04/25/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Bennett said he strongly recommended looking at a public/private approach and finding out first whether private capital was available. Mr. Miller said he recently had met with about 60 residents and he had come away impressed with their desire to explore options and to put their energy and creativity to work. He said he thought it would be wise for the council to allow that process to occur. He said he did not think residents were naive about the funds available, and he urged allowing the chance to see what the community could do, adding that he thought it was worth a four- to six-month process. He asked whether the amount for annual ongoing security could be mitigated. Ms. Bohman said cost estimates could be reviewed by the PARCS Department. Mr. Miller asked whether volunteer time could be used. Mr. Gleason said volunteers required organization and support. He noted the need to address both maintenance and operation, which if not done as efficiently as possible could take away from other maintenance programs. Ms. Schue said she thought it was a wonderful idea to redo the building for useful community projects, but she had experience with similar projects in the past, and she was concerned about the charge to the task force. She said she thought the project was not a neighborhood project, but was a citywide project. She said the direction to the task force should ensure that realities of funding and operating costs were addressed. She said she was willing to include some private use of the building in order to support the public use, as was done with parking structures. Ms. Wooten noted that the second page of the agenda item summary listed five items that might constitute the charge to the task force. She also asked that staff return with a report after consulting people of various interests and levels of expertise on both the formation and composition of the task force and a more clear and definite outline of the costs of staffing the task force. Ms. Schue said she was concerned that the charge to develop a consensus regarding uses would depend on available funds. Ms. Wooten said she thought that referred to agreement about prioritization of uses, and if funding could not be fit to those priorities, they could be reshuffled until funding did fit. Mr. Bennett said all five items listed by Ms. Wooten would require staff costs, and the last three items would entail additional costs. He said the risk of spending public funds would be justified if a realistic business plan was possible, but he was concerned about that risk in light of other budget priorities. Mr. Holmer said he thought the process had been backwards because the building had been purchased before uses, costs, or funding methods were known. Given the previous commitment by the council, however, he said he was prepared to state the motion. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to request that staff return with a specific proposal for implementing the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1988 Page 8