CC Minutes - 12/11/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

the current site, and wanted to move forward with schematic design on the Rock ‘N Rodeo site instead. He said he would not be inclined to hold a fifth workshop at this time. Mr. Pryor said that Mr. Kelly’s comments were proof of why there was chocolate and vanilla. He thought the current City Hall site was best because it was a full block. He said that ten percent of the total cost was still a considerable amount given the costs involved. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the costs of moving twice but believed it was doable. The increased flexibility that the full block created and the long-term nature of the decision made him support the current site. He thought that issues related to the site, such as the potential it could look underdeveloped, could be addressed. Mr. Pryor did not want to reduce from a full block site to a half-block site, although he recognized the City’s ability to build up. He believed that there were civic improvements that could be made on the butterfly site to make it a more desirable area, particularly if it was folded into the Park Blocks. Mr. Pryor supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work of the consultants and the process that occurred. Ms. Bettman expressed confusion at the assumption the City would be required to replace the parking that would be lost if it purchased the County’s butterfly parking lot to redevelop as a new city hall. When one bought a house, one did not pay to relocate the family. She asked how that could be justified. Ms. Bettman also asked how many parking spaces were under City Hall now. Mr. Penwell said there were approximately 200, and the City would replace 228 on the butterfly lot. Ms. Bettman suggested that meant only 28 more spaces were needed if the County employed the parking under City Hall. Ms. Bettman asked who would own the parking that the City replaced, and who would maintain it. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s first question, Mr. Penwell said that the proposal did amount to double-paying; however, the butterfly lot was not on the market, and the City had gone to the County seeking the property, which was currently a source of revenue for the County. The replacement of spaces was part of the deal for the County. In regard to the County’s interest in City Hall, he inquired about a straightforward exchange, but the County indicated it did not want the City Hall property because it was encumbered by the building. With regard to who owned the County spots, the County wanted to continue to maintain control of the parking spaces and its staff discussed adding two decks to the Public Service Building lot. He added that staff could “push back” on those points during future negotiations. Mr. Poling recalled that he suggested the council contact all the property owners involved to determine their interest in selling their properties. He thought one of the best reasons not to proceed with the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site was the overall cost difference and the potential it could be even higher. He did not think the City would benefit from the purchase of the butterfly lot. In addition, the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site did not provide the potential for future expansion in the same way the current location did. Mr. Poling said that building on the current site provided an opportunity for a plaza and additional open space. He supported the staff recommendation. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the City’s ability to handle two moves. Ms. Solomon noted her long-time support for building on the existing site and said she continued to hold that view. She said that considering building on a site when the City had no clue as to the property owner’s interest in selling was a waste of time. She said that the 10 percent cost differential was important to the project’s bottom line as well as the City’s ability to build a new police headquarters. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 4 Work Session