Laserfiche WebLink
thought that the commission's charter included such a charge, and believed that such a review <br />would be useful. He questioned where the police staff would go while construction occurred. Mr. <br />Carlson indicated that the affected staff members would work in the facilities they work in now. <br />Mr. Pap~ suggested that staff could instead be placed in the building formerly occupied by <br />Symantec. Mr. Carlson said that he was seeking a solution that helped the staff meet its work- <br />related needs while not wasting a lot of money on an expensive, shod-term solution. Staff <br />believed the proposal solved both the problem that existed now and the housing of the special <br />operations function as well. He termed it a more permanent solution. Mr. Pap~ thought the goal <br />of a permanent solution was optimal and noble, but he was concerned about the health and safety <br />of staff and the amount of time a permanent solution would take. He advocated for an approach <br />that got staff out of the basement. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked Ms. Nathanson to comment about the sentiment of the Public Safety Coordinating <br />Council (PSCC) regarding joint service provision. Ms. Nathanson said several different PSCC <br />working groups produced some options and recommendations around a number of issues, such <br />as recruitment, training, and special functions such as those in question. She had been <br />disappointed in the nature of the recommendations, but "turf" concerns had prevailed. Generally, <br />the recommendations accepted by PSCC were the least intrusive for the agencies. The effort <br />had generated some new collaborative efforts that had formerly not existed, and she termed that <br />the good news. The PSCC continued to push the issue and that effort was starting to yield some <br />movement. However, in the shod-term, nothing was on the horizon. Mr. Pap~ did not see why, <br />with the budget shortfalls that existed in other agencies, the various public safety providers would <br />not consider a joint facility. Chief Buchanan clarified that what the PSCC was looking at in terms <br />of location was the location of agencies as a whole rather than the location of particular agency <br />functions. He pointed out that Eugene was the only public safety agency participating in the <br />PSCC that had a crime lab. He said it was critical that the property control unit and crime lab <br />were housed in the same location for efficiency's sake. He did not think it made sense for <br />Springfield, for example, to drive to the Roosevelt site or even downtown Eugene to store <br />property. He did not think that either Springfield or the Sheriff's Office would be interested in <br />moving to a location that was intended to be only temporary. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could co-locate with the ©SP lab. Chief Buchanan did not think there <br />was room to do so at the current ©SP laboratory. Mr. Pap~ asked if, outside parking, there was <br />synergy in the functions being at the Roosevelt location. Chief Buchanan said yes, particularly in <br />terms of access to administrative and meeting facilities. It made sense to have Special <br />Operations on the site as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Bettman's recommendation that staff look at Union Pacific property. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the railroad property, Mr. Carlson said he <br />understood that Union Pacific was interested in selling a portion of its property along Bethel Drive. <br />The railroad will continue to operate. Mr. Farr endorsed the staff recommendation, saying it <br />would add more police presence in that area of the community, even though they were not <br />personnel directly responsible for the police response. He shared the concerns expressed by <br />others regarding the potential displacement of the trailer park, and suggested the City consider <br />landbanking a site specifically for residents to move single-wide trailers to. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was inclined to support the staff recommendation because it was needed, the City <br />would own the land and the building, and the building could be used for other activities. Her <br />impression was that the proposed activity would be a temporary activity in a permanent building. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />