Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

sites P, T and R, especially sites P and T. She said sites D, E and F might be better suited to redevelopment. She asked what the plan was for paying for a site. Mr. Penwell reiterated that the plan for financing acquisition and construction was entirely a policy level decision for the council. Mr. Cohen said as options evolved, estimated costs of all components of the city hall complex, including patrol, would be presented to the council for discussion, along with funding options. Ms. Bettman asked if any polling had been done to determine if a bond measure for a separate patrol facility outside of downtown would pass. Mr. Penwell replied that the council had approved a scope of work for the current project phase that included polling and that issue would be included. Mr. Clark asked if site E had adequate space for a facility that could house all police functions. Mr. Penwell said that had not been analyzed because direction from council had been to explore issues related to a separate patrol facility. He said based on previous analyses conducted when a bond measure of a full police headquarters was being considered, site E would probably need structured parking and a multi-story building to accommodate all police functions. Ms. Ortiz commented that another reason she had heard for rejecting site R was that the system of steam pipes in downtown could make the streets impassable in a catastrophic event. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with development of a patrol facility concept design for site E, and continue to ex- plore the acquisition of potential sites D, E and F. Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to change the language as follows: "…concept design for site E, and continue to explore the acquisition of potential sites D, E and F continue to explore acquisition of sites E and F." Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said she could not support removing patrol from downtown and thought that sites T and P were viable sites. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by including acquisition of sites T and P. Mr. Clark said he would not support the amendment, as he did not want the City to plan to build a public facility in the middle of what could potentially be a wonderful park. Ms. Taylor stated that her preferred location was still site R. Mr. Pryor did not like either site T or site P as both had potential problems related to unwilling sellers or unsuitable use of the site and could not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman said she was adding site R to her motion. Mr. Penwell reminded the council that a patrol facility could not be built on sites P and T and meet current planning and zoning requirements, although a variance could be requested. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 7 Work Session