1996-05-08JOINT USE PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE and
CITY HALL FACILITIES PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
for the Municipal Complex Site
Wednesday, May 8, 1996, 7:00 p.m.
In the CISD Administration Board Room
Minutes
Joint Use Subcommittee Attendance: Rich Driscoll, Chairman, Ted Gillum,
Bethann Scratchard, Frank Dorer, Phyllis
Calton, and Warren Davis.
Joint Use Subcommittee Council Liaisons: Michael Richarme
Joint Use Subcommittee Staff Liaisons: Kim McAdams
City Hall Facilities Subcommittee Attendance: R.F. (Dick) Johnston, Chairman, Rex Potter,
Brad Tribble, Scott Martin, Dianne Neville,
Karen Cienki, Mark Fidler, and Frank Dorer.
City Hall Facilities Subcommittee Staff Liaison: Bob Whitehead, Director of Public Works
Agenda Item #1, Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Michael Richarme at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item #2, Approval of the April 24,1996 Joint Use Subcommittee meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Bethann Scratchard and seconded by Michael Richarme to approve the
minutes. The motion was carried by the committee to approve the minutes as presented.
Agenda Item #3, Consider: Recommendations to Facility Planning Subcommittee for Potential
Joint Uses
Joint Use Subcommittee Chairman, Rich Driscoll, introduced the subcommittee's recommendations
for potential joint uses of the municipal complex site to the Facilities Site Planning Subcommittee
members. A copy of the Joint Use subcommittee's written report is attached.
Mr. Driscoll mentioned that issues such as, who would pay for what, how cost of supplies would be
covered, staffmg issues, etc., were outside the scope of the Joint Use Subcommittee's responsibility
but would need to be addressed by an agreement between the City and the CISD. The mechanics
of having consolidated uses has not been developed yet. The Joint Use's responsibility was to come
up with recommendations (what joint uses were feasible) with technical details to be worked out
later.
Joint Use Planning and Facilities Site Planning Subcommittees Meeting
May 8, 1996
Page 2
Joint Use Committee member, Michael Richarme, discussed the process the Joint Use group had
gone through to develop their recommendations; joint uses were "clustered" into three categories
based on the perceived needs of the City and potential partners; three categories were identified as
"essential," "high priority, " and "all others." (See attachments for list of Joint Use Subcommittee's
recommendation by categories). Mr. Richarme explained that the committee then focused on
defining the essential and high priority project uses to present to the facility planning subcommittee.
The objectives of the two committees were reiterated. The Facilities Site Planning Subcommittee
is charged with developing a master plan for the 15 acre municipal site - what goes on it, when it gets
built, what it looks like. The Joint Use Planning Subcommittee's function was to define the joint
uses of other kinds of non -city uses. The Joint Use Subcommittee is recommending as "essential
uses" a 1) City Hall Complex, 2) CISD Administrative Offices, and 3) Joint Meeting Rooms/Board
Rooms.
The committees focused on recommendation #2, CISD Administrative Offices. Karen Cienki raised
the question as to why the Joint Use Subcommittee was recommending that the municipal complex
include joint uses with the CISD. The reasons for their recommendation were stated by Michael
Richarme. They are:
* Convenience and access to citizens;
* CISD Administrative function is a compatible use with City Hall;
* CISD will have to buy landibuild a facility to service the needs of 11,000+ students;
* Proposed joint use will allow sharing of like functions between City and CISD,
resulting in cost savings to both;
* There is a critical shortage of meeting rooms now -- complex can be sized and
designed to allow maximum flexibility at lower cost than constructing a separate
CISD facility;
* One complex will provide a central "drawing" feature to citizens;
* Scheduling and coordination of facilities can be done easier.
This item raised several issues among the two committees. The first issue was regarding the space
needs for City Hall and CISD Administration offices. Scott Martin recommended that the committee
look at space needs studies that have been done and see if they need to be updated from the 1991
study. The question was raised about CISD administration space needs. The CISD needs to provide
the City Hall Facilities Site Planning subcommittee with their space needs for the site within the next
three weeks -- this is a very important factor. The CISD members stressed that the consolidation
would be permanent. The CISD superintendent, Dr. Ted Gillum, pointed out that the CISD would
like to have a single permanent building to house both the City's and CISD's administrative offices;
they are not interested in a temporary administration building.
Joint Use Planning and Facilities Site Planning Subcommittees Meeting
May 8, 1996
Page 3
Some members of the Facilities Site Planning subcommittee expressed concerns about the "joint
use" concept and the involvement with the CISD. There was discussion about the City working with
the CISD when there are four school districts in the city limits. There was discussion about how
other surrounding community residents benefit from the programs proposed and the programs in
place now, such as the Parks and Recreation programs.
The second issue brought up was that of funding the facility. There was a lot of discussion/debate
about the funding aspect of a joint City-CISD administrative office. Who would pay for what -- how
would a bond election work for both entities -- if a bond election failed for one entity, how would
that affect the other?
The Joint Use subcommittee introduced their recommendation for three "high priority" uses to be
located at the complex site. They are 1) Fine Arts Center, 2) Conference/Convention Center and 3)
Technology Center/Communications Center. The subcommittees need to work with the architects
to evaluate these recommendations in terms of the space requirements for each.
Members of both committees need to re -look at each group's independent
recommendations/priorities and "mesh" the two and produce a new list and distribute to all the
subcommittee's involved in the planning of the complex. A suggestion was made to get the CISD's
Total Program Management group, who can produce CISD space need projections, and the City's
architects together and determine what the real needs and/or "commonalities" are for a joint
administrative complex. It was also suggested that the standard Joint Use Committee could begin
working out details for the joint administrative building; secure a letter of intent from the CISD. The
City liaison will approach the CISD.
A summation of the Joint Use Planning Subcommittee's recommendations was presented again to
the Facilities Planning Subcommittee and it was agreed that the next step is to have the Steering
Committee to make recommendations on the two most important issues discussed - space needs
(include CISD administrative uses) and funding.
Agenda Item #4LAdjournment
Being no further discussion, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
C AWPFILES\JOINn96-5-08. MIN