Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman acknowledged the motion was likely to pass and said she would be glad to see staff <br />out of the basement. However, she would not support the motion because she did not think the <br />staff proposal the most efficient use of the dollars available. In addition, the motion did not include <br />a cap on the costs, and she wanted to ensure the $4.2 million was a cap. She said that Special <br />Operations would only be able to use the building in the future if there was a levy to build a new <br />police station, resulting in what she termed a "musical chairs" situation. Ms. Bettman said that the <br />City would end up with an asset using the build option, but reiterated it was not an asset that had <br />previously been identified as a priority. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated her question about the additional property that would have to be acquired. <br />Mr. Carlson said when staff started looking at how the property to be used had been acquired, it <br />learned it was acquired with Public Works dedicated funds; the asset would be a General Fund <br />asset, and the dedicated funds would be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he was pleased with the responsiveness of staff to the council's concerns about <br />conserving housing and the wisest use of land. He did not perceive the building would be a white <br />elephant as it would be used in the future either by the Police or Public Works departments. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion enthusiastically. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's comments, <br />he pointed out that the public hearing would not be whether to build the facility, but whether to <br />take the Construction Manager/General Contractor approach toward construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner clarified that the Lane Transit District was not proposing to have the City hold Station <br />6; it was proposing to purchase it. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said he hoped the community knew how fortunate it and the council were in having the <br />staff they did. He commended the staff for bringing the council good options. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 also thanked staff for responding to the council's concerns when developing its options. <br />He indicated support for the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she wanted it to be clear that she wanted the police out of the basement, but she <br />thought the leased approach better. She acknowledged Mr. Meisner's comments about the scope <br />of the hearing, and suggested that the council should have a public hearing on whether it should <br />spent the money as was being proposed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion by including a public hearing on the <br /> expenditure. The motion to amend died from lack of a second. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br />Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:26 p.m. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />James R. Carlson <br />City Manager pro tern <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />