Laserfiche WebLink
needed to be able to see what the council was thinking and what the issues were. Ms. Bettman said council <br />decisions needed to be made in open public session. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed that the way information was previously synthesized had been a problem. However, he <br />acknowledged the challenges faced by the project team, and suggested a way to have a pre-meeting check-in <br />was via e-mail, which was information to be found in the public realm. Councilors briefly discussed what <br />approach they should take to the suggestion proffered by the project team and accepted Mr. Kelly’s <br />suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Teninty called the council’s attention to the input from the public forum, contained in Attachment A, <br />“Community Forum Summary Report.” She said that the forum report could be found at <br /> She noted that as a result of outreach, 20 percent of the participants were <br />neighborhood association members. The project team would attempt to use that connection to do more <br />outreach beyond the associations. Ms. Teninty emphasized that the results of the public forum were not <br />scientific. All comments received were provided to the council in an unedited form. <br /> <br />Ms. Teninty overviewed the process used to solicit input on the police consolidation options at the forum. <br />She said the results the council saw reflected the small group discussions rather than full group discussions, <br />and did not reflect if the larger discussion changed anyone’s mind. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested the project team reconsider the use of the dot exercise for the remaining community <br />forums. <br /> <br />Ms. Teninty reviewed the results of the public input related to police consolidation, noting the lack of <br />emphasis participants placed on the police function being housed at City Hall, and the suggestion that the <br />solution was community policing. Participants wanted the police in their neighborhood, not at City Hall. <br /> <br />Ms. Teninty recommended that the council focus its discussion about the criteria on the topics of functional <br />efficiency, civic integration of the police function into the community and “structure of democracy,” cost, <br />and the impact of how the police function issue affected the overall success of funding for the project. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman questioned the utility of the information collected at the forum as opposed to using a more <br />scientific approach, particularly given the many unknowns surrounding the project. Ms. Teninty suggested <br />that the forum served the function of allowing for face-to-face communication about the purpose of the <br />project and the need for a new city hall. She anticipated a need for more scientific data in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought the forum had value for the reasons cited by Ms. Teninty. He expressed appreciation for <br />the comments from the attendees, which was more than the council might have otherwise received. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Bettman had a good point, and some polling before the council came to a final <br />decision about Phase 2 could be worthwhile. He did not know what questions would be asked, and <br />suggested that the project team and City staff give the idea some thought. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy recalled the reason for the process was to engage the public more broadly and successfully. <br />She anticipated the council would learn from the process and it would inform future council decisions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the community dialogue needed to be informed by the research the council was <br />waiting to see, and once that research was available, the council might consider a mailing to the public and <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />