Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor did not think the council needed to hire someone to tell it how to have a public process. She <br />wanted more facts, adding that there had not been enough information on how much it would cost for a <br />seismic retrofit for the existing building. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 said the cost for renovation was known in 1999. He did not favor spending "one more dime" on <br />the present facility. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd recommended bringing the other councilors "up to speed" on the time-sensitive opportunity. He <br />asked for head nods to determine if a work session on the "Shedd proposal" and trading a quarter of the lot <br />should be scheduled. The councilors present indicated with a nod of the head that they wished to hold a <br />work session on this item. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor surmised that individual meetings with a proposal that had not been vetted by other <br />people would lead the council to have a meeting for disposal of half a block of property prior to deciding <br />what it wanted to do with regard to City facilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought neighborhood meetings should be part of a master planning process but that he did not <br />think such meetings were needed to determine the initial participation process. He noted the comment in the <br />agenda item summary (ALS) on citizen juries and wished to clarify that his mention of a citizen jury was <br />specific to the master planning process and not the design of the process. He said citizen juries were almost <br />never delegated final authority and, in this case, he intended that a citizen body of this sort would provide a <br />recommendation upon which the City Council would have the final say. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman called the deterioration of the City Hall facility a ~discrete issue." She believed, within <br />financial constraints, that the process should not be broadened by bringing in the County or additional issues <br />like great street projects. She felt it was a facilities issue only, but it had turned into a large planning <br />endeavor with a wide-open opportunity. In terms of visioning and planning, she felt location would be an <br />important community discussion, but whether or not to build a new City Hall was a very discrete and <br />technical issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson remarked that staff had been meeting about this issue for five years. He thought a lot of <br />technical analysis would have to be conducted to make the determination on whether to rehabilitate the <br />existing building and building onto it or whether to build a new building. He said until the amount of space <br />that would be needed to meet the facility's needs were known, it would be difficult to determine just how <br />much it would cost to rehabilitate or to rebuild. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asserted that the building was deteriorating because the City had not maintained it. She did not <br />think its alleged deterioration was a good excuse for replacing the building. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked why the council, ahead of a detailed master plan a few years earlier, had taken a vote in <br />response to a staff recommendation that the City Hall would not receive any new major maintenance at that <br />time if, as Mr. Carlson said, much more analysis was needed. He asked if the assistant city manager was <br />trying to articulate major goals for the project. Mr. Carlson replied that staff needed to know if the project <br />was going to be a police building and if it would consolidate other functions. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2005 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />