CC Minutes - 12/14/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

in small groups to reduce costs. Technical professionals, citizens, business people, and others would be involved. Ms. Taylor was concerned about relying too much on citizens who might be chosen for their standing in the community. Ms. Cooper said that the workshops would be inclusive and would try to involve those who do not normally participate in City affairs. The project team was trying to avoid over-reliance on the “usual suspects.” Mr. Pryor was very impressed with the process to this point and thought it gave the council the ability to evaluate its options. He said the cost differential was a consideration for him. He believed the citizen input process should be as inclusive as possible and suggested the more comprehensive process was the most appropriate and would produce the most realistic result. He encouraged the project team to be as thorough as possible in the process so the council had the information it needed to reach a decision. He supported Approach A. Mr. Kelly referred to the Generic New Versus Remodel Study, and said he was pleased that Mr. Cohen had mentioned a possible hybrid approach in his remarks to Mr. Papé. He had feared the issue was being cast and was reflected in the AIS as a “new versus remodel” issue but Mr. Cohen had explained the hybrid approach. He thought it was important for the public and council to understand that a hybrid approach was possible. Mr. Kelly said he did not doubt renovation could be more expensive than new construction, but cost was not the only factor he considered. For some people, the existing City Hall had symbolic value that must be considered in that discussion. Since the decision to retain or not retain City Hall was so fundamental to the future, he questioned why it was not included in both options. Mr. Cohen said that the City Hall issue was identified separately because it was a tricky thing to do; the project team was not designing anything yet because it was not in the design phase and had to make assumptions. The project team considered the issue in terms of how it could meet the program needs, deal with parking and adjacency relationships, and have an inviting building. Mr. Cohen said the project team learned in its discussion with other cities that the decision about whether to retain the building had to do with the community’s strength of feeling to retain the building. If that strong desire existed, that should guide all future decisions. Mr. Kelly asked how a development plan could be done without determining the fate of the building. Mr. Cohen said the project team was trying to give the council choices. The idea of the generic study came from the workshop and was not in the original scope of work. Because of the way the idea evolved, the consultant identified it as a separate element. Mr. Kelly asked Police Chief Robert Lehner why he believed the work associated with the Police Services Delivery Study needed outside facilitation. Chief Bob Lehner asked Mr. Cohen if his reference was to the model of police service delivery or the facilities that go along with that. If the answer was the latter, the study was the appropriate venue. Mr. Cohen confirmed that the focus was on facilities. He said his firm was offering the expertise of its consultant team to the City. However, his firm may not need to be involved. Mr. Kelly did not know why the City’s Facilities staff could not do the work required. Mr. Poling referred to the co-location opportunities listed in the meeting packet and asked if the discussion to come would be about sharing both space and sharing costs. He asked if that would be offered to the public for its consideration as he thought that discussion was very important, particularly as it regarded cost. City Manager Dennis Taylor suggested that would come out in the community process. He said that MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 3 Work Session