CC Minutes - 03/08/06 Workshop - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman recalled that the schedule called for the council to make a decision on an option in April. She asked how multiple options could be offered to the community if the council chose one in April. Mr. Cohen anticipated that the council would choose the option that made the most sense and then the consultants would apply the program to the other variables, the site options and the fate of the existing building. The options before the council addressed the programming element of the issue. Ms. Teninty anticipated a multi- year planning process and said the decisions the council would be making would describe the process to the degree conceptual designs could be created. At that time, the council could begin to discuss the issues of financing and phasing. Ms. Bettman thought once the council made its decision in April it should no longer pretend there would be multiple options for the public to consider. Ms. Teninty clarified that there would no longer be multiple options on how to structure police services. There would be multiple options regarding phasing, financing, and what should be built first. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Cohen the public would consider the options at a forum later in the month and there would be input for the council to consider in April. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé about including the Forensics Unit and Property Control in a bubble diagram. Mr. Kelly said neither the public nor council wanted to be told one thing one year and a different thing another year. When the council discussed the Forensics Unit and Property Control functions it heard a clear message from staff that the need for space existed and the department could not wait for a police building. It was implied at that time that the building housing those functions would become part of the Public Works campus. It was confusing and disconcerting to him that the council was now being given a different message than it had originally heard. Ms. Teninty asked the council if the considerations listed by the consultants were the correct considerations. Ms. Bettman asked what was meant by “essential services structure.” Mr. Wilson said the code mandated a higher level of structural resistance for public safety providers to allow them to provide emergency response after an emergency event. Ms. Bettman suggested that government decision makers should also be able to operate in an emergency because they were just as important as public safety providers. She thought the considerations seemed subjective. Mr. Wilson said the consultants were responding to the minimum requirements in the code. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wilson said the consultants have yet not estimated the costs of meeting those requirements. Mr. Kelly left the meeting. There was brief council discussion of the meaning of the consideration “public oversight of police activities.” Councilors acknowledged that the consideration was different from the external auditor function and accepted a suggestion from Mr. Wilson to supplant “oversight” with “awareness” to make that clear. Ms. Taylor wanted to replace the word “awareness” with the word “integration.” Ms. Teninty listed the suggestion separately. Councilors agreed there was value to keeping the consideration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Shop