CC Minutes - 07/19/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Cohen said public input was solicited through a community forum and many other venues identified in the agenda materials and feedback was recorded and included in writing as part of the reports to the council. He said the project website was continually updated with all information and reports as part of the ongoing communication process. He reminded the council that the options being considered were not architectural designs but rather mental models intended to convey the implications of some of the specific choices facing the council. Ms. Taylor said she attended both public meetings and her impression was that the process had not been as broad or as deep as she anticipated for the investment that was made in a public process. She felt a few people were aware of the project but the process had only skimmed the surface. She expected to hear people with opposing views debating in public, broadly publicized meetings in every neighborhood, and a City Club meeting with two opposing views on how to proceed. She was distressed that the council was ready to make a decision without public input. She said there were claims that deferred maintenance made it difficult to preserve the existing building but the same thing could occur if maintenance was deferred on a new building. She was willing to change her opinion of the project if there was a broad public desire for a totally new building, but she was not yet convinced of that. She preferred to continue with a public process instead of making an immediate decision that could eliminate other decisions. Mr. Papé disagreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He felt that the public forum was well-attended with a broad base of people from the community. He appreciated how the meeting was conducted and how votes were recorded on many different issues. He said the issue had been discussed in the community since 1999 and he received little input in support of retaining the existing facility, including a discussion by the City Club. He thought the building could be preserved for other functions but could no longer serve as a City Hall since it could not accommodate consolidation of City offices, had no main entrance, systems were outdated, and the building did not meet seismic codes for an emergency facility. He was ready to move on and believed the community was as well. Mr. Kelly thought the process had been good, was widely reported in the press at each stage, and the meetings were well publicized. He agreed with Mr. Papé that public participation could be encouraged but not forced and the milestones established by the process should be followed unless there was a compelling reason to modify them. He noted that with the exception of the second renovation option, there was relatively little cost variation among the options. He felt that other criteria beside cost should drive the council’s decision and there was value to preserving the existing building and offering it for an alternate use. Ms. Bettman said she received extensive feedback from two forum participants with differing opinions. She agreed that the council committed to a timeline and there were decisions that had to be made as it was not feasible to submit every possible variation to the public for comment. She did not object to the proposed motion, but thought the decision should be based on very technical analyses and that case needed to be made to the public. She said that the process used to develop the cost estimates for options should be transparent and available to the public to avoid casting doubt on whether the council made a decision without substanti- ating the fiscal implications of each option. Mr. Poling indicated he had a bias toward taking some action related to City Hall. He was pleased with how the process was going to address issues one at a time and narrow the decision-making process based on public input. He said those to whom he had spoken and who had attended the public sessions felt the same way. He was ready to move to the next step. He was not concerned with site selection at this point and would await public comment. He was pleased with the work done to date on the City Hall complex project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 2 Work Session