Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

procurement process with an evaluation component to select them. Mr. Pryor called the decision a balancing act between the external process--comprised of public participation but not necessarily expertise, the internal process--comprised of the results from experts the City would hire and the experience of the people who work in the building, and the measurable reality-- how much money was available and the design constraints of the site that would ultimately be developed or renovated. The decision, he averred, would boil down to a process that would foster a balance between the three components. Mr. Penwell said it was difficult to cover all of the possibilities in one work session. He needed to set up a dialogue, starting with the City Cbuncil and then moving to the community, including some "back and forth." He cautioned against rushing to resolve issues prematurely. He averred there was value in keeping fluidity in the dialogue. He was concerned that staff would not have a chance to get all of the data before the decision point on renovation versus rebuilding had been reached. Ms. Bettman was troubled to hear Mr. Penwell's remarks as she believed the decision on whether to renovate should be resolved first. She commented that whatever technical data was needed to make that decision and whatever community dialogue would be held in order to make that decision should be "job one." She opined it would undermine the public process to go out with such a large question on the table. She said the council needed to see the numbers "early on" because if the costs of the two options were far from one another, the decision would be obvious; whereas if they were more similar, the decision would be discretionary in nature. Ms. Bettman observed that design style was not on the list of priorities. She felt that message would come from public conversations. She related that she saw many buildings being constructed in the State that looked just like the new library and asked if the community would want another building like that. She wanted to hold a public hearing that would ask for input about the issues involved in building a new city hall so that it would inform the entire process. She wanted it to be widely advertised. City Manager Taylor ascertained from Ms. Bettman that she wanted a public meeting to be convened in conjunction with a City Council meeting prior to working with the consultants on the development of the material and the date of the facilitated policy workshop. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's points. He felt the outcome of Phase 1 would be a conceptual plan and would not be cast in stone, though it would be a clear indication of momentum. He indicated he would support the provision of additional money to assess the existing building and provide a clear picture of its adequacy or inadequacy and what it would cost to renovate. Mr. Pap6 averred that more public process was needed as it was an important issue. He thought in addition to a public hearing, the City needed a larger public process with solicitation of emails and more, especially given that the City was likely to go out for a bond. He agreed that more answers were needed because of the number of possibilities the plan presented. Ms. Bettman remarked that another important issue was the location of the building. She staunchly supported moving forward with the plan, but only if it was in the downtown area. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support allocating more money to the first phase, but stressed that those MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 4 Work Session