Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by substituting Approach B and reducing the amount <br />to $860,000. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. <br />The motion passed 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé was concerned about taking something to the public that was very complex, and asked how the <br />issue would be resolved. He did not think the current City Hall should be part of the complex, and wanted <br />to remove the funding for the examination proposed and consider it separately. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by removing the $85,000 <br />for the Generic Versus Remodel study. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said that many of her thoughts about the project were predicated on doing the project on the <br />existing site. She asked if the motion implied the site would not be used. Mr. Papé said the building would <br />not be used. The council would have to develop a process to determine whether to demolish or retain the <br />building. Ms. Solomon thought the study was intended to provide that information. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said she also wanted a new city hall on the current site and did not want to retain the existing <br />building. However, she thought the study was needed because a certain element of the community would <br />argue that the issue had not been studied and the council would have to halt work and commission the study <br />anyway. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think the public had the opportunity to make up its mind and she thought the study was <br />basic to that. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said that he also supported demolishing the building but he agreed with the remarks of Ms. <br />Solomon, saying that for the sake of fairness the option should be explored. He could not support the <br />motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not agree that the fact the building would not be used was a forgone conclusion, but he <br />thought Ms. Solomon’s remarks were well-taken. The issue would still be there and must be addressed in <br />some way. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 5:1; Mr. Papé voting yes. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Kelly voting no. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: Rules Concerning Dog Ownership in City Limits <br /> <br />Mike McKerrow of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. He provided <br />some background on the issue. He reviewed the complaints received to date, noting that most were about <br />barking and the housing of three or more dogs. He said Springfield allowed four dogs per residence and <br />Lane County allowed eight dogs per residence. He said that complaints were generally based on how dogs <br />were managed. If the council chose to modify the code, the amendment would be included in the next round <br />of code amendments to be considered by the public. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2005 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />