CC Minutes - 07/19/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz said she received little feedback from the public. She attended a Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting in June and most of those present were supportive of the need for a new building. Her impression of the current building was that it was not very welcoming for the public or user friendly. She felt that the public participation process to date had been adequate. Ms. Solomon echoed support for the process. She said the design team made a presentation to the Active Bethel Citizens for the purpose of introducing the topic and linking people to opportunities for public input. She asked if the expectation was that people attend each of the forums or if each forum was a different opportunity to comment on the project. Mr. Cohen said that the forums were iterative and each built on information from the previous one. He said that was explained to participants and they were encouraged to continue to attend all of the forums. He said written information was provided at each forum to bring new participants up-to-date and a brief review was presented at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Piercy observed that general discussion of a new City Hall complex at this point in the process was not as exciting to the public as the council would wish, but interest was likely to increase as a vision emerged. She indicated she was willing to extend an invitation to people to return to participate in subsequent meetings. Ms. Taylor, referring to the limited amount of time in the forums for public process, said the City Hall charettes conducted a few years ago were all-day meetings that allowed time for in-depth discussions. Her conversations with participants indicated a preponderance of opinion to preserve the existing building. She said too often earlier public input on an issue was forgotten in favor of a new planning process. Ms. Bettman asked if videos of the meetings were being cablecast. City Manager Taylor said the meetings were held in locations where a cablecast was not possible. Ms. Bettman asked staff to announce the dates of meetings and contact information as the council work session was being cablecast. She asked if part of the analysis would consider the value and marketability of the existing building. Mr. Cohen said that would be included in the site evaluation process. Mr. Hacker added that the economic value of the existing building would be assessed, including how it could be used in other ways. Ms. Bettman observed that the recommendation in the agenda packet was for the two new options in the agenda materials. Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell said the proposed motion did specifically carry forward those two options but emphasized that the options were not architectural solutions; they were mental models to assist the council in thinking about the differences among renovate, hybrid and new options. He said when the process was completed a specific architectural design would be developed that might be based on one of the two models but could be somewhat different. He said the council could amend the motion to provide greater flexibility. Mr. Kelly asked for assurance that both the generic full- and half-block options were actively studied but did not exclude other possibilities, such as a two-thirds block option. He agreed with Ms. Bettman about making the derivation of the cost estimates very visible to the public. He thought the attachments in the agenda packet did a good job of providing that information, with the exception of previous broad project costs. He suggested those be broken down into tables to explain how they were determined. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 3 Work Session