Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Clark agreed that utility was important and the design should emphasize that the building and chamber <br />were there to serve the entire community, not elevate the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling did not feel the council chamber should be the key feature of the building, but there should be a <br />natural flow from the lobby area into the chamber. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy emphasized that the building was the people's space and the design should reflect that. She <br />agreed with the need for utility, but felt the building should also be something of which the community could <br />be proud. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka did not feel the council chamber needed to be a separate space and liked the access from the <br />lobby/atrium area. He hoped that the chamber could be designed in a way that it could be available to the <br />community as a multi-purpose space when not being used for council functions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor liked the features of the current council chamber, but agreed it could be used more often. She <br />felt that elevating the council made it easier for the audience to see it during meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark liked the concept of surrounding the chamber with as much glass as possible to provide a sense of <br />transparency and reflect the close interaction between local government and its citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested locating the council chamber in a way that directly connected it to the lobby/atrium. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor encouraged the concept of a municipally modest structure to convey to voters that the proposal <br />incorporated community values and was accessible, but not arrogant or self-important. He felt that was best <br />expressed in design option 1. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy noted that the current council chamber was used frequently by both the council and <br />community functions. She thought a water feature with functionality such as green practices would make <br />sense. She hoped that the building could have a cultural connection that recognized community diversity. <br /> <br />The council took a short break. <br /> <br />Ms. Teninty reported that the ongoing conversations with the community had been very productive and the <br />public had been involved in developing the key design drivers and design aspects such as accessibility, visual <br />arts, landscaping and sustainability. She reviewed public outreach activities to date and said that public <br />input had been valuable in refining design options. <br /> <br />Mr. Pack reviewed the results of a follow-up poll conducted in November 2007, which gathered public <br />opinion in three areas: perception of the council's job performance, location of the police patrol facility and <br />support for a city hall and patrol facility bond measure and sequencing of other bond measures and election <br />issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between rating the City and rating the council on <br />issues and whether the public regarded serving on the council as a "job." Mr. Pack replied that the poll was <br />geared toward potential viability of a bond measure and one of the aspects of voters' support was how the <br />measure was referred to them. He said the council was used in the poll because it was the council, not the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />