Laserfiche WebLink
roads. In contrast to the feedback Ms. Nathanson had heard, he said that he had received two dozen <br />comments and none of them referred to extras; they identified a number of issues related to the police facility <br />as the reason for voting against the measure. He stated that the needs for a police facility and City offices <br />downtown still existed and he was in favor of setting the funds aside for a full City Hall project down <br />payment. He noted that the City Manager's recommendation in the amended agenda document included only <br />Option 2 and Option 5 had been dropped; he was in favor of the combination of both options to lock down <br />the funds and proceed with the master planning process for the full facility and including a public involve- <br />ment component. He pointed out that while there were two separate buildings involved, it should be referred <br />to as one project, possibly with multiple steps. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Bettman that Facility Reserve funds should not be moved to the Road <br />Fund. He expressed concern with the funds being used for other purposes and supported the combination of <br />options 2 and 5. He said the new seismic standards applicable to public safety functions would make it <br />difficult to relocate police functions anywhere except to a new building but he was not certain that the <br />available funds were sufficient for the entire cost of a new facility. He encouraged the council to continue <br />moving forward on the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon concurred with previous comments that the Facility Reserve funds should be preserved for <br />new buildings. She indicated her support for a new police facility and disagreed with Mr. Kelly's suggestion <br />that the police facility and new City Hall be referred to as one project. She wanted the new police facility <br />project to succeed and was concerned that if it was coupled with a new City Hall it would not. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the City Manager to trans- <br /> fer $10.2 million of Telecommunications Tax revenues from the Telecommunica- <br /> tions Fund and $5.2 million of previously deferred right-of-way fees from the Gen- <br /> eral Fund to the Facility Reserve on Supplemental Budget # 1 on December 6, <br /> 2004. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he was not suggesting that the Facility Reserve funds be used for roads, but it was clear that <br />there was a public relations issue to be addressed when the City was asking voters for $90 million for road <br />improvements and yet had saved $28 million for facilities. He said it was important to do a better job of <br />informing the community of the council's priorities. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman clarified that seismic problems with City Hall affected everyone who used the facility and there <br />was an opportunity to plan for the replacement of the building. She said the Road Fund included dedicated <br />funds from other revenue sources but that was a separate subject. Speaking to the motion, she said she had <br />no objections to earmarking the funds for future facility replacement, but was not willing to authorize <br />$750,000 for a master planning process because it would take consensus and support from the council and <br />the community to move forward with a major reinvestment in City facilities and that effort should start with <br />the new council. She preferred to focus on replacing City Hall and a police facility instead of civic <br />visioning. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion and preferred to see Option 5 as a separate motion because he had <br />a number of questions regarding it. He asked about the status of negotiations with the federal government <br />on use of the Federal Building following removal of the courts and some other functions from that building. <br />Mr. Carlson said that the official statement was that the building space would continue to be used for federal <br />offices, although the courtroom space may be able to be used for City courts on an interim basis. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner urged the City to remain active in those discussions. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />