CC Minutes - 02/27/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

service, adding that the situation showed how unreliable projections can be and the need for flexibility in prioritizing expenditures. Her major concern was for the safety of the public and the firefighters. She wanted to ensure the department had the flexibility to provide coverage for unforeseen circumstances, which would require more firefighters. Ms. Bettman realized that a serial levy was not the optimal solution, but said there was not sufficient support on the Budget Committee to reprioritize other spending to address the need for expanded fire service to the northern area of the community. She supported a serial levy. She preferred to go through the budget process but did not think the political will existed on the part of the Budget Committee to fund expanded services, and she thought it would be too late to wait until November 2002 to put a measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman confirmed with staff that the only fire coverage that would be provided north of the river in Santa Clara under the command staff proposal would be from the Sheldon Station. Ms. Nathanson did not think there had been sufficient discussion of a serial levy. She noted her long-time support for the department but thought it would be violating the council's goals to go forward in such a hurried way with a serial levy. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the reopening of Station 10, Chief Matt Shuler responded that the station was built in the early 1980s, and it was never opened. The City's redeployment plan, developed in the early 1990s, included funding and staffing for a dedicated fire company for that station. The City would not have been able to relocate its other stations without the opening of that station to address the service gaps that would have resulted from the moves. Ms. Nathanson recalled that the situation that was addressed in the past represented a higher public safety risk, but it took some time to gather evidence to convince people of the need that existed to secure the support for a money measure. Chief Tallon concurred, and said that the same educational approach was being taken in terms of the bond. He reiterated that while the interim plan to move Engine 9 was not optimal, it was well within acceptable risk factors for service delivery. Ms. Nathanson asked if a serial levy as proposed by the firefighters would help improve the City's ability to respond to calls within four minutes in other areas of the community. Chief Tallon said no. The City does not deploy its resources outside the location of the stations and develops its call response plan around the station locations. Ms. Taylor asked if there was a danger to firefighter safety from the interim plan. Chief Tallon said no. Ms. Taylor said she did not like to decide anything this quickly, but the issue was thrust upon the City by the Santa Clara Fire District. She wanted to hear more from the union representatives. Mr. Rayor thanked the chief, command staff, and the union representatives for the information they provided, and said it was a lot to absorb in a short time. He said that he assumed the command staff did some prioritizing in developing its recommendation. Mr. Rayor said it was difficult for him not to follow the advice of command staff in this instance. He said he would feel terrible to have a serial levy passed and then not renewed, which would mean layoffs; he would also feel terrible if a conflagration occurred and the City was unable to address it because it had spent the money in a different way. Mr. Rayor said that it was a tough decision, and he MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 2002 Page 4 Work Session