07/08/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ . Councilman williams hesitated about supporting a one-year lease, feeling it was ask- ing a delay on the overall County project with accompanying possible increase in ; construction costs. He said the County's plan had,been a matter of public knowledge ! for an extended period of time and he was not sure it was invalid, but he was satis- -- : fied it would be ,to the public benefi t if the ,.cost of the County's program was ,lessened. Mr. Murray's reply was that the presence of the Armory would in no way ! interfere with the County's building program. The most prevalent scheme and the ! one recommended to the Commissioners was that if there was no use for the building " it would be town down. His proposal, he said, was only a request to the County Com- missioners,giv~pg thema~_qption to respond to as they wished. ,- Councilwoman Beal was not sure of the proposal's relevancy because of the County's expressed desire that the space would be used for County purposes, regardless of whether the building was demolished. She thought the city within its rights to ! express interest in seeing the Armory preserved, but was qoubtful about trying to : lease it when the County had not said it would. .She wond~red whether a Ii ttle dif- I ferent proposal than leasing might be more appz'Opriate. \ "~ Mr. Murray repea~ed his argument that if action wasn't tak~n now then they would be facing a d~cision already made. Now is the time fot. iJ,;ipv:~:""<he said, and if the County later made a finn public decision to use the spacefror County purposes then nothing would be lost. He said there had never been any retrabtion of the County's previous i , I ;.offer-to--lease" thebuildingfo-r. $L.OO otlJez:. th_an bi t!~aI]d pieq?.,~ _0.:( in,formatjop._ from _ j , "hall way" con versa tions. Manager explained tha t informa tion about the COl;lnty' s posi - ! . tion was gained from a meeting to which he and Assistant Manager Martin were invited I for the purpose of bringing the city up to date on the County's program. He added , I that there was no particular Objection to indicating an interest in the Armory in . I ; line with Mr. Murray's proposal if the County decided not to use it itself. However, I it was hoped not to inject city staff or consulting effort if the County was taking : another direction. Mr. Murray thought any staff work or research should be contingent I upo~, the County's accepting the proposal. He did want to get the mechanism in motion and he felt this was the correct time. Councilwoman Campbell noted former Council support of Armory preservation in response to a request from the Historic Preservation Committee and felt favorable action on Mr. Murray's proposal would be consistent with that action. Mayor Anderson commented that the issues seemed to be largely based on personal . prejudice. He felt the issue of economic significance would be valid and- he would, 'I go along with the proposal if it was an overwhelming matter of use and economic benefit I . to the city. However, he thought from an economic standpoint the county had indicated 1 : it did have a practical use for the space so it would seem presumptious for the city I i to interject itself on the basis of economic use. He felt it premature and that there! : was nothing to be gained by launching staff on a proposal which according to : Mr. Murray's motion would involve the Historic Preservation Committee. He was con- . fident that communications at the staff level would alert the Council so that there I ,would be ample time for input and discussion of any further proposal by the. Council. He felt the matter at this time was not one needing urgent decision. Councilwoman Campbell was skeptical about future credibility of committee recommenda- tions, saying it was the Mayor's committee created through passage of an historic preservation ordinance which initiated the idea of Armory preservation. The Mayor I I said it was a matter of public input and he was stating his disagreement with the proposal so far as the Armory's historical significance and architectural value. Councilman Murray fel t there were three other issues .- (1) that it would be more economical to remodel than to construct a new building, (2) county and city both I were in need of office space, and (3) the assumption _in the Community Goals state- , ment that an auditorium would be provided somewhere in the community, which would present one option for the Commissioners to consider. Counci~man Hershner wondered if a substantial amount of staff time would be involved with adoption of the motion. Councilman Murray replied that it ~ould not unless the County accepted:it. Manager agreed that although it probably would not take staff time now, if the County advised it could not make a decision wjthout sp~cifics it could lead to that situation. . ' Cquncilwoman Beal stated her support of the motion because she thought the Armory , building an old sound building, full of usable materials, with a lot of space, and represented cheap office space which was suitable and usable. She added that if and when the County accepted the proposal then commitment of staff time could be considered. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. ,u,C0mrn- - "._~..._!,.- .. --,,- - -.. .-_. -... ...... --.- ---. ...-... ---... ...... 6(26/74 See Action Below L42. 7/8/74 - 11