Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/20/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Shop Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library Eugene, Oregon June 20, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. WORK SHOP: City Council Goal – City Hall Complex The council was joined for the item by Thomas Hacker, Jonah Cohen, and Dana Ing Crawford of Thomas Hacker Architects, Ellen Teninty of T’N T Consultants, Galen Ohmart of Solarc, Doug Macy and Ken Pirie of Walker Macy, Dave Wilson and Rick Rehfeldt of McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie, and Kyle Brown of J. D. White Company. Police Chief Robert Lehner, and Glen Svendsen and Mike Penwell of the Facility Management Division were also present. Mr. Cohen reviewed the agenda. Ms. Teninty shared the results of the public involvement effort, highlighting the consultant’s focus on empirical public research and expanding the pool of people to be involved in the next round of public conversation. The consultants had gone to places where people go, such as fairs, festivals, movies, parks, sporting events, and shopping venues. She said another focus was on involving youth and Latinos. Because input from those groups indicated a need for education about how government worked and how to become involved, leadership training was planned for those populations at the locations the forum occurred. A ward map would be made available at the leadership training along with contact information about the City, the City Council, and neighborhood organizations. Materials were being translated into Spanish and made culture-appropriate. She noted an example of that material. Ms. Teninty reported that people indicated to the consultants that they were finding information about civic affairs in their organizational newsletters, and the consultant was making contacts with additional newsletter editors to expand outreach in that area. Ms. Teninty noted Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary, the public activities update. Mr. Pack provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the empirical research that had been done and acknowledged the contribution of California consultant Heidi von Szeiliski, who had considerable expertise in Oregon surveys. Copies of the presentation were provided to the council. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the methodology and the responses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 1 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Mr. Cohen reminded the council of some recent events and new information that could inform its discussion, such as the demise of the Whole Foods project and the fact the parking lot adjacent to the site owned by the City was still available; the owner of the site of Rock ‘N Rodeo had indicated she had no interest in selling the site to the City; there was a difference of opinion about the effect of the deed restrictions for the County- owned butterfly parking lot; and the General Services Administration (GSA) had expressed interest in City occupation of part of the old federal building through a long-term lease. He recommended the council reconsider its original plans in response to those changes in reality and in response to the public input. Mr. Hacker presented consolidation strategies depicted on both the existing City Hall site and the site of the butterfly parking lot/Rock ‘N Rodeo. The consolidation options moved from the most consolidated (the “A” strategies) to least consolidated (the “D” strategy) and each degree of consolidation was depicted on both sites. All assumed the patrol function was not included. An estimated cost was shown for each strategy. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the impetus for looking at options to decrease the cost, but questioned at what point the consultants were directed to sacrifice consolidation of services, which was a major value expressed by the council and those surveyed. Mr. Hacker said the consultants heard from the polling that if the bond measure was above a certain dollar amount it was unlikely to pass and were seeking to reduce costs. Ms. Bettman asked if losing consolidation was the only way to decrease costs. Mr. Hacker said that consolida- tion and reuse of space were both good ways to reduce costs, and the consultant was trying to depict what it would take to reach the number favored by the public. Ms. Teninty recalled that the council had spoken of consolidating to the greatest extent possible. There were other ways of lowering costs, and acknowledged the design could hit a point where it would not win support because it was not sufficiently consolidated. She said the council would get to that discussion. Mr. Poling asked if the strategies that included the federal building included the costs of the lease. Mr. Cohen said no. Mr. Poling asked why the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site were still under discussion if they were not viable. Mr. Cohen said that the most recent direction the council had given the consultant team had been to plan for the site. The other strategies were intended to stimulate discussion. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that consolidation of City services was a very high value for him and he would prefer not to sacrifice it. Ms. Taylor also questioned why the City Council was still discussing the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site when they were not available. Mayor Piercy deferred further discussion of that issue until after the presentation. Mr. Cohen reviewed a matrix that summarized potential costs for each strategy. He emphasized the escalation in construction costs that were occurring, which had increased the project costs. Mr. Cohen reviewed a project time line that assumed a bond measure would be presented to the voters in a general election in 2008. He indicated the consultant’s work would have to be done by May in time for a campaign committee to be formed. The council took a brief meeting break. Ms. Ortiz said she was not surprised by the results of the survey, which she believed reflected the polariza- tion on the council. She was concerned to see the escalation of costs for the patrol building as she favored moving forward with that project sooner rather than later. She clarified with Mr. Cohen that the building MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 2 Work Shop—City Hall Goal would be an essential services structure. Ms. Ing said all police functions were assumed to be required essential service facilities, including the office of the chief, the detectives, and patrol, and all must remain operational in an earthquake. Ms. Ortiz did not know why the patrol building alone would total $25 million. Mr. Cohen emphasized the conservative nature of the estimates and said that much of the increase had to do with construction cost escalation. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the continuing outreach being done by the consultant and asked if they were tracking numbers. Ms. Teninity said the team did not track numbers but frequently people did not want to provide contact information. Mayor Piercy thought it would be useful to have those numbers. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Pack how he compensated for how hard it was to survey voters when there were so many people who now use cell phones. Mr. Pack responded that the field of polling was changing; it was taking longer and costing more to complete a survey. Cell phones did make it difficult to reach younger voters in particular, as they frequently had no land line and moved often. Mayor Piercy suggested an important component of the eco-charette was education about the short-term versus the life cycle costs. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pack said that telephone surveyors did call people back when appropriate. Ms. Taylor was skeptical about telephone surveys. Ms. Taylor asked if the consultant team was excluding those who were generally involved in local government issues. Ms. Teninty said no; in the next phase, she anticipated involvement from those traditionally involved. Ms. Taylor thought the activists would determine what happened next. Ms. Taylor asked whether the police chief would still remain in City Hall if a separate police facility was constructed. Mr. Cohen said yes. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the space available in the federal building, Mr. Penwell said the GSA indicated that currently, it appeared that 16,000 to 23,000 square feet might be available, depending on what agencies moved in and out. He said it was possible the City could secure an ownership share in the facility. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Penwell said the GSA indicated it wanted to retain ownership of the building for 10 to 15 years and was not willing to turn over more space. He indicated that could change with changes in leadership, and staff would keep asking the question about a possible ownership share. Mr. Poling agreed the survey information was not surprising. He referred to Ms. Ortiz’s remarks regarding relocating the patrol function, and suggested that the council place that a step ahead because his understand- ing of the seismic restrictions were that where ever they were relocated must be no worse than existing conditions. Mr. Penwell said the Building Official indicated initially the building must meet full require- ments because there was no temporary provision in the code, but finally agreed that as long as a project was underway the function could move to another building no worse than City Hall. Mr. Poling referred to leasing the federal building and asked for a comparison of the costs of placing Municipal Court there as opposed to retaining it in City Hall. Mr. Poling said he would place a motion on the floor at a July council meeting to take the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo off the table as sites for a new city hall. Central Services Director Jim Carlson did MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 3 Work Shop—City Hall Goal not think the two sites in question were completely off the table. The deed restriction affected only a part of the property, and it was still possible to acquire the Rock ‘N Rodeo property. Mr. Poling indicated unwillingness to do so through eminent domain. Mr. Clark suggested that the City consider acquiring the Eugene Water & Electric Board Administration (EWEB) building as part of a new city hall complex. He thought it might be less expensive and could save EWEB costs in relocating in the long run. Mr. Cohen said the building in question was smaller than the existing City Hall, leaving the issue of finding more space unresolved. He recalled that the site was examined in the site selection process, and there was stronger support for other sites because of their proximity to downtown. Mr. Clark recalled there were 75-80 people at the public forum on site selection and agreed that the site was not highly rated by that group, but he thought that had been part of a larger discussion in which some expressed their belief it was a higher value for a new city hall to be part of a reinvigorated Parks Block downtown, while the survey indicated less support for that. Mr. Zelenka commended the information presented and suggested it had “shifted the floor” for him. It appeared from the survey that a bond would be difficult but doable. He said the survey results made the Facilities Fund and its continued growth even more important. Safety, sustainability, and parking seemed to be important to respondents. Consolidation was also considered important, although Mr. Zelenka would have liked to have seen a follow-up question that asked respondents about their support for consolidation if it cost more. He suggested that the council needed to pay attention to the other high priorities, such as pavement preservation, identified by the public. Mr. Zelenka was less concerned about the consolidation issue than some might be. He said the C-2 strategy made sense to him. He acknowledged the difficulties associated with the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site. He referred to A-2 and noted the high cost per square foot associated with each structure and questioned the 30 percent premium associated with the patrol building. Mr. Cohen said that part of the response to the cost per square foot question had to do with scale. There was also parking associated with the patrol function. He said the consultant team discussed the issue extensively with the estimator looking at recently bid projects. However, the consultant team did not yet know if the new city hall building was a free-standing building downtown with a symbolic presence or was a facility located elsewhere that could be built more cheaply. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the survey demonstrated that the more the City informed people, the better the chances of having a measure to support a new city hall passed. The survey also indicated that some of the issues the council thought would resonate with voters did not, while others did, and he thought that gave the council a place to focus its attention to build public support. Ms. Bettman disliked the idea of spending $2.5 million in public money and returning to square one; that is, having services spread around the city and a separate police station. She also was not surprised by the survey results, particularly given the assumptions that informed the questions. She asked if the three failed bond measures for a police facility had been mentioned in the survey and if it had played into people’s opinions of what they could support in regard to expending money on a patrol facility before a new city hall. She believed the project was beginning to unravel in terms of what was supportable. She said that removing the option of consolidation eliminated the values of striving for simplicity and efficiency. She said the consolidation was intended to save money and unify public services. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 4 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Ms. Bettman said she wished the survey would have included a question about where people got their information, because she thought the priorities reflected in the survey reflected the reporting in the media related to the high profile placed on road projects, for example. Ms. Bettman said she was not “married” to the Rock ‘N Rodeo site. She thought it should have been made clear to the public that there was a cost involved in building on the existing City Hall site. The public should have been asked if it wanted to build on that site if it would cost $2.5 million more and the City would face “unmanageable and uncontrollable” expenses due to the need to relocate employees and move them back to the site. She questioned the results of the survey because people did not have that information. Ms. Bettman said the survey results for the ballot measure were also not surprising and they confirmed her long-held belief that political support for whatever was placed on the ballot was a key to the measure’s passage. Whatever product the council put forward needed to have more than a slim majority of councilors in support, and she was not on board. She thought the proposal “DOA” at this point. She did not support going forward with a police facility first as she thought it looked like the council was being manipulated into doing what the voters had rejected three times. Disbursing services took away a major motivation for going forward. The site was less important to her than those factors. Mayor Piercy said that even if the council could make the case the Rock ‘N Rodeo site was viable, the legal issues could be lengthy to overcome and could generate a community debate that could take away from support. She said the council had agreed to take the patrol facility out of the main city hall. She thought EWEB had been clear that it wanted to retain the administrative offices on its site. Mayor Piercy asked how important it was to keep the court in the consolidated city hall. City Manager Taylor said that it was a destination point for citizens. The opportunity to use facilities already designed for that use was attractive to him. Mr. Carlson said the court was an independent function, with a relationship to the prosecutor’s office and police investigative function. Reusing the existing City Hall site in conjunc- tion with the federal building essentially established two campuses on adjacent sites. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work of the consultant team. He said the information was consistent with the last survey, which showed support for the work the City did; the numbers began to go down when the subject changed to leadership and governance. He suggested that was more than one point of view versus the other point of view; two-thirds of the public, for example, fault the council for its manage- ment of growth and tax dollars. The survey demonstrated a lack of confidence that the City’s leadership was managing its job as well as it could, which led to the question: Would someone want to give the City money if they lacked confidence in the council? He thought they would, if they thought the City’s priorities were well-placed, and residents got to set the City’s priorities because it was their money. He thought a major public information campaign could occur to boost support but the City could still lose the election. He was concerned the City did not have the voters’ confidence. Mr. Pryor supported the existing City Hall site and thought from the public’s point of view it was the common sense site. He wanted to build a 50- to 100- year building and not get caught up in trying to build the cheapest building possible to get by, because those were the mistakes made in the past that come home later. He said the council needed to figure out how to build such a building on whatever site was selected because he thought the City would only get one shot at a new city hall for a long time. Speaking to the costs of relocation, Mr. Pryor agreed there was a cost to relocating staff, but a greater cost to buying a new site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 5 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Mr. Pryor did not consider the survey a “green light” or a “red light,” but he thought it indicated a new city hall would be a very tough sell to the public. The council would have to put enormous effort into the issue to overcome what appeared to be structural obstacles to the project as well as to the interconnection with other projects and the trust and faith the community had in the council. That was a huge challenge, and he did not want to waste anyone’s time unless the council truly believed the project could go forward. He said the council had many priorities and he wanted to be sure they were in the right order. Ms. Solomon supported removing the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site from further considera- tion and said the A-2 Option was her preference. However, she was intrigued by the idea of moving the courts into the federal building. She had been somewhat surprised at the polling data as she had not thought things were “that bad.” She agreed with Mr. Pryor that the council had its work cut out for it but she continued to think the project was important. Mr. Zelenka did not think the project was unraveling; however, he thought the survey should have been done earlier in the process. He thought the public was telling the council that the price tag for a big consolidated city hall was too high, and the council needed to get down under a $100 million bond. The council needed to look at other options, such as the C options. The only way to reduce the cost was to reduce the size of the project. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to build a building that would last for the long term and he emphasized the importance of the building being sustainable. Mr. Zelenka emphasized the importance assigned to the two top sites, including the existing site, by the public forum participants. They were ranked high above the sites below them. The public forum had been a well-balanced cross-section of the community, and he trusted their judgment. He was prepared to let go of th the Rock ‘N Rodeo and butterfly parking lot. He suggested that the sale of the lot on the other side of 8 Avenue could help with some of the moving costs. Speaking to the timing of the bond issue, Mr. Zelenka expressed concern about a bond measure that might compete with a transportation financing measure. He also did not think that gave the council enough time to build trust with voters that Mr. Pryor mentioned. He believed that the council should be able to show progress in downtown and progress in the other high priority issues identified by voters before going to the public with a bond measure. He was not in favor of moving forward with a separate police facility. He was also not in favor of having the police facility inside city hall, and needed more information about why it was so expensive. Ms. Bettman cautioned the council against reading too much into the survey responses related to growth and development, for example, as that could be any split between people who thought the council spent too much subsidizing it and those who thought the council needed to do more to encourage it. Overall, people were unhappy and she was sure they were unhappy for different reasons. Ms. Bettman again emphasized her interest in the consolidated options. She said the community did not understand the distinctions between different levels of governments and she feared that relocating Municipal Court to the federal building would further confuse the public. It would be different if the entire building was available for a new city hall, as many people were interested in that, but it made no sense to her to rent space at the federal building. Speaking to the issue of the EWEB site, Ms. Bettman thought it would cost too much to create the transportation link between that site and downtown as it was not really downtown. She suggested that the council agree that the issue was not “ripe” and take the $30 million to buy the EWEB site or at minimum, the riparian area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 6 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Regarding options for cost-cutting, Ms. Bettman suggested the council could use urban renewal money for the city hall facility as well as any other money being funneled into the KWG project without the need to jeopardize the functional elements. Mr. Carlson noted that the existing City Hall site was not in the urban renewal district. Ms. Solomon noted Mr. Zelenka’s remarks about the 2008 election, and said the council’s transportation subcommittee also discussed putting a measure on the May 2008 ballot. However, she thought his points were well taken and agreed it might be difficult going to the voters again in such a narrow window. Ms. Solomon asked if the consolidation cost options include the money the City would realize for selling the Atrium. Mr. Carlson said that the financing plan included the resources from the sale of properties, although that was somewhat speculative at this time as the City did not count its assets until it sold them. It was not the only asset the City could sell as the City could also sell the facility at 858 Pearl Street. Ms. Solomon suggested that the City sell the Atrium as it would have to invest in it to make it a more usable building. Mr. Carlson said the City also owed money on the Atrium; possibly as much as its worth. City Manager Taylor noted the council was tentatively scheduled to talk about upcoming elections in October. He also noted that the boards of directors of 4J School District and Lane Community College (LCC) were also talking about capital bond measures in November 2008. He said that LCC was talking about a bond measure of about $100 million and the school district was contemplating a bond of about $116 million. Mr. Pack agreed that the council needed to consider competing bond measures and be thoughtful in coordinating things were they could with the other jurisdictions to keep informed. However, he said there was a different electorate involved in 2008 than would be participating in 2010, which was a presidential election year and would bring out many different interest groups. That would impact the level of support for a bond measure. He said that the council also needed to consider whether it would lose voters through the nature of the election it was considering. City Manager Taylor said another issue to consider was cost escalation; the numbers had jumped already and the council needed to factor in additional costs as it did not appear the escalation would abate between now and 2010. Ms. Bettman said there would always be competing money measures on the ballot. However, she thought the process had created a certain momentum that would be lost if the council delayed too long, as well its investment in the process. She thought the biggest factor for success was having a good project with broad support among the councilors. Ms. Ortiz wanted to move ahead with a police building sooner than later. Her goal was not a building with all the “bells and whistles,” but rather for the police to be removed from their current unsatisfactory quarters. She suggested the City could build a no-frills building on property it already owned. She thought that would send a message of support to the police officers as she thought their current working conditions had an impact on how they felt about their work. She had hoped to see a modest proposal for such a building that could be accomplished for less than $5 to $10 million. Ms. Ortiz had envisioned that the chief, detectives, Internal Affairs, etc. would remain in City Hall. Ms. Ing reported that the design Ms. Ortiz mentioned was included in the strategies. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 7 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Ms. Bettman said after the second bond measure failed staff had created a sense of urgency about the conditions in which the police were working in the basement of City Hall and the City Council had allocated $6 million to relocate the police to a newly constructed facility at Roosevelt. There were not supposed to be any patrol officers in the basement of City Hall. Ms. Ortiz observed that the patrol function was not at the Roosevelt facility. Mr. Carlson clarified that in 2000, there was permanent staff in the basement of City Hall responsible for Property Control and the Forensics Laboratory. A building was constructed on the Roosevelt site to house Property Control and the Forensics Laboratory. All permanent staff were taken from the basement and housed in the new building. He said Ms. Ortiz was correct in that the basement of City Hall was still the location of patrol locker rooms and the place where patrol went each day to report in and receive briefings. There was no permanent staff in offices in the basement. Ms. Ortiz said the fact the voters rejected proposals for a new police facility in the past signified to her that they did not want to pay for it. She thought the council should pay for the facility from the existing budget. She did not think that moving forward with such a facility would be going against what the voters wanted. Ms. Teninty asked if any councilor was unwilling to give up the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site. Ms. Bettman said she was not unwilling to give up the two sites but her concern was that she did not want the existing City Hall site to be the only option. She suggested if the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo site had been approached with the same type of “value-added” approach other downtown property owners had been, her response might have been different. Referring to the deed restrictions on the butterfly lot, she recalled the recent court decision involving the deed restrictions for Civic Stadium, which had not worked out to the City’s advantage, which she attributed to the City’s legal representation rather than the deed restrictions. She thought if councilors were really interested in the butterfly lot, they would seek to lift the deed restrictions. She thought “bailing” on the sites premature because the council had yet to do due diligence in regard to the sites. Mr. Poling did not think the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo site was willing to sell as she hoped to develop her property herself. He said he had initially favored the City Hall site but had voted for the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo sites because of the information from the focus groups. Given the survey results, he thought the council would lose support for the project if it proposed to buy new properties. He would be willing to look at other City-owned sites. Mr. Penwell said that the City had approached the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo site through an independent appraiser about buying her property and different ways of valuing her property and she was unwilling to talk to that person. Mr. Clark noted his previous support for the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site, based on the focus groups, and said he had changed his mind because of the deed restriction and the survey. The survey clarified for him what he heard at the public forums. Some of the rationale he heard for the butterfly lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site was the reconnection to the Parks Blocks, which the survey indicated was not a concern for most of the respondents. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the existing City Hall site should not be the only option, and advocated for examining all potential options. Mayor Piercy liked the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site but said there were other ways she would like to use her energy as she also thought the existing site was a fine site. There was potential for using the site adjacent to City Hall to create a link to downtown. She thought the idea worth pursuing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 8 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Mr. Carlson said the City received appraisals for the butterfly lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site and learned the approximate value of the properties was over $2 million. The County would only agree to provide the City access to the butterfly parking lot if it replaced the parking that would be lost, and the County estimated the cost of replacing the stalls that would be lost at $11.2 million. The deed restrictions related to the butterfly lot remained to be resolved, but he thought could be accomplished. Ms. Taylor said the owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo property did not intend to sell her property. Ms. Taylor said she liked the current site if it was remodeled and expanded, but that option had been eliminated; however, the City owned other sites in downtown and she did not want to limit discussion to the current site. She asked the cost of relocating employees twice. Ms. Ing estimated the cost at $2.5 million. Ms. Bettman recalled it was previously estimated at $2.6 million. Mr. Penwell said that assumed moving off the existing site and every one moving back in; it did not assume a separate patrol function or Municipal Court in the federal building. Almost everybody had moved off the site already. Mr. Zelenka requested updated cost estimates for relocation. Ms. Taylor suggested the Sears site as a possibility and noted it was in the urban renewal district, so urban renewal funds could be used for a new city hall. Mr. Carlson agreed. Ms. Taylor did not want to eliminate the option. Ms. Teninty reminded the council that it had agreed to retain the option because it was the third option favored by the community and was already owned by the City. The council agreed the site was moving forward as part of another project, but if that fell through, it was a viable site. Mayor Piercy said unless the council changed course, it had voted to move forward with a project on the Sears site; locating City Hall on that site would represent a major shift. Ms. Ortiz asked if there was any way she could receive a different cost estimate for the police patrol building based her what she had described in regard to her expectations of what it would contain. She wanted an estimate for surface as opposed to structured parking. Mr. Cohen said the consultant team could provide a range of costs and perhaps even point to some examples of other facilities. He said consultant team recommended establishing parameters as it was now using general empirical data. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that the issues of leadership and governance were of concern to the voters, and he advocated for a degree of council consensus on what ever was decided that would allow the council to speak with a unanimous voice and garner more public support and greater trust. He suggested that solving some of the City’s other problems another way to garner trust and build support. He wanted the council to spend more time on the subject to reach that degree of consensus. Ms. Solomon thanked Mayor Piercy for her statement regarding the Sears site. She said that the council had already embarked on a process and taking the Sears building out of the process would undermine the public involvement that occurred and further harm the council’s credibility. Ms. Bettman said she kept hearing at the last meeting where the council discussed the issue that the public process had not yet begun. She said there had been no public hearings. She believed that given the council’s decision about the KWG development proposal, the Sears site was not off the table. If the process was open, it was up to the community to determine what the objectives were for the site. Ms. Bettman said many people had mentioned the Sears site to her. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 9 Work Shop—City Hall Goal Mr. Clark recalled that the council had discussed the need for a complete city block and the Sears site did not meet that criterion. Ms. Ing summarized the council’s information requests, which included: 1) a comparison of the costs of leasing space in the federal building versus buying the building; 2) more information on the costs of the patrol building and how they were established; 3) cost ranges for the patrol building based on less expensive criteria; 4) more due diligence on the deed restrictions associated with the butterfly parking lot; and 5) relocation costs with an escalation factor to 2010. Mr. Pryor suggested that on July 11, the council select a single site. He left the meeting. Mr. Clark requested information about why the EWEB site was not viable. Ms. Solomon thought the council had majority support for a single site and recommended that it proceed. Ms. Bettman cautioned that if the council was only to consider the options involving Rock ‘N Rodeo and the butterfly lot or the existing City Hall site on July 11, the outcome would not bode well for the future of the project. Mr. Zelenka thought the Sears site was acceptable as it was the back-up site to the butterfly parking lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site. He agreed with the mayor that the cost and expense of holding on to the butterfly lot and Rock ‘N Rodeo site were not worth it. He pointed out the only thing that had changed in regard to the existing City Hall site was the added nuance of the available space in the federal building. The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 20, 2007 Page 10 Work Shop—City Hall Goal