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