Laserfiche WebLink
necessary. He referred to the police patrol facility site selection criteria set forth in agenda item summary <br />Attachment A. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz commented that she supported a separate patrol facility and preferred that it was located in an <br />area of the community with a higher crime rate. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he was inclined to support site E, although he thought the facility should be located in <br />downtown to better address public safety problems in the downtown area. He hoped that eventually a <br />precinct model would be adopted and site E could represent a step in that direction. He wanted to see a <br />substation north of the river at some point in the next few years. He supported site E because it was the <br />police chief's recommendation and appeared to be the most financially prudent choice. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he would favor a site the City already owned, such as site R, but the need for a patrol <br />presence in downtown could be met by a precinct facility; a patrol facility had a more logistical use and it <br />made sense to locate it on site E near support services. He thought that site R, which was near the river, <br />could be put to better use than a police patrol facility. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy pointed out that there was a police substation at the downtown LTD station. Mr. Penwell added <br />that the new city hall was planned to include a substation as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Cohen noted that patrol represented about a third of police functions; the remaining two-thirds would <br />remain in City Hall. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated that the police chief should be in the same facility as patrol. She did not feel the patrol <br />facility needed to be close to the City's fuel and maintenance facility. She did not understand why the Police <br />Commission was providing advice on the matter and wanted the council to discuss during the next budget <br />cycle whether the commission was still necessary. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what would happen to the two-thirds of the police department located in City Hall when <br />the bond measure failed and there was no new City Hall. Mr. Penwell said it would be up to the council; the <br />patrol facility and City Hall had been considered together in a single project and any new direction would be <br />a policy decision of the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman objected to removing the patrol presence from downtown. She said that any type of develop- <br />ment in downtown, including a patrol facility, would be more expensive. She encouraged consideration of <br />sites P, T and R, especially sites P and T. She said sites D, E and F might be better suited to redevelopment. <br />She asked what the plan was for paying for a site. Mr. Penwell reiterated that the plan for financing <br />acquisition and construction was entirely a policy level decision for the council. Mr. Cohen said as options <br />evolved, estimated costs of all components of the city hall complex, including patrol, would be presented to <br />the council for discussion, along with funding options. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if any polling had been done to determine if a bond measure for a separate patrol facility <br />outside of downtown would pass. Mr. Penwell replied that the council had approved a scope of work for the <br />current project phase that included polling and that issue would be included. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if site E had adequate space for a facility that could house all police functions. Mr. <br />Penwell said that had not been analyzed because direction from council had been to explore issues related to <br />a separate patrol facility. He said based on previous analyses conducted when a bond measure of a full <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 17, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />