Laserfiche WebLink
he talked to School District 4J and there was some interest, and the Eugene Water & Electric Board <br />(EWEB) also expressed interest in maintaining a downtown presence. He thought the Lane Council of <br />Governments (LCOG) might also be interested, and said it was important to find out. <br /> <br />Mr. Penwell said that he directed the project team to focus on the City’s needs first. He heard consensus <br />from the council that the City needed to deal with its own space needs and costs first. He met regularly with <br />the County and its priorities were not the same as the City’s with regard to the project and the funding it <br />could provide. He thought the co-location question would be dealt with in the next phase of the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said the cost reflected just the beginning of the process. He said the added money was necessary <br />to have the community process. Some of the added costs to the first phase were because of the public <br />process. <br /> <br />With regard to citizen interviews, Mr. Poling said he hoped not just the usual people were involved. He <br />proposed a random selection process from voters’ lists, rather than asking individual councilors for their <br />suggestions. He thought that would result in a true sampling of people not otherwise involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with <br />Approach A for implementation of the Development Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex <br />Action Plan plus the Generic New versus Remodel Study and request of a Supplemental <br />Budget an appropriation of $1,135,000 from the Facility Reserve. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked how neighborhood outreach would occur. Ms. Cooper responded that the project team <br />would work with the Neighborhood Program staff to meet with the different organizations. There would <br />also be forums that would elicit comment from a sample. The project team planned to have neighborhood <br />involvement in each of the forums. Ms. Taylor hoped the project team went to every neighborhood <br />organization. She did not support the citizen interviews, and suggested that citizens be encouraged to attend <br />neighborhood meetings or go to a forum. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly liked Mr. Poling’s suggestion for a random sampling of voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked the cost differential between approaches A and B. Mr. Cohen estimated a differential of <br />between 20 percent to 25 percent. He said there were many reimbursable expenses associated with that <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said even Approach B cost more than he expected. He did not understand how Eugene Water & <br />Electric Board (EWEB) secured a 30 percent schematic design for $800,000 and the City’s was $900,000. <br />Mr. Penwell said that the project was potentially $100 million plus, and the technical work being done <br />represented less than one percent of the eventual project cost. The City was looking at more difficult <br />questions and issues than EWEB had. The City was doing the most difficult part of the project at the front <br />end. He had come to believe it was a good deal and an appropriate use of City funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Penwell’s remarks helped address his concerns a little but he was still somewhat <br />troubled. He suggested the council consider Approach B plus the Generic New Versus Remodel <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />