Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1996-02-2339 City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting City Hall Conference Room A 760 Parkview Avenue Redding, California February 23, 1996 9:30 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kehoe with the following Council Members present: P. Anderson, R. Anderson, McGeorge, Murray and Kehoe. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, City Attorney Wingate, Director of Public Works Galusha, Director of Electric Utility Lindley, Fire Chief Wagner, Assistant City Engineer Aasen, Finance Officer Strong, Management Assistant to the City Manager Bachman, City Treasurer Linville, and City Clerk Strohmayer. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIC CENTER COMMITTEE AND CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE (C-050-025) City Manager Warren viewed the proposed Civic Center project as modest and affordable. He stated that the proposed size is absolutely necessary to meet the City's projected ten-year growth. He explained that the proposed cost is comparable to private sector buildings constructed in Redding and has been adjusted for prevailing wage requirements. He emphasized that the project's funding sources which have been identified do not require any new or increased taxes or fees. Mr. Warren noted that there is never going to be a better time, a more "palatable" plan, or a more influential support network for the Civic Center project. Therefore, he stated it is time to either move forward with the Civic Center or move on to other projects. Mr. Warren summarized that the City Council is being requested to endorse the joint recommendations of the City Council of the City Council Subcommittee and the Civic Center Committee. Given certain financial and design parameters, he related that the recommendations would basically permit the City to move forward with a 100,000 square foot City administration building on a yet -to -be determined site near the existing City Hall. He stated that he fully concurs with the recommendations contained in the Report to City Council dated February 16, 1996, incorporated herein by reference. He indicated that if the City Council endorses the recommendations today, staff would move forward with having some site plans prepared and would direct the architect to complete the preliminary design schematics. The following month, staff would be asking the City Council to make decisions on a specific site plan and design concept of the building, as well as determine how the specific design would be accomplished. Financial Consideration In his Subcommittee's report, Council Member R. Anderson concluded that the City can afford to proceed with the Civic Center project without sacrificing services or jeopardizing the financial stability of the City. He noted the following project funding sources which have been identified to date: 1) Civic Center Set -Aside - $1.9 million; 2) Redevelopment Funds - $2.0 million; 3) Surplus Property Sales - $1.0 million; 4) Bonds (debt included in Ten -Year Financial Plan) - $7.8 million; 5) Surplus Properties - $5.8 million; and 6) Interest Savings (possible through variable rate) - $1.0 million, for total funding sources totaling $19.5 million. He noted that the preliminary funding plan includes no new taxes, fees or other revenue enhancements to pay for the project. Council Member R. Anderson explained that of the $7.8 million in bonds, approximately $5 million would be attributable to the General Fund. The $5 million in bonds would result in approximately $400,000 in annual debt service to the General Fund. He related that this debt service has already been factored into the Ten -Year Financial Plan which projects the lowest reserve at 7.6 percent, well above the required five percent threshold recommended by the Civic Center Committee. Council Member R. Anderson summarized that there is sufficient funding available, and the City Council will not be required to mortgage its future or over -extend the City to pay for the new Civic Center. Building Size, Design and Cost Council Member and Subcommittee Member Murray explained that the proposed facility would be approximately 100,000 square feet, thereby meeting the City's needs through 2009. He stated that employee growth projections are consistent with the Ten -Year Financial Plan and then tracks according to population growth. He indicated that the average space per employee is estimated to be 170 square feet, including offices, conference rooms, counters, storage space and all other assignable square footage. Council Member Murray related that the building would accommodate all current City Hall functions, as well as Electric Administration, Customer Services and Fire Administration. Based on 1995 dollars, it is recommended that the cost of construction be limited to $112.50 per square foot or less. He stated that this figure is consistent with other comparable office buildings in Redding and adjusted for prevailing wage. It is further recommended that the construction costs escalate $2 to $3 per square foot each year. 02/23/96 40 Council Member Murray said that a multi -story, two or three floor, project is being recommended and should be planned to accommodate future expansion. Site Issues Council Member Murray explained that environmental testing has shown that no location on the entire 45 -acre site is precluded from being suitable for the building. He related that a site east of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) property, between Cypress and Parkview, probably makes the most sense. He stated that the site issue could be discussed once the architect has developed some site plans. He noted that once the site is selected, consideration for future build out of the site with other Civic Center functions should be made. Other Issues Council Member R. Anderson stressed that the continued involvement of the Civic Center Committee would assist in ensuring that community input is received and that the project, as it develops, remains supportable and supported by its members. Council Member R. Anderson emphasized that, if the City Council authorizes the project to move forward, there will be places, up until the time the construction contract is awarded, whereby the City Council can halt the project. He acknowledged, however, that each step of the project has associated costs. Questions from the City Council Council Member P. Anderson requested staff to develop a schedule which depicts the project's major milestones or turn off points. Mr. Warren projected that staff would be requesting the City Council to make a decision regarding the project's financing before the November 1996 election, thereby locking in the interest rate on the bonds. In response to Mayor Kehoe, Council Member R. Anderson related that, based on a construction cost of $112.50 per square foot, the facility would cost $11,250,000. He cautioned that, depending on when construction begins, the cost could escalate. He explained that the $2 million set aside by the Redding Redevelopment Agency can only be utilized for infrastructure, i.e., streets, parking, etc. Council Member Murray stressed that much of the modular furniture currently being utilized could also be used in the new Civic Center. He estimated the total turnkey project to be approximately $15 million. Mr. Warren believed the project could be completed for $14 million. In response to Mayor Kehoe, Management Assistant to the City Manager Bachman explained that approximately one half of the Enterprise Funds' annual debt service would be offset by terminated office leases. Civic Center Committee Comments Civic Center Committee Chair Ward Gandy related that the Committee worked very hard for 90 days, committing a total of approximately 1,400 hours to the Civic Center project. He detailed events which led up to the Committee's recommendation in June, as well as the joint recommendations which are before the City Council today. He stressed that the Committee's June 1995 Report represented the Committee's and did not contain any majority or minority opinions. He also outlined the following concerns which the Committee had following the Subcommittee's initial presentation in December: 1) site location; 2) environmental cleanup costs; 3) potential problem of using Redevelopment funds from the Market Street and Canby -Hilltop -Cypress Redevelopment Projects, specifically the amount and appropriateness; 4) Preserving the entire parcel by preventing thoroughfares adjacent to the Civic Center building; 5) Akard Avenue should not be used as a thoroughfare; and 6) Original financial assumptions did not include the selling of additional surplus property. Mr. Gandy summarized that the project is feasible within the constraints of the Committee's original report, provided that the City Council is dedicated to committing the resources outlined in the financing assumptions. He noted, however, that the project's financing is the City Council's decision. Closing Comments Council Member R. Anderson thanked the Civic Center Committee Members for their dedication to the project. While he could not guarantee that everything would go 100 percent according to the plans, he asserted that the project could move forward without jeopardizing any City services or placing an undue hardship on the City. He noted the substantial costs the City would incur to keep the existing facility functioning. He requested that the City Council authorize the Civic Center project to move forward as recommended. Council Member Murray also thanked the Committee for their dedication and the level of energy and community involvement which has gone into the project. He concurred that the project would not be without difficulties; however, he believed the plan, as presented, would not disturb the City Council's previously adopted goals for the next ten years. 02/23/96 41 PUBLIC COMMENT Dave Rutledge expressed concern in the following areas: 1) Continually changing financial projections; 2) Long-term financial projections; 3) Space needs - He noted that the amount of space per employee in the private sector is decreasing due to technology; 4) Availability of site plans or footprints for design - He stated it is important to allow the public's input into this process; and 5) Debt limit - set a maximum debt limit the project can service. He related that from a management perspective, the current City Hall does not work well and, therefore, the City should move forward with the construction of the Civic Center. Gary Anthis related that the Water Quality Control Board recently commissioned Livermore Laboratories to complete a state-wide study on underground storage tanks. This report essentially stated that the State is spending an inordinate amount of money on service station sites, etc., as it has been discovered that nature is cleansing the soil better and/or at least as well as the billions of dollars being spent on this clean-up process. He stated that as a result of this study, the Director of the Water Quality Control Board sent a letter to all offices in mid-January recommending that they reevaluate their process and begin to eliminate service station sites from their list of at -risk locations. He favored proceeding with the project. He opined that the efficiencies built into the project will more than offset the project's long-term costs. George Santilena stated that business space needs are decreasing. He favored proceeding with the project with a degree of caution in the area of building size. Frank Strazzarino, Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce, commended the Civic Center Committee for the hours each individual dedicated to this project. Dean Ward, Chairman of the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors, read a resolution, incorporated herein by reference, passed by the Chamber's Board of Directors supporting the Civic Center project as presented by the Civic Center Committee and urging the City Council to approve and execute said project at its earliest opportunity. Jack McAuliffe stressed that the Finance Subcommittee, based on the figures provided by the City Council Subcommittee and staff, found the project to be feasible. He asked that the City Council give consideration to the following: 1) The impact Proposition 62 will have on available funds; and 2) Is the $6 million figure assigned to surplus property achievable? With regard to space needs, Frank Meehan noted that the City also needs to consider the number of new duties which could be mandated via both State and Federal legislation. Kent Dagg stressed the importance of master planning the entire 45 -acre site. He also believed that the City should immediately begin negotiations for the California Department of Forestry (CDF) property and, if necessary, seek the assistance of the City's State Senator and Assemblyman. He stated that consideration needs to be given to the baseball/softball fields, and the possibility that these facilities might need to be relocated. Eihnard Diaz related that the City is going to need to demonstrate that it is considering the needs of the community as a whole, i.e., second bridge over the Sacramento River, etc. Fran Jenkins noted that only seven committee members were present at the January 9, 1996, meeting, however, she assumed that all the Civic Center Subcommittees' recommendations were taken into consideration. She related the following concerns: 1) Space needs with increasing technology; 2) Projected staffing levels; and 3) Public perception regarding other community needs. She also stated the importance of issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the final design work. Tom Spade emphasized that the Civic Center Committee's official recommendation is as submitted. City Council Discussions and Actions Council Member McGeorge indicated that he would like to see space needs reexamined to determine whether the project could be downsized further. He also related that consideration needs to be given to the project's overall impact, as the City would still need to maintain its streets, ballparks, etc. He hoped that future City Councils could say that due diligence was spent on this project and the right decision was made. He questioned whether demolition costs had been factored into the overall project cost. He also requested that Proposition 62 be factored into the Ten -Year Financial Plan at a worst-case scenario and proposed that a workshop be held on the Ten -Year Financial Plan. He opined that traffic flow and overall traffic impact could seriously affect the project's total cost. Council Member P. Anderson requested that staff reassess the project's costs to ensure all aspects of the project are covered, i.e., demolition, Proposition 62, etc. She favored setting a maximum debt limit for the project. She stated that she was not as concerned about the size of the facility as she was about it being designed for high technology. She also wanted to proceed with preparing a master 02/23/96 tW plan for the entire 45 -acre site, as well as speeding up negotiations for the acquisition of the CDF property. She indicated that traffic flow and the costs of improvement, such as street repair, etc., need to be given a high priority. She also believed that concurrent decisions needed to be made on a Sports Complex or providing fields, as the potential exists to relocate baseball/softball fields. Mayor Kehoe summarized the comments received from the public. He stated he had the following three questions prior to today's meeting: 1) What happens if the projections are incorrect? He believed it was important that the City Council have confidence in the projections; 2) Is the City willing to commit $400,000 per year on a sustained basis; and 3) What services will be deferred to make the annual debt service payment? Council Member R. Anderson did not see the City's space needs decreasing. He stated that if technology reduces the space requirements, the facility's life expectancy will increase accordingly. At this period of time, he did not foresee the need to relocate any existing baseball/softball fields. He concurred that, at some point, it will be necessary to address the baseball/softball field needs, however, he did not believe it was needed at this time or that the Civic Center project should be delayed until it was completed. He also favored proceeding with the Parkview bridge. Mr. Warren interjected that the Capital Improvement Plan shows $1.1 million from the Canby -Hilltop -Cypress Project Area in 1998-99 to be spent on the design and planning of the Parkview Bridge, with construction beginning in 1999. It is anticipated that $9 million in funding will be needed for its construction. Council Member R. Anderson stated that he did not object to issuing a RFP for the design work. With regard to revenue from the sale of surplus property, he was not too concerned as there would still be adequate revenue to service the project. He believed a maximum debt limit had already been established and that the $400,000 debt service from the General Fund would drive the debt limit. He noted that CDF is asking $3 million plus for its property. He believed if the City were to pursue acquisition at this time, the project would be halted. He related that CDF recently opted not to join SHASCOM and has installed its own emergency response system. He questioned whether the City would have a right to even condemn the property. He acknowledged the need to acquire the property, but did not believe it was the right time to proceed. Council Member Murray noted that the size of the building has already been reduced 60,000 square feet. If financially affordable, he recommended building the 100,000 square foot building and noted that the only thing that would change is the building's life expectancy. He stressed that the City Council needs to remember that the City Council has a Ten -Year Financial Plan and embodied within that plan are things such as street repair, etc., thereby, showing the City Council's concern for the community as a whole. He noted that the Ten -Year Financial Plan also includes the debt service for the new Civic Center. He stressed that the City Council subcommittee took its charge seriously to present a recommendation for a new Civic Center which would not interfere with the City Council's plan for the future. Council Member Murray stated that, "We should resist the temptation to be immobilized by our fears, but be motivated by our visions. Mr. Gandy stressed that there have been no concerns raised which could not be handled fairly quickly or stop the project from going forward. MOTION: Made by Council Member R. Anderson, seconded by Council Member Murray, to endorse the City Council Subcommittee's and Civic Center Committee's joint recommendations as presented in the Report to City Council dated February 16, 1996, and move forward with developing preliminary schematics and site plans for a new City administration building and further direct that the Civic Center Committee be allowed to monitor the design and estimated costs up to the point of the project bidding and reconvene the Civic Center Committee, as necessary, to advise the City Council on proposed changes to the project. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Council Members - P. Anderson, R. Anderson, McGeorge and Murray Noes: Council Members - Kehoe Absent: Council Members - None Mayor Kehoe thanked everyone for their participation in the Civic Center project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 11:13 a.m., Mayor Kehoe declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: er 02/23/96 APPROVED: