Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

country to implement Tasers as a tool and had drawn on a vast body of experience from other communities. He said EPD had one of the most restrictive Taser policies in the nation. He did not feel that there would be adequate data, including information about the recent incident, at six months, but that information and data would be available for the annual review. Ms. Bettman asserted that the council could discuss anything and there was nothing to divulge since the council did not have any information about the Taser use incident. She asked when the review of the in-car videos was due as it was not in the commission’s work plan. Ms. Miller replied that it was not included in the work plan because it was not a policy issue; however, a program review was on the commission’s list of activities. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to include in the work plan a report to the council on the in-car video program. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amend- ment. Ms. Bettman thanked the commission for including organization of a hate crimes conference in its work program. She asked how many of the Tasers were equipped with cameras and whether that information would be included in the review. Chief Lehner said that four of the Tasers were equipped with cameras as it was a new, untested and expensive technology. Ms. Miller noted that the cameras did not have audio capability. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. WORK SESSION: Community Survey on Street Repair C. Mr. Ruiz introduced Dr. Gary Manross, who would present the results of a needs analysis and feasibility study based on a community survey conducted in early July. He said the information was being presented to help inform the council’s decision at the regular meeting regarding options for funding street repairs. Dr. Manross reviewed the research methodology used to survey 400 voters. He distributed a Needs Analysis & Feasibility Study and used a series of slides to illustrate the data obtained in the survey related to local issues of concern; perceptions of quality of life in Eugene, taxes and waste in the City budget; spending priorities; awareness of street maintenance problems; willingness to pay additional taxes; and preferences for funding street repairs. He emphasized the importance of including a mechanism for monitoring all expenditures from any tax measure approved by the voters to assure funds were spent as promised. Based on the survey and analysis, Dr. Manross recommended placing a five-year General Obligation (GO) bond on the November 2008 ballot at a rate below what voters were willing to pay, such as $5.00 to $7.00. Mr. Clark asked if the November election could be considered a “change” election in terms of voters’ willingness to solve a problem on their own instead of waiting to see what change would bring. Dr. Manross said the survey was the voice of the electorate and meeting voter expectations was the key to success. Mr. Clark asked how much revenue would be generated by a rate of $6.00 or $7.00. Mr. Ruiz said the survey determined voters would be willing to pay a rate of $15.00 per month and the recommendation was approximately half of that amount. Dr. Manross said there was some controversy in the community over trust in elected officials and the bond measure was an opportunity to take a smaller step by asking for a lower rate and demonstrating success in order to build confidence and support for future requests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 6 Work Session