Laserfiche WebLink
need for security, which would also increase cost. He added that the Police Department was not <br />opposed to a combined-use building. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said as a former member of the Public Safety Coordinating Council, she had <br />participated in committee discussions about the potential of combining police facilities. She asked if <br />there had been any discussion with Lane County about the potential of collaborating on a slightly <br />larger building to accommodate the needs of both the Police Department and the Sheriff's Office. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said while the City was contemplating a single-use building, it was also contemplating <br />more public access and staff availability than was currently available at City Hall. It was now <br />difficult for citizens and volunteers to access City Hall. Staff anticipated the building would include <br />a community meeting room off the lobby of the building to accommodate public meetings. <br />Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the appropriate building size and Ms. Bettman's <br />remarks about a building that accommodated both police and general government services, Mr. <br />Carlson said that staff had not been thinking about such a facility because of the seismic issues <br />involved, but it had begun to think about using the extra square footage in the police services <br />building for auxiliary functions such as Municipal Court, which could allow the City to vacate the <br />existing City Hall sooner than anticipated as only the City Manager's Office and Human Resources <br />and Risk Services functions would remain and could be relocated in leased space or other City <br />facilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly urged staff to work with Lane County to test its interest in a combined City-County <br />building. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not recall the council giving direction to staff to reduce maintenance to the City-owned <br />facility at 858 Pearl Street. Mr. Svendsen said it was envisioned that the building would not be <br />needed in the future as the functions involved would be combined with other City offices. Mr. Kelly <br />believed that the building in question had some resale potential, and he did not want the City to <br />neglect it before it could be sold. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged the need for a new police facility. He said the issue for him was not the <br />building's design or location, but how it would be paid for. He said the bond election results from <br />2000 were not an encouraging omen. Mr. Kelly thought that citizens were even more nervous about <br />the economy than in 2000, and the City was providing fewer services than it had three years ago. <br />Like Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly did not want to lose a measure at the ballot as he believed that lead to a <br />situation where voters continually rejected money measures. In terms of general need, he suggested <br />that the council might have to go to the voters for a serial levy for basic government operations in the <br />future. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also did not want to risk failure at the ballot box, although she thought it best to go to the <br />voters with one project at a time. However, she was not sure that now was the best time to consider a <br />new public building as people were upset about their tax bills and the economy. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the City had considered a consolidated Eugene-Springfield-Lane County public <br />safety building. Mr. Carlson said that the PSCC had discussed the possibility, but it did not work for <br />all three jurisdictions because of location issues. He suggested that such a facility could potentially <br />work for Eugene and Lane County. He believed there was a potential for a combined building that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 29, 2003 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />