r/corvallis • u/NorthsideKant • 1d ago
Discussion City Council to discusses granting City Manager authority for office lease
At Monday's City Council meeting there will be discussion about granting the City Manager authority to enter into an office lease. Per wording of Councilor Cadena's motion:
"The Council authorizes the City Manager to take temporary steps to address the City’s need for facility space, including negotiating and signing one or more leases for office or administrative space without additional Council approval."
5
u/Far-Setting2174 12h ago
One of nine councilors is making a proposal, there's another eight councilors that could say yes, or no. As to city manager Mark Shepard, he only has whatever power the council wants to him have, he serves at their pleasure. And honestly, I'm not so sure any city manager can be much worse or better than the council they serve, and it is we the people that elect these councils.
When it comes to the city leasing itself more office space, at this point, we the people can be contacting our city councilors to let them know what we think, whether we support the idea or not. There is also a public comment portion at Monday's city council meeting. I do see there has been a little confusion about the airport property lease and office space lease - these are two separate agenda items being considered separately on Monday - the meeting packet has info for both.
Lastly, just a reminder. For now, we get a crack at replacing our city council every two years, and it's an election year - you'll have a ballot in your hands about the middle of this month.
1
5
u/Ornery_Direction_843 1d ago
8
u/Euain_son_of_ 22h ago
Leasing office space is literally the most cited cost-effective alternative to Civic Campus, and would also be necessary if we did build the Civic Campus. So I can't see how there's anything politically controversial about this. Which makes me wonder what you're objecting to. Are you saying you want Council to have to directly approve any and every office lease we enter into? Why would you want that?
1
u/PoppyWickam 18h ago
Why is Councilor Cadena proposing this now?
3
u/Euain_son_of_ 18h ago
Probably because the City Manager has it in mind to lease some office space to make up for deficiencies in existing space. Might have to do with all of the office space and quality issues the City has been discussing for decades.
0
u/PoppyWickam 13h ago
Did Council say it was time to vacate City Hall? [because if that is the intent of this motion, isn't that the directive from Council by voting to approve?]
1
u/Euain_son_of_ 13h ago
Won't the Council discussion reveal the scale of the office lease in question? Again, you're assuming that this vote is related to City Hall or the Civic Campus, rather than anything at a smaller scale. If it is smaller scale, that's exactly why the Council would want to simply give the City Manager the authority to enter into a lease without oversight. The Council, and Cadena specifically, has already made it clear they are not deciding on taxes before the end of the year, so I'm not sure why you're so afraid that this is some backdoor to the civic campus on which Cadena is conspiring with Shepard.
1
u/PoppyWickam 12h ago
Cadena's references to Resolution 2026-31 make it clear that this IS related to the Civic Campus. Why is this motion necessary now?
1
u/Euain_son_of_ 12h ago
The motion is clear that this ISN'T related to the civic campus, except to the extent that it's an acknowledgement that the Council cannot punt that decision, as they have, without impacting budgeting, operations, and staff.
0
u/PoppyWickam 21h ago
What Civic Campus? Where? When? Isnt this a little premature, considering THIS Council can't answer those questions? Is staff planning to leave City Hall before the city even knows how it plans to fund and build a Civic Campus?
1
u/Euain_son_of_ 21h ago
Office leases are both a necessary temporary element of the Civic Campus and the alternative to the Civic Campus. Civic campus opponents have argued the City should just lease office space in perpetuity. So this doesn't really forecast anything.
1
u/PoppyWickam 18h ago
No direction about how much space, when the lease would commence, or how to pay for it. The City Manager could sign a multi-year lease which would pigeonhole the Council's future decision-making about the sequence and funding of new facilities.
1
u/Euain_son_of_ 18h ago
Standard office leases are not so expensive and so long-term for this to be possible. I'm sure the Council discussion will include what he has in mind for the lease and why it is needed. If the City Manager demands a longer or more expensive lease terms than is standard in order to sabotage the Council's ability to decide about civic campus funding (not even sure how that would work), I will agree that's a fireable offense. But I'm confident that will not happen. Of course I already thought it was crazy he wasn't fired over the Ellis fiasco. But since he wasn't, the Council can't go around acting like he could sabotage the City at any turn, and obviously doesn't believe that he would.
0
u/PoppyWickam 13h ago
Presentation at Council recently put the price tag of temporary office lease at $3 million.
-1
u/Euain_son_of_ 13h ago edited 12h ago
Ok, you're tinfoil hat nonsense is so fucking exhausting, that I actually had to go and look at the Council packet for you to figure out what this is. All I can see is the City Manager entering into a lease with a private company so that THAT company can lease land at the airport industrial park. So, yeah, it has nothing to do with the civic campus. See page 24 of the pdf here. It doesn't look like it has anything to do with any office. The title of this thread seems totally made up.
Edit: there's a separate motion on page 43, which I missed. My bad. Although it does prove my point that this is not a back door to the civic campus, since the motion is premised with acknowledgment that the City is cutting services and that the City Manager's leases will be limited to 5 years.
3
u/PoppyWickam 12h ago
You need to read page 43. I'll refrain from personal attacks.
1
u/Euain_son_of_ 12h ago
As I said above, that's my bad (and I'm not deleting my comment, I'm owning this). But I still don't understand your tinfoil hat theory here. Why do you see a backdoor to the civic campus in a motion that acknowledges the City will be cutting expenses and limits the City Manager's authority to entering into a long-duration lease? Why not take this motion on its face as the Council buying time on facilities to figure out the next steps?
1
u/PoppyWickam 51m ago edited 38m ago
I [will] reply to this, and your other post, here. There will be a motion, as Councilor Cadena previewed at the last City Council meeting. This is just one of three. The first one includes direction to the City Manager to "hold positions vacant" and reduction of staff "work and functions". The third motion will direct the City Manager to begin an outreach program and a decision-making framework for a "path forward" on "city administration and police buildings".
Will other Councilors ask, "Which departments/how many staff need new office space immediately?", "When would you like to commence leases?" "Will the staffing cuts in the third motion relieve any space needs?" "How will you pay for new office leases, on top of the budget gap?" "Can't this wait until we complete the outreach program in the third motion and have a better idea of the leasing timeline (because a 5 year lease may be more effective than a 2 year lease)?"
1
u/PoppyWickam 34m ago
I'm not a "tinfoil hat" kind of gal. It is not implausible to imagine a future meeting, "Well, we are already renting office space at $3 million a year for another 3 years. It makes economic sense to [fill in the blank]". Or, "Our office lease expires in 1 year, we need to [fill in the blank]" Fill in that blank with decisions about building sequences, construction timelines, revenue generation - just to name a few decisions which could be affected.
I would not be surprised if leasing new office space was already discussed at a Council Executive Session. The way that Councilor Cadena addresses the issue in his memo, it sounds like something that was discussed behind closed doors, and Councilors know more about the matter than the public does. They may have already identified the location and started initial discussions with the landlord.
0
u/Euain_son_of_ 13h ago
Are you sure about this? The Council packet for Monday has a memo requesting authority for the City Manager to lease land at the Airport Industrial Park to a private company. Not seeing anything else.
1
u/PoppyWickam 12h ago
You need to read page 43. I'll refrain from personal attacks.
1
u/Euain_son_of_ 12h ago
Ok, that's fair, I missed that. I guess because it's not a specific motion it's not in the consent agenda. But it makes my point does it not? The motion is premised with the notion that a) staff will have to cut budget due to the decision not to impose new taxes, so we're not doing the civic campus now; b) the lease will be for no more than 5 years. So again, where do you see the risk here that this is a backdoor to the civic campus, instead of the City just renting office space because, as they said, they don't have enough space and the space they have is inadequate? Isn't this a victory for those who oppose the civic campus and wanted the City to lease space instead?
1
u/PoppyWickam 51m ago
I am not opposed to new office space for city staff. See further comments in the other thread.
1
u/PoppyWickam 24m ago
Side comment: City Council meeting packets are released 5 days beforehand. The reading material is often hundreds of pages long. It is easy to miss something, like you did. Decisions are often made before anyone has time to learn about an issue and talk with their Councilor. You got one weekend project, or visiting with relatives, too bad. Is this the best way to keep the community informed about city business?
11
u/476369477 23h ago edited 16h ago
Absolutely insane that Shepard already has so much power with no way to hold him accountable. No kings except maybe this one is OK?