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