Camas considers the future of aging City Hall

City of Camas officials agree their 1960s-era City Hall is past its prime. What they don’t agree on yet is how much more money — if any — they should pour into a building some councilors now describe as an albatross. During a Sept. 8 workshop session, the Camas City Council stopped short of approving a $225,000 planning study to chart the future of City Hall. Instead, they asked staff to scale back the proposal and return with a leaner scope. “I don’t know we’re convinced it’s time to go forward,” Councilor Jennifer Senescu said. The planning study would have examined the city’s long-term space and facility needs, including the potential reuse of Fire Station 41 after it is vacated and whether some currently off-site functions — including court services and information technology — could be consolidated. The study also would have considered options for the future of City Hall: renovating the existing City Hall; replacing City Hall at its existing downtown location; and moving City Hall to another site, potentially the Camas School District’s UL property. The city has put mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades at City Hall, which was built in 1967, on hold while it determines what it wants to do with the building long term. Councilors did not reject the need to plan for City Hall’s future, but several questioned whether the city needs to spend so much to determine whether the aging building is worth continued investment. “I just don’t think anything but a stick of dynamite is going to do the trick,” Senescu said. Councilor Martin Elzingre agreed, arguing that the city already knows a substantial investment would be required to renovate City Hall. “We know it’s going to be $10 million. I don’t need to spend a quarter million to tell me that,” said Elzingre, who joked that the building would require “not one stick, but many sticks of dynamite.” Elzingre said the city should first determine how much space it actually needs before studying how to renovate or replace City Hall. He suggested comparing that need with the cost of leasing office space elsewhere and potentially selling the existing building to help pay for the transition. Councilor Tim Hein took an even more definitive position, saying the city likely cannot afford to build a new City Hall and should instead look for an existing building to lease. “I don’t believe we need to invest in this building. I don’t think we can afford a new building,” Hein said. “I think it’s really straightforward: We have to find an existing building and rent.” Councilors divided But not all councilors were ready to make that determination without outside analysis. Councilor John Svilarich questioned whether city employees and department heads alone could develop a reliable long-term plan for the city’s facilities, particularly given that some staff members are serving in interim or short-term roles. He said he saw value in having an outside professional help the city assess its options, even if the council ultimately decides against the proposed $225,000 study. Councilor John Nohr similarly cautioned against having the council make a major decision based solely on its own impressions of the building. “I’m picturing the throngs of citizens that are going to come in here and say, ‘So the seven of you at a workshop decided we just don’t need City Hall anymore,’ ” Nohr said. “So we do need some expert input as to why we do or do not.” Councilor Mahsa Eshghi also favored a structured examination of the city’s needs and alternatives, rather than making a decision without first establishing what space the city requires and what its options would cost.

Related Stories