall.
This criteria 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 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
intention, the committee can include this desire, preference etc. in the recommendation to the
City Council.
Note 3: Option provides flexibility.
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 preference in the recommendation to the City Council.
Note 4: Acceptable to voters.
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
COA050631
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 provided that the alternative is “saleable to voters”. Saleable
suggests that the Committee’s choice is defensible when weighed against objective criteria.
COA050632