Laserfiche WebLink
difference in amount; it was the responsibility of the council to make that measure as attractive to voters as <br />possible. He intended to support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with using the current City Hall site and noted that the City also owned the property <br />across the street, which should be incorporated in the planning process. He was also agreeable to an <br />incremental approach and a $100 million bond, in addition to the $40 million in reserve, would achieve <br />much of the council's goal for a facility. He also wanted the patrol facility and City Hall to be an integrated <br />project. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion, as it would result in prematurely eliminating the <br />County-owned site. She said the County had initiatives for which it wanted the City's support and the City <br />could therefore rely on the County's cooperation. In terms of consolidation, she thought a $100 million <br />bond, $50 million in urban renewal funds and $40 million in reserves could complete the entire project. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said his first choice was the butterfly lot, but there were too many problems with the site, <br />including unwilling sellers of adjacent parcels. He said the County might sell the lot but would expect a new <br />parking facility to be built at a cost of $12 million in addition to the $2 million purchase price, which was <br />too expensive. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark supported the current City Hall site but would vote against the motion because he felt that <br />establishing stable funding for the transportation system was a priority and the council needed to make more <br />progress on that before initiating a new city hall project. He said the County was facing difficult financial <br />choices and would likely ask the City to take up the slack in some services; moving precipitously on the City <br />Hall project could remove some options from the table. He said that downtown redevelopment was still in <br />the planning stage and a clearer vision of downtown was needed before making a decision on a new city hall. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor stated that he was equally passionate about transportation system funding but thought that could <br />move forward concurrently with a new city hall project. He would not support a significant public financial <br />obligation until the council had a better handle on transportation funding, but that did not mean the City Hall <br />project had to be halted. He noted that even if the County was willing to sell the butterfly lot, acquisition of <br />privately owned parcels necessary to complete the site was uncertain and he did not want to see the council <br />involved in another condemnation action. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said there was still uncertainty about other government-owned buildings in downtown and he felt <br />the council was moving too quickly. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that the current City Hall site was a good location, but not the only land the City <br />owned, such as the former Sears site. She was not certain the public was ready to support a large <br />expenditure. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said the participants in the public process represented a broad spectrum of the community and <br />voting supported as first choices the current City Hall site and the butterfly lot, with the Sears site and <br />ShawMed site as second choices. He did not want to consider either of the second choices because they <br />were included in the downtown redevelopment plan. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- <br />tion. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 11, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />