Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/08/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall April 8, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Kelly asked City Manager pro tem Jim Carlson to look into the potential of using a City-owned site at the east edge of the property the City acquired in the Danebo property settlement as a possible Iow-income housing land bank site. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could do anything about what she termed the rapacious practices of towing companies who tow automobiles of visitors who unknowingly park in private lots. Ms. Taylor read an excerpt from a recent New Yorker article on the adoption of instant runoff voting by San Francisco, California, and the State of Vermont. She said that instant runoff voting was taking hold all over, and she hoped the council would consider including it as part of the charter amendments referred to the voters. Ms. Bettman requested information on the next steps in the south Willamette Street traffic study. She said that a meeting had been held on the topic that she would have liked to have attended with more notice. She requested more detailed information than was previously provided to the council and a report on what occurred at the meeting. Ms. Bettman raised the potential of eliminating downtown parking charges on Saturday. She thought it would be a boon to the businesses at the Saturday Market, resulting in a positive overflow for downtown businesses. She suggested that, given the parking structures were already free to use on Saturday, the revenue involved was likely minimal. Ms. Bettman asked to see revenue figures. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Carlson that no project-level surveys of the road alignment associated with the federal courthouse were occurring; Mr. Carlson said that the consultants may be out in the field examining possible alignments. Ms. Bettman asked that Mr. Carlson get back to her with what had been done. Mr. Meisner had no items. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Fart shared the success of the Willamette High School forensics team with the council, and congratulated all the team participants selected to attend the national finals in North Carolina, and in particular the coach, Rob Bingham. He noted his son was among those who would attend the national finals. Mr. Rayor said he would have also liked to have attended the meeting regarding Willamette Street. He echoed Ms. Bettman's request for a more detailed report, and hoped that in the process of developing the project, staff was doing thorough documentation. He noted that he had been asked to be included on the interested parties list, and suggested that his lack of notice indicated others were similarly omitted, and the project was proceeding "in a vacuum." Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. Pap~ reported that the Library Foundation's recent kick-off event for the serial levy campaign went well. He wished the foundation well in its efforts. Mr. Pap~ said that volunteers and the staff had done a great job in pulling the ivy out in Hendricks Park. The park looked much better. Mr. Fart and Ms. Taylor shared Ms. Bettman's interest in eliminating downtown parking charges on Saturday. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Carlson had no items. Mayor Torrey said the mayor of Enterprise, Oregon, had shared with him that community's plans to raise $300,000 annually for five years through citizen donations to underwrite the cost of public education. He noted that Enterprise was about 75 percent toward reaching its funding goal. Mayor Torrey said he recently learned that all council and mayor e-mail was public, not confidential, and available to anyone upon request. He said that he often received communications of a confidential nature, and advised those wishing to contact their elected officials with such matters to do so by telephone. B.Work Session: Ordinances Responding to LUBA's Remand of the August 1, 2001, Eugene Land Use Code: Ordinance No. 1: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Readopting and Amending Portions of Ordinance No. 20224; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ordinance No. 2: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations, Amending Sections 9.6730, 9.6820, and 9.8325 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ordinance No. 3: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations, Amending Sections 9.8320 and 9.8440 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Carlson introduced the item, reminding the council that this was the first opportunity it had to consider ordinances reinstating the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) sections that were not remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or were not appealed at all. He said that the time line for adoption was a quick one, noting the public hearing scheduled for 8 p.m. He said that the council may decide against taking action after the public hearing, and it could extend the public record if it chose to receive additional written testimony before taking final action. Planning Director Jan Childs noted testimony received from David Hinkley and Al Johnson, both of whom suggested the council postpone action. She also noted the distribution of two motions to correct scrivener's errors in Ordinance 1 identified by Mr. Kelly and a motion suggested by Ms. Bettman. City Attorney Glenn Klein characterized the ordinances under consideration as a first step in a multi-step process. He outlined the series of steps to follow, saying the council would readopt as much of LUCU as possible and fix those remanded provisions that could be addressed quickly. Staff would then produce a list of remanded provisions with an analysis of the work needed to comply with the LUBA ruling, and the council would prioritize those items. Following that, staff would return with a series of ordinances addressing those items for council adoption. Mr. Klein called attention to the three ordinances before the council and invited questions. He noted slight changes between the ordinances mailed out to the council on April 2 and the ordinances now before it. The ordinances mailed on April 2 provided that the ordinances would take effect on the date of acknowledgment, but did not include text allowing them to take effect sooner than 30 days. Mr. Klein addressed a question regarding why, if the ordinance adopting LUCU included a severability clause, the council could not simply sever the remanded elements. He said that under State law, when LUBA remands a decision, it remanded the entire decision, unless it explicitly affirmed a part of the decision. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments. Mr. Kelly said that Ordinance 1, which reinstated the sections of the code not affected by the LUBA remand, was fairly straightforward; his concerns and questions had been fully addressed by the staff response to his questions and the motions prepared for the item. He said that the council needed to make its work on the remanded sections a high priority, and try to apply their intent while complying with the LUBA decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office said that the City was currently administering the tree provisions under old Chapter 6; the provisions in Chapter 9 were deleted. Ordinance 1 added some protections consistent with the Goal 5 inventory to provide some stop-gap protections. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about that. She was also concerned about taking action later on in the evening due to her long-standing concern about taking action immediately following a public hearing, particularly in the case of controversial issues. Ms. Bettman said that her questions had been largely answered by staff. She determined from Ms. Jerome that the council would have to take action on the motions related to scrivener's errors when it took final action. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor that public hearings should not be directly followed by council action, but in this case she believed the City was in a technical legal bind. She termed the ordinances a stop-gap measure, and said the next steps in the process should be expedited. She was not happy about the situation, but did not think the council had a choice. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the concern expressed by Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman but pointed out that the topic was one that was the subject of numerous hearings and considerable discussion. He did not object to extending the public record to receive additional written comment, but noted that many of those he had heard from were not concerned with the action before the council, but rather with the code itself and their desire to address new topics or change those sections of the code they disagreed with. He was not interested in using the ordinances as an opportunity to make further changes, given that future work sessions were scheduled on the remanded items. Ms. Nathanson noted the immense amount of citizen and staff work and time spent on the update. She said she perceived the ordinances before the council as its attempt to reinstate those elements of the Land Use Code Update it felt were legally supportable. It was also her perception that the ordinances addressed those sections that were not contested, regarded issues the City prevailed upon, or addressed things that were easily fixed. She asked for staff reassurance at the hearing that the ordinances fit those categories. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the time line for adoption of the ordinances, Mr. Carlson said that the timeliness of the process was driven by council interest. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Klein said that if appealed, the ordinances would not take effect until after the ordinances were deemed acknowledged. He reviewed the likely time line if the ordinances were appealed. Mr. Fart thought it would be a shame to waste the long time that had been spent on the update and the work that had been done by many citizens. He also wanted the assurance requested by Ms. Nathanson. He was also concerned about taking action immediately following the hearing. Mr. Rayor preferred to proceed cautiously in adopting the ordinances. He wanted to know how the council could address the concerns raised by Al Johnson. Mr. Pap8 also preferred to proceed cautiously. He determined from Ms. Childs that there was some possibility the City might end up in the position of processing applications under three code versions. He further determined from Ms. Jerome that no one ordinance addressed issues upon which the City prevailed and issues upon which the City was not challenged. Ms. Jerome indicated that she was not prepared to answer the question of whether that could be done because she had not done the analysis of whether that could be done in a manner consistent with State statutes and planning goals. Mayor Torrey said that there was a lack of trust on the part of at least two community organizations about the council's actions regarding the code. He did not ask that the council "stop the train" totally, but suggested it provide some amount of time to give everyone the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinance changes. He did not think the public would object to the delay. He said that the public did not see the material before the council until the previous Wednesday, and he had received requests that the council postpone action. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Torrey invited further council comments. Mr. Kelly said that in terms of Ms. Taylor's concerns regarding tree protection, the existing code provisions from Chapter 6 would still be in effect. In regard to comments made about the potential of another appeal, Mr. Kelly suggested that there would be as much of a risk of appeal in the future as now. He expressed surprise that the organizations with staff such as the Chamber of Commerce and Lane County Homebuilders Association did not have time to review the ordinances because even without staff, he had been able to complete his own review in a day. He agreed with the mayor that the public did not know much about the ordinances and probably would not care about a delay. However, he pointed out that for every day the council postponed adoption, the new code provisions did not apply. He said that new large-scale development proposals could be submitted in the meantime. Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Childs that the City Charter amendment related to the preservation of street trees was not affected by the update. Ms. Taylor reiterated her concerns about taking action following the public hearing. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the impact of delay. She pointed out that the court upheld most of the code update, and reiterated her previous argument for swift action. She wanted to re-adopt as much of the new code as possible. Ms. Bettman asked about the status of meetings between the City and appellants' legal staffs regarding the ordinances. Ms. Childs clarified that there was one meeting at which the appellants' counsels were provided with draft copies of the ordinances. Ms. Jerome said she had telephone conversations with two of the interveners the day the meeting was scheduled and had offered them drafts of the ordinances. She had follow-up conversations with the interveners, in some cases, on more than one occasion. Mr. Meisner hoped that staff would provide the council with an analysis of the testimony it would receive later that evening in terms of how it related to the three categories identified by Ms. Nathanson. He reiterated that he did not want the process to be another opportunity to rewrite the update. Ms. Nathanson said she wanted direct assurance from staff that the recommended changes related to the easy fixes would not be contested because they were appropriate. Ms. Jerome said that the City had no control over whether something was appealed. That depended on the motivation of those appealing. The City Attorney believed that it would prevail if the ordinances were appealed because they based on a solid foundation. Mr. Klein emphasized that the City Attorney could not provide assurance that the City would not be challenged, but reiterated that the attorney believed the City would prevail if an appeal was filed. Ms. Nathanson noted the lack of agreement on the part of the council on the entire Land Use Code Update, but thought it was a code that moved the City into the 21st century and acknowledged the change that occurred. The code was the City's blueprint for a livable future, and it was important to move forward with what the City could move ahead with. Mr. Fart said that those who contacted him with concerns about the code were very concerned about its impact on the cost of housing in Eugene. He believed it was appropriate to give the public more time to absorb the information in the document. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Rayor endorsed Mr. Meisner's request for analysis of the testimony and suggested a matrix be developed. He wanted to ensure that those with substantive and relevant comments were heard. He wanted to leave a legislative record that demonstrated adequate public input. Ms. Jerome clarified that the City was providing more opportunity for input than the law proscribed. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his concerns about taking action immediately following the hearing. Mayor Torrey wanted the parties to work out the contested issues between them, and encouraged further negotiations with the interveners' attorneys. Mayor Torrey asked how the code adopted in August 2001 was working, and how soon the council would see amendments to that ordinance. In regard to the second part of the question, Ms. Childs said that staff had developed a series of amendments for the Planning Commission's review, but that work was suspended when the code was remanded. She anticipated that staff would return to the council at a later work session with the remaining work to be done to the code, and request the council assign priorities to those work items. How fast work progressed was a resource and scheduling issue. In regard to how the new code was working, Ms. Childs thought it had been working rather well, although additional needed amendments had been identified. Mayor Torrey asked if Ms. Childs thought the City was at risk if it did not move forward with adoption that evening. Ms. Childs did not think the City was at risk. She believed that the longer the City delayed, the more applications would be received under the old code, and the more confusing it would be for the public and staff at the Permit and Information Center's Permit Counter. People solicit staff advice, and it was difficult to provide advice on how to structure an application working under two codes. She emphasized the difficulty of giving good advice in such a situation. Mayor Torrey asked if legal counsel believed that there was common ground that could be reached with the appellants. Ms. Jerome noted that the City heard no response from the appellants until earlier that day. Mr. Klein said that of the comments he had received, it appeared that the appellants' concerns were targeted not at Ordinance 1, but rather at Ordinance 2 or Ordinance 3. He anticipated the council would know more about those concerns and how close the parties were to common ground later that evening following the public hearing. Mayor Torrey called for a third round of comments. Mr. Kelly suggested that the City Council could adopt only Ordinance 1 that evening and postpone action on ordinances 2 and 3. Mr. Kelly believed that the continued threats and discussion of potential litigation against the City represented a sign of the decline of civilization in the community. He asked why, if the Chamber of Commerce had a problem with a paragraph in one of the ordinances, did the chamber not come to the council with a request for a change. He noted that when problems were identified with the sections related to imperious surfaces, panhandle lots, and driveway widths, the council took action within a month of the effective date of the code to remedy the problems that were pointed out. He said in a civilized community, people should bring their issues to the council for a legislative remedy because that was what the council was in place for. Mr. Kelly reviewed the two motions prepared at his request. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman did not think that the council was obligated to take actions that satisfied the appellants; rather, it was to act in a manner that satisfied LUBA. She reviewed the needed actions and said that if the City Council did not move forward with anything but Ordinance 1, it would be rolling back all the environmental and natural resource protections in the code. She said that delaying the action merely increased the amount of time the public and City were functioning without clarity about the code in place. She said that there were other parties to consider beyond the appellants in terms of who might appeal next. Mr. Meisner was concerned about fixing what needed to be fixing in the code. He shared Mr. Fart's concerns about the impact of the code on the cost of housing, but said that discussion had already occurred and to embark on it again represented "another bite of the apple." He agreed with Ms. Bettman that there were stakeholders outside those involved in legal action, and the council needed to pay attention to them as well. Mr. Fart said that the council needed to do what was right for the community while remembering it was not the sole arbiter of what was right for the community. There were other groups and organizations who also wanted to do what was right for the community. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the council had discussed the impact of the code on housing and said it must apply the same rigorous analysis to the new data before it. Mayor Torrey emphasized his interest in the City and the appellants reaching some common ground on those issues on which they could agree on. C.Work Session: Police Forensics Evidence Unit/Property Control Unit Building Cost and Siting The council was joined for the item by Glen Svendsen of the Central Services Department. Mr. Carlson introduced the topic, calling the council's attention to the packet material, specifically its work plan to develop a funding plan and time line for council adoption of a proposal for relocation of police employees now working in the basement of City Hall. Mr. Svendsen reviewed the staff proposal to site and construct a new building to house the Police Forensic Evidence and Property Control units at the Public Works Yards on Roosevelt Boulevard. He provided details on the proposed size of the building and compared projected costs with the costs of private sector and other public agency projects. He used an aerial photo of the yards to illustrate the potential building location. He briefly reviewed potential property acquisitions that were proposed to occur for long-term implementation of the Public Works yards master planning process. Mr. Svendsen said that Public Works Director Kurt Corey was present to answer questions about the master planning process, and Police Chief Thad Buchanan was present to answer questions about the police needs and functions. Other staff were present to answer questions about programming. Mr. Carlson spoke in support of the staff recommendation, saying that it represented a big step in improving downtown office space requirements. Staff believed it had followed the council's direction regarding the move of police staff from the basement. Staff identified the source of the needed money and had a reasonable building plan as well as an overall site plan, and was requesting approval to move forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Rayor clarified the details of the project build-out with Mr. Svendsen. Mr. Rayor expressed concern about the trailer park and the potential loss of Iow-income housing. He asked about the potential for condemnation. Mr. Svendsen said that the City intended to work with willing sellers, and condemnation was not contemplated. Regarding the trailer court, Mr. Svendsen said that two years ago the owner had approached the City regarding the City's interest in purchasing the property, and had recently indicated he was still interested in such a transaction. Mr. Svendsen believed that the real issue of concern would be the relocation of the trailers and tenants on the property. He noted that the master plan indicated that over the 20-year planning period years the property in question would be acquired. Mr. Rayor determined from staff that the trailer park was legally served with water and sanitary sewer services. Mr. Rayor indicated he would prefer to wait to make a decision on the topic until after the election in May 2002. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Rayor's concern about the trailer park. He said that finding a site that was comparable to the trailer court would be very difficult. While the property owner might be willing to sell the property, it did not help the community's housing situation to displace those Iow-income residents currently paying affordable rents. He continued to find the amount of money required for the new facility to be "staggering." Mr. Meisner asked how many cities maintained their own forensics functions. Chief Buchanan said that there were five cities with forensics units in Oregon, among them Portland, Eugene, and Salem. Eugene already coordinated with the Oregon State Police (asP) laboratory in Springfield because it does some analysis the City cannot, but all asP laboratories specialize, so much of what the City sent to the Springfield laboratory then got sent to another location in the state, and the City had to "wait in line." The Springfield department relies on the asP lab, but the cities that do so were generally smaller than Eugene. Mr. Meisner asked if staff had determined and compared what Springfield paid for asP's services against what it would cost that community to join Eugene in providing the service. Chief Buchanan clarified that asP did not charge for the service. Mr. Meisner questioned how much the City would save if it relied on the asP laboratory. Chief Buchanan said that the City would save the cost of four employees and the cost of the laboratory itself. Mr. Meisner asked for figures showing the amount that would be saved. Ms. Bettman endorsed Mr. Meisner's information request. She shared Mr. Rayor's concern about acting now, also preferring to wait for the results of the May 2002 election. She asked about the potential of using the property to the north now owned by Union Pacific to preserve the trailer park. The City could still purchase the park for future expansion, but it could wait to expand until the current residents were gone by attrition, and the City could save the costs of their relocation. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Carlson that 11 FTEs now worked in the basement of City Hall. She asked about contemplated uses for the space. Mr. Svendsen said the space would continue to be used by the police, only in a more transitory way, such as for an exercise facility and footlockers. Ms. Bettman said that it sounded as though the entire department would be using the facility at different times. Mr. Svendsen said that the exposure at any given time would be limited. Ms. Bettman questioned what the exposure actually would be, and whether the proposed change in use was an improvement in terms of having staff in the basement. Mr. Pap8 suggested the Police Commission be asked to review the staff proposal. Mr. Carlson did not believe that the commission was charged with reviewing the allocation of resources. Mr. Pap8 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 8 Work Session thought that the commission's charter included such a charge, and believed that such a review would be useful. He questioned where the police staff would go while construction occurred. Mr. Carlson indicated that the affected staff members would work in the facilities they work in now. Mr. Pap~ suggested that staff could instead be placed in the building formerly occupied by Symantec. Mr. Carlson said that he was seeking a solution that helped the staff meet its work- related needs while not wasting a lot of money on an expensive, shod-term solution. Staff believed the proposal solved both the problem that existed now and the housing of the special operations function as well. He termed it a more permanent solution. Mr. Pap~ thought the goal of a permanent solution was optimal and noble, but he was concerned about the health and safety of staff and the amount of time a permanent solution would take. He advocated for an approach that got staff out of the basement. Mr. Pap~ asked Ms. Nathanson to comment about the sentiment of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) regarding joint service provision. Ms. Nathanson said several different PSCC working groups produced some options and recommendations around a number of issues, such as recruitment, training, and special functions such as those in question. She had been disappointed in the nature of the recommendations, but "turf" concerns had prevailed. Generally, the recommendations accepted by PSCC were the least intrusive for the agencies. The effort had generated some new collaborative efforts that had formerly not existed, and she termed that the good news. The PSCC continued to push the issue and that effort was starting to yield some movement. However, in the shod-term, nothing was on the horizon. Mr. Pap~ did not see why, with the budget shortfalls that existed in other agencies, the various public safety providers would not consider a joint facility. Chief Buchanan clarified that what the PSCC was looking at in terms of location was the location of agencies as a whole rather than the location of particular agency functions. He pointed out that Eugene was the only public safety agency participating in the PSCC that had a crime lab. He said it was critical that the property control unit and crime lab were housed in the same location for efficiency's sake. He did not think it made sense for Springfield, for example, to drive to the Roosevelt site or even downtown Eugene to store property. He did not think that either Springfield or the Sheriff's Office would be interested in moving to a location that was intended to be only temporary. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could co-locate with the ©SP lab. Chief Buchanan did not think there was room to do so at the current ©SP laboratory. Mr. Pap~ asked if, outside parking, there was synergy in the functions being at the Roosevelt location. Chief Buchanan said yes, particularly in terms of access to administrative and meeting facilities. It made sense to have Special Operations on the site as well. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Bettman's recommendation that staff look at Union Pacific property. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the railroad property, Mr. Carlson said he understood that Union Pacific was interested in selling a portion of its property along Bethel Drive. The railroad will continue to operate. Mr. Farr endorsed the staff recommendation, saying it would add more police presence in that area of the community, even though they were not personnel directly responsible for the police response. He shared the concerns expressed by others regarding the potential displacement of the trailer park, and suggested the City consider landbanking a site specifically for residents to move single-wide trailers to. Ms. Nathanson was inclined to support the staff recommendation because it was needed, the City would own the land and the building, and the building could be used for other activities. Her impression was that the proposed activity would be a temporary activity in a permanent building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Nathanson asked about the potential of working with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) on joint land acquisition and development, should the utility be relocating from its site. She thought the two agencies had similar needs and questioned whether there were efficiencies to be gained from a joint development approach. Mr. Carlson said it was possible, noting that EWEB recently exercised an option to purchase a 25-acre site at 1st Avenue and Seneca Road. He believed that the Public Works master planning indicated that the department needed the entire Roosevelt site. Mr. Corey concurred. Mr. Kelly said that even if the council acted tonight, construction would be two years out. He was surprised that there was no commercial tilt-up space on the market to which staff could be temporarily moved for $100,000. He requested further exploration of the possibility. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen clarified that the building was not proposed to be built at essential services level 4; it was at level 3. Ms. Taylor believed the purview of the Police Commission was policy rather than such expenditures. She determined from Mr. Svendsen that staff worked full-time in the basement. She agreed with Mr. Rayor that the proposal was premature and the council should postpone action until after the election in May 2002. Ms. Taylor said if the City Council was going to consider the use of Fire Station 1 for the functions under discussion, it would have to wait until after the election. She liked the idea of temporary facilities and liked the idea of collocation. Mayor Torrey said the council should give the staff an answer quickly. Mr. Rayor liked Scheme A, and suggested a potential phasing approach over 20 years using the layout of that scheme. He advised that the remaining schemes be discarded. Ms. Bettman was interested in establishing a cost cap for any new construction. She wanted to move all staff out the basement and use it for storage only. She suggested that the functions now in the basement be relocated to the City-owned Sears building on a temporary basis. Regarding the issue of temporary space, Mr. Svendsen said that the problem with that approach was the extremely high level of construction detail to completely separate the lab functions and stations from each other. It was not cost-effective to find generic space. Regarding the Sears building, Mr. Penwell added that staff estimated it would cost $7 million to $10 million to renovate the Sears building, and noted that staff had presented that analysis to the City Council previously. There are mechanical and electrical requirements needed for the forensics component of use, and the building would have to be gutted and rebuilt as it did not have an up-to-date functioning mechanical and electrical system. Mr. Meisner opposed the staff-suggested motion as being premature. He did not want to send the voters a fire bond if the City had money available to build the forensics facility. He liked Mr. Farr's suggestion to acquire a land bank site for single-wide trailers. He also liked the idea of temporary space as suggested by Mr. Kelly, and questioned if staff had looked into modular buildings. Mr. Meisner was not enthusiastic about the Sears building for this use. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 10 Work Session James R.. Carlson City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 11 Work Session