Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

off the existing site and every one moving back in; it did not assume a separate patrol function or Municipal Court in the federal building. Almost everybody had moved off the site already. Mr. Zelenka requested updated cost estimates for relocation. Ms. Taylor suggested the Sears site as a possibility and noted it was in the urban renewal district, so urban renewal funds could be used for a new city hall. Mr. Carlson agreed. Ms. Taylor did not want to eliminate the option. Ms. Teninty reminded the council that it had agreed to retain the option because it was the third option favored by the community and was already owned by the City. The council agreed the site was moving forward as part of another project, but if that fell through, it was a viable site. Mayor Piercy said unless the council changed course, it had voted to move forward with a project on the Sears site; locating City Hall on that site would represent a major shift. Ms. Ortiz asked if there was any way she could receive a different cost estimate for the police patrol building based her what she had described in regard to her expectations of what it would contain. She wanted an estimate for surface as opposed to structured parking. Mr. Cohen said the consultant team could provide a range of costs and perhaps even point to some examples of other facilities. He said consultant team recommended establishing parameters as it was now using general empirical data. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that the issues of leadership and governance were of concern to the voters, and he advocated for a degree of council consensus on what ever was decided that would allow the council to speak with a unanimous voice and garner more public support and greater trust. He suggested that solving some of the City’s other problems another way to garner trust and build support. He wanted the council to spend more time on the subject to reach that degree of consensus. Ms. Solomon thanked Mayor Piercy for her statement regarding the Sears site. She said that the council had already embarked on a process and taking the Sears building out of the process would undermine the public involvement that occurred and further harm the council’s credibility. Ms. Bettman said she kept hearing at the last meeting where the council discussed the issue that the public process had not yet begun. She said there had been no public hearings. She believed that given the council’s decision about the KWG development proposal, the Sears site was not off the table. If the process was open, it was up to the community to determine what the objectives were for the site. Ms. Bettman said many people had mentioned the Sears site to her. Mr. Clark recalled that the council had discussed the need for a complete city block and the Sears site did not meet that criterion. Ms. Ing summarized the council’s information requests, which included: 1) a comparison of the costs of leasing space in the federal building versus buying the building; 2) more information on the costs of the patrol building and how they were established; 3) cost ranges for the patrol building based on less expensive criteria; 4) more due diligence on the deed restrictions associated with the butterfly parking lot; and 5) relocation costs with an escalation factor to 2010. Mr. Pryor suggested that on July 11, the council select a single site. He left the meeting. Mr. Clark requested information about why the EWEB site was not viable. Ms. Solomon thought the council had majority support for a single site and recommended that it proceed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 9 Work Shop—City Hall Goal