12/03/1981 - Minutes r
CITY OF TIGARD
CIVIC CENTER COMMITTEE
The December 3, 1981 meeting of the Civic Center Committee was called to order at
7:40PM, at— Lamb Weston, Inc. , Tigard, attending were Sid Reese of Lamb Weston, and
Dennis Brun and Bob Moreland of Brun, Mar-emend, Christopher Architects.
The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. Sid Reese was introduced
and he took the group on a tour of the Lamb Weston building. Upon viewing the facilities
the "open landscape" effect was apparent . Some of the facts Mr. Reese presented were
that the building had been built in 1970; an addition in 1974 and one in 1977 did not
change the original character or integrity of the original design. He mentioned the
ease with which changes of equipment and personnel had recently been effected with no
disruption of the working atmosphere. He spoke enthusiastically of the efficient
all-around effect of this type of "open landscape" and the beneficial results in spite
of the fact that 180 people were in "one room. Some of the actual results were 40'110
better efficiency/production, aspirin reduction and he also called attention to the fact
no private offices were assigned.
Yvonne Burgess read the minutes from the meeting of the sub-committee.
Gary fox requested that a letter -to him from Sharon Takahashi (attached) , dated
November 24, 1981 , be read and recorded in the minutes . He expressed his displeasure
and also stated he felt in was not done in good taste. Discussion followed the reading
of that letter and the one from John D. Armand, Jr. , dated November 25, 1981 (attached).
It was agreed that there had been some miscommunication. Dr. Samuels stated he may
have, inadvertently, given some wrong information. One of the firms felt it had not
been given the correct information and had not been fairly considered. Bob Jean had
Linda Sargent explain "letter of interest" and she also stated that this firm already
had a portfolio on file with the city. Bob Jean stated he would get in touch with this
firm and would take steps to alleviate their misunderstanding and correct the situation.
It was suggested that a trip to Salem for those members of the committee interested be
arranged to view the Salem Civic Center, Library and grounds - this complex seems to
parallel the needs of Tigard. Arrangements were discussed. It was felt day time would
be the best as the travelers could question the people working there as to its function.
The architect, Dennis Brun, said Salem also used the "open landscape" system (similar to
Lamb Weston) - one reason given was availability of increasing the numbers of people
working in a given area.
Discussion went back to financing and strategy, .and possible election dates; Bob Jean
reported on the reason why the City Council was reluctant to hold a November date be-
cause of other financing considerations the city will have to face. Suggestions were
made as to how individuals could help pass an election - if we are to be successful we
have to sell this to the community. Discussion centered on a special election and rules
governing campaign strategy, ground work to be covered, how to effectively inform the
community re neighborhood coffees , etc. Bob Jean mentioned the recent annexations and
how this could effect any election.
Discussion again went back to the varied and many uses Salem untilizes for their civic
center, such as meetings, piano recitals, group utilizations , etc. Library needs again
were brought up - they still have books in boxes but are in a "holding position."
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55PM
jb
,viACKENZIE/SAITO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
November'�`25, 1981
civic Center Development Committee
City Hall
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Atten: Mr. Chuck Samuels, Chairman
Dear Chuck
I am sorry that- Mackenzie/Saito & Associates was not
asked to- submit a proposal for site schematics on the
new Civic Center. However, we are very interested in
preparing a proposal for Phase II (construction
drawings) .
w, Mackenzie/Saito & Associates
As I am sure you kno
offers a full range of design and development services,
including architecture, engineering (civil and
are
structural) , interior design, and planning.
proud . of our ability to draw upon the various disciplin s
ociates and Mackenzie.
within Mackenzie/Saito & Ass
Engineering Incorporated to form a project team
offering quality and efficient service to theclient.
Our experience in both public and private proj
of a type and magnitude similar to the Tigard Civic Center would enable us to provide an excellent project
for the City.
I would appreciate receiving any information regarding
proposals for Phase II of the project, and being
informed as to when it would be appropriate to submit
a proposal. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
0 OV�' e
John D. Annand, Jr.
Architect
JDA:slm
ARCHITECTS
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
I
7 610 SW Cherry St.
Tigard, Oregon 9 7223
November 24, 19 81
Dear Gary,
As chairman of the subcommittee, You won the right to hear,my complaint
and suggestion. Although we have already selected the architect for our foot-
,print, we do have another selection to go through if our financing is approved.
It is with this in mind that I would like to make the following comments.
I do not believe the game of competition was played fairly. Your initial
screening was not using the same criteria for all architects. Two firms were
told not to submit any portfolios or brochures to the committee. One of
these architects, Saul Zaik, made a presentation to the library board regarding
their remodeling crisis in Lake Oswego's Library. After his presentation, r
some of us looked forward to his entering his name in the architect selection.
When he asked Linda Sargent specifically about if he should submit a port-
folio, she replied "No. "
The other firm in question was McKenzie Saito. john Annand-of that firm
has attended some of our meetings. They were not notified that selection
was taking place and that they should make any submissions. It may be that
their contact was Chuck Samuels and.he was not aware of what your committee
was•using. My concern is that each architect should always be told the rules
of the selection process. If the initial submission was not asked for, then
each architect only had his good name in the hat and the selection would be
based on name familiarity. No?
In phase two, actual construction design and follow through, be certain
that each competitor is given the same game plan, please.
Sincerely,
Sharon Takahashi