CC Minutes - 04/23/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~ about where he wanted to go with community policing, Chief Jim Hill said that he had some concern about how it was defined. He had some ideas, but thought it was important to find out what the community wanted to do given the limited resource base. He perceived community policing as more than discrete program items, saying it was broader than that and should be reflected in everything the department did. Chief Hill said that the recommendations for creating a process were predicated on the fact department staff and resources were constantly changing. He suggested that the Police Commission was another venue for the discussion of community policing. Mr. Pap~ did not know to how to measure gaps unless a threshold level of service was established. Chief Hill responded that got to the question of the base level of community expectations. Currently the department was so underresourced it was focused on the emergency level of response. Ms. Nathanson noted a request before the Budget Committee for funding for foot patrols and said she did not want to start a new program only to learn that it was not the right approach. Chief Hill clarified that the Budget Committee was being asked to fund a foot patrol in midtown, an area which lent itself more readily to the deployment of foot patrols than other areas. In the long-term, the department wanted to determine where else in the community it made sense to deploy foot patrols. Mr. Johnson added that City staff did not see the budget request as dependent on a larger analysis. He pointed out that the Budget Committee funded the Whiteaker patrol without a fuller analysis because it thought it was a good idea. Ms. Nathanson thought it was unfortunate that the process was not more integrated. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He asked if the foot patrol was the next logical step the community would take in community policing. He anticipated a larger community dialogue and more discussion by the Police Commission. He wanted the City to anticipate needs and not just be reactive when a community organization or area of town requested service. Mr. Meisner reiterated his objections to inclusion of the AIRS improvements. Mr. Johnson responded that staff included the item because the tool was not currently available, and once the improvements were available staff wanted to determine how they could be used in community policing. Mr. Meisner pointed out the item merely stated, "Implement AIRS improvements" where it should read "Find AIRS improvements that will implement community policing." Mr. Johnson suggested the council could move the item to the secondary list. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the work plan by moving the AIRS work plan item to the secondary list. The motion passed, 6:2, Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. Ms. Bettman thought the City was already doing a great deal in terms of implementing community policing, noting its partnerships with social service agencies. She said the City was not getting credit for that in terms of community policing. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's comments about the budget request for foot patrols, Ms. Bettman said that staff was going to return with a proposal for funding and then the Budget Committee would make a recommendation to the council. She did not think that the midtown foot patrol was just a community policing issue, as it also addressed issues such as the state of downtown, public safety, and economic development. She was pleased to see both a long-term approach and suggestions to address the immediate need. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 6 Work Session