Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dollars must include support for exploration of the costs that would be saved by eliminating the need to rent space from other entities. Continuing, Ms. Bettman observed that the planned date for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) was set in July. She felt the City Council should be able to review them when they were submitted and provide a recommendation. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Penwell explained that the initial money would be spent on getting the design team up to speed on the history of the issue and on meetings with staff and the councilors in preparation for the facilitated session. He reassured her it was not money for plans for a new building. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to spending any money on a new facility. City Manager Taylor stressed that the $30,000 request did not presume the construction of a new facility or renovation of the old one. Mr. Carlson surmised that this was one of the questions the council wanted answers for in Phase 1. Mayor Piercy agreed that this would be a topic of ongoing discussion in the short term. Ms. Taylor asked the councilors to consider that the public might say that money should be spent on road repairs, if they were given the chance. Mayor Piercy asked staff if any other questions needed discussion. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council wanted to engage the public process early on and wanted firm costs known for possible renovation of the existing building. He indicated he would bring answers to these questions as soon as possible. Mr. Carlson extrapolated from council input an acceptance of the idea of an early public heating, and that councilors wished for the consultants to work with them to find out what additional information they might need when answering questions for the public. He noted that holding a longer work session had been suggested. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the idea of an early public heating be broadened to include early public input. Mr. Carlson responded that staff would figure out some way to add to the opportunities for feedback, but he did not know that there would be enough information for a newspaper insert or questionnaire at that point. Mr. Penwell pointed out that the cursory review of the existing City Hall structure conducted five years earlier had cost between $40,000 and $50,000. He added that ongoing expenses for the building, as it stood, were five times more expensive per square foot than the ongoing expenses generated by the new library. He assumed that any cost projection for the existing structure would be based on a "gut and renovate." His cost projection made six years earlier had been closely based on gutting and renovating the building and did not take into consideration Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. He suggested that he return to the council with general costs based on the specific building. He thought a "gut and renovate" might change the entire configuration of the building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 5 Work Session