Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

writing about why the police patrol would need to be on the ground floor if it did share the City Hall complex. He recommended discussing with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) whether the police patrol function should be consolidated or not. Mr. Pryor preferred one of the whole-block designs because it gave more flexibility in design. He also thought a symmetrical design would have a longer-lasting appeal. He expressed a preference for the Whole Block 2 designs. If he had to choose a half-block option, he would pick Half Block 2. Mayor Piercy liked the idea of the Park Blocks feeding into the building as well as the design element of having light going through the space. She related that she had reviewed the feedback from the focus groups and one thing that had come up was that having the police “front and center” was a problem. She said the focus groups wanted the building to be inviting and for it to be “not just another building.” Mayor Piercy also noted that the Rock N’ Rodeo site had allegedly been the former site of the Ku Klux Klan headquarters. She felt it would be good to “reclaim it.” Ms. Bettman asserted that one key issue was the site to locate the facility on. She agreed that some people did not feel comfortable with a police presence. However, she did not think the answer to that was to relegate the police to another location; rather, she wanted to integrate the police into the City Hall. She liked the idea of symmetry because it would help people easily understand where to go to access services they needed. The issue of whether it was a half-block or whole block was not paramount to her. She was more concerned with the proposal to utilize the current City Hall site because of the added expense of demolition. She supported using any of the half-block designs as long as patrol was included. Mr. Penwell said one of the problems lay in finding the balance between the police presence with police functionality. He agreed that one solution would be to place patrol on the third floor, but with the cars on a lower level, it would require moving back and forth with equipment which could require a separate elevator. He acknowledged that having too much police presence could be an issue. Mr. Hacker said the designs the design team presented looked at the future building from the “pure functionality aspects.” He indicated there would be some compromises. Mr. Cohen added that the compromises would go in both directions because compromising efficiency could compromise accessibility, as an example. Mr. Poling indicated his preference for the Whole Block 2 and 3 designs. He believed that the police patrol should be in the same location. He predicted that the same people who would complain about the police in the City Hall would complain about the police having “their own little kingdom” in a different area. He said the current police station location was “just another office entrance” and did not have a huge impact on the City Hall. He liked the Whole Block 3B because of the open space around the facility. Ms. Ortiz preferred the whole block designs. Her first choice was Whole Block 3C/D. She wanted some continued police presence, but she did not think the patrol arm of the EPD needed to be there. She questioned why the bulk of patrol should be downtown when it could have a facility that would meet its needs elsewhere. She did not like the half-block designs because she felt the buildings were too imposing. She commented that she liked the idea of a building that was connected to the future and to the past. Mr. Kelly remarked that he liked all five designs. The asymmetry of the Whole Block 1 appealed to him. He thought it would be interesting to consider the cost of moving twice and razing the existing City Hall. As MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 3 Workshop