Item 2A - Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proceeding with any plans. She thought input from charette participants had not been adequately consid- ered. Mr. Meisner conveyed his appreciation for the committee and its members. He said that prior to collaborat- ing with other government entities he wished to ensure that the government functions that were in the Atrium Building and the Pearl Street Public Works building, among others, were consolidated into the new civic center. Mr. Meisner wished to find all means possible for the City to make a substantial down payment toward a civic center. He wanted to guarantee to the public that the City was paying for the project in the most efficient way possible and in a way that minimized the need for new public revenues to the greatest extent possible. He welcomed more public input, but thought it should be focused on specific points in order to facilitate effective commentary. Mr. Poling also thanked the committee for its work. He noted that the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) projected out 25 years and asked if there was a ~magic number" staff was looking for. Mr. Poling stated, in addressing the policy principles, that this was a good example of how the City could show efficiency in government. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City needed to house its own functions before partnering or collocating with other government entities, though he thought some consolidation could save the City money. He felt the civic center would be a tool to redevelop the entire downtown area. Mr. Poling interpreted Option 1 to indicate that the policy principles would guide planning. He called it a tool to be used for the next step. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Svendsen stated that the language regarding parking intended that it be located in the vicinity of the civic center and not specifically in the building itself. Ms. Nathanson felt the criminal justice system did not work as a system. She said when she saw public safety services included in the building and that there were possibilities for partnerships, she felt it important to look at the possibility of a criminal justice or public safety services center in which there would be collaboration for provision of services. She thought some State services could be located at a shared facility. She did not think that between now and November 2004 there would be adequate time to explore collaboration between entities such as the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), Springfield, and Lane County on such a consolidation of services. She thought short-term collaborations would work. Ms. Bettman also thanked the committee and the participants in the initial charette. She asked if the committee had an opportunity to view the tape of the City Council discussion of the civic center. Mr. Taylor replied that they had not done so. Ms. Bettman said her highest priority was to have a rebuilt City Hall and Police Station. She also agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City should do its best to minimize the need for public revenues. Ms. Bettman felt the action the council was about to take was very significant and should not be taken lightly. She liked the vision generally and liked the policies generally, but questioned the underlying assumptions of the first and fifth policy principles. She noted there had been disagreement among the council on whether or not to collocate. For instance, while she supported the inclusion of the EPD station, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 3 Work Session