Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor commented that the government may not need to grow; rather, it should limit itself over the years. She then spoke to public involvement and pointed out that that component had not yet been addressed with this project. Ms. Taylor referred to basic questions that have yet to be answered and said those should include public involvement, i.e., if the police building should be separate, how many police stations should be constructed and at what size, if the City should renovate or build anew, and if those decisions should be made prior to other decisions. She commented that the current City Council Chamber was the “epitome of democracy” as it was open to the public and the environment and may be adequate for the future, regardless of population increases. Mr. Poling concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments regarding Value 7, and offered new language which was noted in the motion that follows: Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the six project values presented at the October 19, 2005, City Council workshop, plus three additional project values: (7) Maximize use of City Hall public spaces by the public and access to government and its representatives; (8) Strive for simplicity; (9) Plan for the future; and further, adopt the following four position statements: (1) Incorporate meaningful sustainable design goals; (2) Utilize a long-term planning horizon of 25 years; (3) Consolidate general City services to the greatest practical extent, postponing decisions on the inclusion of police functions until further technical analysis was completed; and (4) Develop the project in consideration of the Downtown Plan while th acknowledging reservations about the concept of 8 Avenue as the Great Civic Street. Mr. Poling stressed that this motion sets the groundwork for the public process. Mr. Papé spoke once again to Value 9, and pointed out the current facility had no plan for the future, with the exception of the City Council Chamber, and therefore had poor accessibility. Ms. Bettman stated she would accept the rewording of Value 7. She then turned to Position Statement 3, and opined that the language separated police services, which she assumed would not be decided upon at this stage in the process. Mr. Penwell explained that the intent of that specific language was to recognize that there were varying police delivery models and to not preclude options. He assured the council that the option to retain the department within the City Hall Complex continues to be on the table. Ms. Bettman commented that the council awaited technical analysis on this and other issues and therefore such caveats should be omitted. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to change the language in Position Statement 3 as follows: Consolidate City services to the greatest practical extent. 7 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session