CC Minutes - 04/26/06 Workshop - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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