CC Minutes - 07/19/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman regarding preserving the existing building. He said that the site selection process should include solid information and feedback from the community about potential reuse of the building. City Manager Taylor replied that while that information would not be a part of the formal site selection analysis, it should be possible to ascertain the level of community interest in alternate uses for the building prior to the next work session. Mr. Penwell said that Planning and Development Department staff could assist in that effort and use their contacts in the community and among nonprofit agencies to determine interest in the building. He understood the request to be: 1) determine the potential market value of the site and 2) determine if there is community interest in paying that market value to acquire the building for reuse. Mr. Papé agreed that a full analysis of the existing facility was necessary along with a determination of the community’s interest in preserving it. He said that some in the community viewed the building as period architecture. Ms. Piercy remarked that there had been some discussion of the building’s appropriateness for a visual art center or cultural center. She said there could also be a discussion of how to connect a new building to the public, perhaps through including a visual arts or cultural center to provide connection and access. Mr. Poling urged that the site selection process include an early determination that any potential site owned by another governmental entity would be available for acquisition because the owner was willing to sell. Ms. Bettman said that new options reviewed at a previous meeting included a non-contiguous Police services function. She said the proposed motion was not explicit that the new construction options were those included in the agenda packet or included non-contiguous options. Mr. Cohen said the intent was to carry forward with the council’s direction at a previous meeting regarding police consolidation. Mr. Penwell clarified that the intent of the process was to address three major issues: 1) police consolidation, 2) renovate, new or hybrid, and 3) site. He said each issue was to be analyzed individually with multiple options, those options reduced and the issue returned for consideration during the conceptual design phase. He said all options for police consolidation were still on the table and the council was not being asked to make further decisions on that; renovate, hybrid and new options were being considered as a separate issue. Ms. Bettman said it appeared that the motion would include the two options in the agenda materials, plus the options with a non-contiguous police function. Mr. Penwell said the options in their full presentation at the community forums and workshop did include all options. Ms. Bettman said the motion was about all options presented at the last work session, both contiguous and non-contiguous, and she would vote against the motion. Mr. Kelly supported involving Planning and Development Department staff in determining community interest in the current building. He was interested in obtaining responses to an informal and well-publicized request to solicit interest from entities in the community about possible reuse of the building, along with possible scenarios regarding the City’s role in preparing the facility for sale, from staff prior to the council’s next decision meeting. He said that did not exclude analysis of the site as one of the preferred sites. He asked staff for an action plan at the council’s August meeting related to providing that information. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to eliminate the “Renovation” and “Hybrid” options and adopt “New” construction options for use in future planning MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 19, 2006 Page 4 Work Session