Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation to Mr. Rayor for his engineering expertise and appreciation to Mr. <br />Roberts for his expert opinion. <br />Ms. Nathanson said that it was time to move ahead and make the best decision. She noted that it <br />had been mentioned the building was for a temporary use, but she did not consider police <br />services a temporary use. The building was being built for police services, and she was not <br />troubled that one function would move out and be replaced by another function. With regard to <br />the lease versus build approach, Ms. Nathanson said that the leased building might cost less, but <br />at the end of five years the City would have no asset to show for its expenditures. Regarding the <br />potential of purchasing a building to improve and then sell when it was no longer needed, Ms. <br />Nathanson pointed to the specialized nature of the functions in question and said that the value of <br />the tenant improvements would not be generic value to resell for general office use. She <br />supported the staff proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr found the proposal to be exciting, particularly when taken in conjunction with the <br />successful passage of the fire station bond measure. He concurred with the remarks of Ms. <br />Nathanson about the fact the City would have no asset at the end of five years if it took the lease <br />approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also opposed the staff proposal, saying the City would also lose the money it would <br />cost to build the lab in a new space. She did not see anything in the Agenda Item Summary <br />related to having the lab work done elsewhere. She pointed out that Springfield did not have a <br />forensics unit and relied on the State Police. Mr. Carlson said that staff did not recommend that <br />approach, and the Public Safety Coordinating Council had gone on record as supporting the City <br />maintaining its separate lab function. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor anticipated that a motion to support the build option would pass, and hoped the City <br />Council would consider the testimony it received when it held the public hearing and reverse its <br />decision. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked about the connection between the FEU and PCU, and if they had to be housed <br />in the same structure. Chief Buchanan said yes, for convenience's sake; evidence first gets <br />booked into Property, and then was transferred to the lab for processing and then back to <br />Property. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey supported the staff recommendation, saying "let's do it, today." <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to initiate <br /> relocation of the Police FEU/PCU units to a new, two-story facility to be <br /> constructed on City-owned property at Roosevelt and Garfield. Staff is <br /> directed to return to the council for a public hearing and action on a proposal <br /> to use a Construction Manager/General Contractor method for construction <br /> of this project. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that with Ms. Nathanson it was time for a decision and he was prepared to act. <br />He continued to feel strongly that the lease approach was the preferable way to go. While he <br />agreed that the Police Department's needs were permanent, he was not convinced that in five <br />years staff would recommend the use of the building for Special Operations, resulting in a white <br />elephant. The only reason he opposed the motion, Mr. Kelly emphasized, was because he <br />thought the leased option less costly than the build option. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />