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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papé was unprepared to make a decision on the options because he thought more public input was warranted than could be provided through a single forum. He asked for information about the location of the front door of City Hall. Mr. Hacker clarified that the schematics were not building designs, but he thought City Hall needed multiple entrances and needed to accept people from the street in more than one location. There also needed to be a main entrance, such as at a public plaza. A visible information area would be immediately inside the door. He envisioned a very active space and said that could occur in an atrium-type space or in a mall-like setting. Mr. Papé requested information on the square footage required for secured parking. Ms. Bettman referred to the public comment and suggested it demonstrated a diversity of opinion that reflected to a degree the diversity of opinion among councilors. She thought that was a challenge but also a good thing. Ms. Bettman noted the Police Commission outreach indicated a similar conclusion with regard to police visibility in neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman asked why options C and D were combined. Mr. Hacker said they were combined because they were graphically the same and it reduced the number of sheets needed for the presentation. Ms. Bettman thought the public might find the presentation confusing as there were differences between the options. With regard to the options, Ms. Bettman agreed with the public that the council needed to be as unanimous as possible as it moved the project forward. Any option selected needed to be supported by the community. Ms. Bettman said that at this time, she was in support of Option B. She said the option realized much of the criteria. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly with regard to Option C. He said the process was a combination of public input and the chief’s vision for the future. He thought Mr. Papé right in that one forum did not constitute complete public input, and suggested the possibility that the four options could be taken back to the public. However, Mr. Poling did not think the public was very enthusiastic about either option A or E. While he personally favored Option B, he was in favor of moving forward with options B, C, and D and gathering more public input. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about the proposed approaches to police consolidation. She had hoped to see something along the lines of a precinct model. She saw the rationality of Option B as it regarded cost. Chief Lehner said that the option of precincts was not offered to the council as it was not affordable at this time. He acknowledged the public’s interest in police visibility in neighborhoods. With regard to the options before the council, none of the options precluded that visibility as the police left the police headquarters and go to different areas for deployment. Chief Lehner acknowledged the symbolism of the police’s location in a neighborhood, which could be realized through a very traditional and expensive community policing model. Ms. Ortiz said that many of her constituents never went downtown. She acknowledged that the precinct model was expensive, but said the council needed to address the concerns of those who lived in the outlying areas who depended on City services and who voted. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 4 Work Session