Laserfiche WebLink
council's desired approach to the City Hall facility. He stressed that land assemblage was the most difficult <br />part of downtown development. Before the City divided property that it currently owned, he recommended <br />the council have a clear idea on how it should proceed. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon acknowledged City Manager Taylor's comments, but wanted to consider this opportunity to <br />partner with private development. She did not want to pursue master planning if it precluded the exploration <br />of the sub-projects. She reiterated her wish to see what a quarter-block land swap would look like and also <br />what a quarter-block police station would look like. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor remarked that the conversation should ;;be packaged and saved" for the point in the discussion <br />when it was appropriate. He recalled that the item on the agenda was a discussion on what kind of meeting <br />to have to talk about what kind of meeting to have. He underscored that the master planning process had not <br />yet begun and all of the great input about that process should be saved for that discussion. He commented <br />that he had never been involved in a process where a decision on the degree of public involvement was <br />needed to determine how much public participation there should be in the master planning process. He <br />thought it an interesting dilemma. <br /> <br />In looking at the options, Mr. Pryor thought Option 1, which left it to the City Manager to determine the <br />public process, was not adequate. He thought Option 2, wherein $15,000 was spent on designing a public <br />process subject to council approval might be %kay." He thought Option 3, which engaged some public <br />input, might also work. What he was trying to determine, however, was what motion the council should <br />vote on and what kind of process the City wanted to pay for to decide what the public process should be. He <br />did not feel the need to spend ;;a lot of money" to decide how much public participation there should be in a <br />public participation deciding process. He stressed that he did not dispute the need for public participation <br />when the council arrived at the ;;big meeting process." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly wished to address Ms. Solomon's comments. He thought both sub-projects presented opportuni- <br />ties. He said in a perfect world, such projects should wait for a master planning process, but given the time- <br />sensitive nature of the projects he felt the council should have a discussion as soon as possible. He asked if <br />he needed to petition for a work session. City Manager Taylor thought this discussion could happen and <br />would likely be best conducted in an executive session. He said the larger question at hand was what the <br />council wished to do with regard to the City Hall facility. Mr. Kelly called it all relevant and intertwined <br />and indicated he would request a work session. He thought the discussion might lead the council to <br />consciously decide to limit its options regarding the City Hall complex. <br /> <br />Regarding options, Mr. Kelly expressed a preference for Option 2, but said he was not interested in the <br />option if it did not include some public involvement. He also agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding the <br />necessity of the council making the fact-based decisions such as whether to build or renovate. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked Council Coordinator Lynda Rose to provide to the council copies of an e-mail she sent <br />out after the January meeting that laid out the fact-based decisions she thought the council should make. <br />She favored Option 2, stating that the City had the expertise to focus the discussion on the discrete issues of <br />whether or not to build and what the minimum threshold for services that should be included in the building. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />