Laserfiche WebLink
She stressed that staff needed direction from the council to move forward effectively. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly voiced his concern that the design of the process was estimated to cost $75,000. He elaborated <br />that in order for the design to be effective a draft should be created, provided to at least five appropriate <br />stakeholders, posted on the City's Web site, and followed by input by the council at a work session. He <br />surmised that if this suggestion was followed, the design should only cost $20,000 to $30,000, rather than <br />$75,000. <br /> <br />In terms of issues, Mr. Kelly concluded that the focus should be on 1) a city-government complex; 2) <br />potential collaboration with other public/non-profit agencies; and 3) the question of location should be <br />open for discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor voiced his support for a public outreach campaign; however, he asked that staff control the <br />costs and stressed his hope that the process would take 12 to 18 months, rather than develop into years. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor concurred that consolidation of services to be located in one location is necessary, with a <br />police station constructed possibly a few blocks from the city center. She reiterated that an expanded <br />remodel of City Hall should be assessed by local architects. In conclusion, Ms. Taylor suggested that <br />the ATM building could be replaced by a youth center. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon noted that the charette process was attended by an impressive number of citizens. She <br />questioned how staff planned to define a successful public participation when the design was created. <br />Ms. Solomon stressed that at some point a decision must be made and the process moved forward. City <br />Manager Taylor stated that based on best practices, a conversation with stakeholders should address this <br />concem. <br /> <br />Mike Penwell concurred that the charette was very successful; however, he noted that only 75 citizens <br />participated. He explained that due to the timeline, staff could not previously do a proper public outreach <br />on this issue. Mr. Penwell reiterated that the unrepresented constituencies need to be drawn out to <br />ascertain their points of view and referred to the recent election defeat, which revealed the community did <br />not receive a clear message about the project. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Carlson replied that a bond measure was one of the <br />possibilities under consideration. He said adequate funds had been accumulated to build a basic police <br />facility; further, the city center consolidation could be realized by additional council action of other <br />monies the City currently has available. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Poling, City Manager Taylor replied that a meeting to readdress this <br />issue had not yet been set but the council would be provided that information in its next council packet. <br />City Manager Taylor requested that the council address the project as a %ity government complex." <br />Additionally, he asked that a refinement of the plan, along with a control of the costs, be included in the <br />revised recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stated that broad participation was critical for the ultimate success of this project. He <br />recommended that a citizen jury, chosen at random, be included in the process as the issue was quite <br />complex. Mr. Kelly also suggested it would be prudent to have staff and consultants provide five possible <br />scenarios for the public's review. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 10, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />