Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

facility as the reason for voting against the measure. He stated that the needs for a police facility and City offices downtown still existed and he was in favor of setting the funds aside for a full City Hall project down payment. He noted that the City Manager's recommendation in the amended agenda document included only Option 2 and Option 5 had been dropped; he was in favor of the combination of both options to lock down the funds and proceed with the master planning process for the full facility and including a public involvement component. He pointed out that while there were two separate buildings involved, it should be referred to as one project, possibly with multiple steps. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Bettman that Facility Reserve funds should not be moved to the Road Fund. He expressed concern with the funds being used for other purposes and supported the combination of options 2 and 5. He said the new seismic standards applicable to public safety functions would make it difficult to relocate police functions anywhere except to a new building but he was not certain that the available funds were sufficient for the entire cost of a new facility. He encouraged the council to continue moving forward on the issue. Ms. Solomon concurred with previous comments that the Facility Reserve funds should be preserved for new buildings. She indicated her support for a new police facility and disagreed with Mr. Kelly's suggestion that the police facility and new City Hall be referred to as one project. She wanted the new police facility project to succeed and was concerned that if it was coupled with a new City Hall it would not. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the City Manager to trans- fer $10.2 million of Telecommunications Tax revenues from the Telecommunica- tions Fund and $5.2 million of previously deferred right-of-way fees from the General Fund to the Facility Reserve on Supplemental Budget #1 on December 6, 2004. Mr. Papb said he was not suggesting that the Facility Reserve funds be used for roads, but it was clear that there was a public relations issue to be addressed when the City was asking voters for $90 million for road improvements and yet had saved $28 million for facilities. He said it was important to do a better job of informing the community of the council's priorities. Ms. Bettman clarified that seismic problems with City Hall affected everyone who used the facility and there was an opportunity to plan for the replacement of the building. She said the Road Fund included dedicated funds from other revenue sources but that was a separate subject. Speaking to the motion, she said she had no objections to earmarking the funds for future facility replacement, but was not willing to authorize $750,000 for a master planning process because it would take consensus and support from the council and the community to move forward with a major reinvestment in City facilities and that effort should start with the new council. She preferred to focus on replacing City Hall and a police facility instead of civic visioning. Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion and preferred to see Option 5 as a separate motion because he had a number of questions regarding it. He asked about the status of negotiations with the federal government on use of the Federal Building following removal of the courts and some other functions from that building. Mr. Carlson said that the official statement was that the building space would continue to be used for federal offices, although the courtroom space may be able to be used for City courts on an interim basis. Mr. Meisner urged the City to remain active in those discussions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 4 Work Session