Agendas and Minutes

ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee (View All)

ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee
July 19, 2017
Methodist Church, 175 North Main 1:30 p.m.
Committee Members:, Dichiro, Finklea, Kenefick, Kramer, Miller, Nickels, Pearce, Richards, Shaw, Thalden
Staff:  Fleury, Kathol, Seltzer
Absent: Boldt
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS:  Dichiro called the meeting to order.
Changes to the Minutes of the July 5 Meeting included the following:
  • Page 2 – changed to read: “Kramer said there is no doubt City Hall is inefficient and wondered how many could be accommodated by improving the efficiency within the building?”
  • Page 3 – Changed to read: “Shaw said that in her last term of office as Mayor, the Central library was being considered and the public wanted it to include RCC, but once built, the County took heat over the size of the downtown library.”
  • Page 3 changed to read: “If we build a new City Hall only by today’s needs, in 2031 we would risk having to tear it down.”
  • Page 3 changed to read: “…..we need to look at building a building for the next 100 years.”
MOTION by Finklea, second by Thalden to approve the Minutes of the July 5, 2017 ad hoc City Hall Advisory Committee meeting.  Carried unanimously.
REVIEW AND REFINE DRAFT CRITERIA: Dichiro said the committee was tasked at today’s meeting with coming to consensus on the criteria, using a weighting process and then leaving the meeting to ponder on the results of the criteria and the weighting.
The committee members then reviewed the Givens for the committee:
  • Meets 2030 Space Needs
  • Is seismically sound
The eight criteria initially identified were reviewed:
  1. Provides centralized services
  2. Provides off-street parking for employees and customers
  3. Potential to increase public parking
  4. Retains downtown presence
  5. Preserves historic façade
  6. Outside Hosler Dam zone
  7. Built to LEED standards
  8. Construction time-line
After discussion, it was decided to change #1 to read: Provides consolidated services (City Hall and ComDev). Pearce felt it was important to locate compatible City functions near one another and that the public needed to have services and staff centralized.   
Kenifick pointed out that Criteria #4 did not necessarily mean downtown presence, but that it is on the Plaza.  Criteria #5 Nickels thought meant to preserve the existing facades, and Kramer added it meant to maintain a connection to the history of the building. Nickels said that there are state laws about historic buildings and that the Historic Commission would weigh in. Criteria #7 was deleted because it was felt it was relevant when the design phase was entered. Criteria #8 was also deleted until a location is decided on. 
Criteria #7 was changed to: Does the option provide flexibility.  Flexibility within the structure was very important to the committee members. And Criteria #8 was changed to: Avoids the legal cloud relating to the current deed of City Hall.
Kenefick had seven additional criteria suggestions:
#9 – The option is on the Plaza (as opposed to downtown)
#10 – Is the option best for the money?
#11 – Does it meet Council goals?
#12 – Provides parking that can be converted to other uses (when no longer needed)
#13 – Is it able to be done without impacting the traffic flow?
#14 – Is it sellable to voters?
#15 – Services are conveniently located
#16 – Preserves historic civic use at the existing City Hall
After committee discussion, Criteria #10 was changed to Is the option cost effective?  Criteria #11 was deleted.  Criteria #13 was changed to Is it able to be done without construction impacting the traffic flow?  Criteria #14 was changed to Is it acceptable to voters?
Expansion of the Police Station Phase Two was discussed, but not added as criteria at this point.  It was added as a Given as: Funding of the Police Station Phase 2. Seltzer explained that the Grove initially was identified as a primary option for the Police Station and EOC expansion but it was cost prohibitive. Kramer said that adding the Police Station factored into acceptance by the voters. Dichiro said that the Agenda for the next meeting will include the GO Bond discussion as well as the Police Station Phase 2 discussion.
Seltzer provided each committee member a ballot with a list of numbers corresponding to the list of criteria identified on the white boards.  Committee members were provided dots to rank the importance of each criteria: 1 red dot = 5 points, 3 blue dots worth 3 points each; and 3 yellow dots worth 1 point each.  The ballots were collected and the criteria ranking tallied. 
Criteria Ballot
Ad hoc City Hall Advisory committee
  • Must meet 2030 space needs.
  • Must be seismically sound.
Final Ranking of the 16 Criteria, Highest to Lowest by Vote
Rank Item Criteria Votes
1 10 Option is cost effective 29
2 7 Option provides flexibility 22
3 16 Preserves historic civic use of existing City Hall 22
4 14 Acceptable to voters 18
5 4 Retains downtown presence 12
6 2 Provides off-street parking for employees and customers 7
7 12 Provides parking that can be converted to other uses 6
8 15 Services are conveniently located 5
9 1 Provides consolidated services 4
9 3 Potential to increase public parking 4
9 9 Option is on Plaza 4
10 5 Preserves historic facade 3
11 8 Avoids legal cloud relating to current deed 2
12 6 Outside Hosler Dam inundation zone 1
12 13 Construction Impact 1
Dichiro said committee members should reflect on the tabulations and be prepared to discuss at the next meeting on August 2. The August 2 Agenda will include discussion of the GO Bond and Criteria.  The August 16 meeting will discuss the pros and cons of each option.  The meeting on August 30 will be in the Siskiyou Room of the ComDev building and the committee will discuss their final recommendation.   The committee is scheduled to go the City Council on October 3 with their recommendation and rationale. 
Kathol had submitted a memo to committee members regarding the cost estimates for improvements at Briscoe School.  Seltzer had submitted a memo outlining the Development of Criteria for Selection of City Hall Replacement Recommendation.  Seltzer’s memo had nine alternatives, their cost estimate and timeline for completion.  The Railroad property and the Elks parking lot had been removed as alternatives because they were not viable options. Seltzer also submitted a letter to First United Methodist Church thanking them for the use of the Church library for ad hoc committee meetings. 
Marilyn Briggs referred to an article from 10/12/1993 that she had submitted to the newspaper in favor of keeping the current location.  She asked how the committee time and date had been chosen and Seltzer explained it was by committee availability and consensus.  Briggs said the committee should concentrate on City Hall.
Larry Cooper had read the feasibility study and did not think it addressed the future and how people will work at home and have virtual meetings and warned against setting the City up for over-building. He felt the Civic Center was a good option because it was more the geographic center of Ashland.  He had concerns about going out for a bond vote and competing on bond votes in upcoming elections.
Louise Shawkat spoke on the emission concerns she had from passenger cars – hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, particulates – that impede the flow of blood to the brain. She said the Parking Ad Hoc Committee had developed a plan about parking and encouraged the committee to look at the Climate Energy Action Plan and to reduce green house gases. 
Melissa Mitchell-Hogue gave the presentation to the ad hoc committee that she had given to the City Council.  She advocated for keeping Briscoe in the public domain rather than selling it to a private entity.  She distributed conceptual parking diagrams and hoped that a solution could be found that preserves the integrity of the neighborhood park and open space. 
Sharon Javna said the current City Hall building could have civic use downstairs and office space upstairs.  She suggested selling ComDev to help cover the cost of purchasing Briscoe and move all City functions into
Briscoe.  She felt it was a win for the City, the School District, the citizens and the neighborhood.  She said we would not need to build new parking because Briscoe had abundant parking in the area. 
Dana Crawford with ORW said that consolidation of all of the City services was a directive of the City Manager in the ORW report. She added that all options in the ORW report are designed to meet codes.
 Dichiro adjourned the meeting at 3:30. 
Respectfully submitted,
Shelly D. Hensarling


Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill with Customer Central
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2018 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top