Laserfiche WebLink
97,500 square feet was projected to cost $30.5 million, and 22,000 square feet for fire facility at a <br />cost of $5.5 million, for a total of $36 million. He noted the initial split of opinion among task force <br />members about location of the two facilities, and said the task force had finally concurred, with <br />one exception, that the facilities should be downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly, a member of the task force, thanked Mr. Laue for his work as chair of the task force. <br />Mr. Kelly said that the community trusts the Police Department with its lives, and the Police <br />Department deserves a safe and adequate place to work and he did not think current facilities <br />were sufficient. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the task force had deferred discussion of potential off-setting revenues to the <br />City Council. He asked that the council have background material about possible revenue <br />options discussed by the Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that if the council went to the voters for the full $36 million, a house with an <br />assessed value of $123,000 would pay an additional $65 annually. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that along with the list of revenue options, she would like a list of pros and <br />cons of using them to offset this particular bond as opposed to other projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson referred to page 15 of the meeting packet and said the report lacked a specific <br />statement about which off-site police activities would remain off-site and which would be brought <br />into the facility. Mr. Laue said that the Rapid Deployment Unit and Traffic Enforcement would be <br />brought into the facility; property storage and large vehicle storage would occur offsite. <br /> <br />Noting that the report indicated that the precinct approach was cost-effective only for <br />communities of 500,000 or more, Ms. Nathanson asked if anything in the report argued against <br />neighborhood-based substations for a community the size of Eugene. Mr. Laue said no. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Laue said that three quarters of a block was <br />needed for the police facility. He said that parking would be secured, and would be intended for <br />police and official vehicles. He asked the council to consider the parking needs of staff who <br />worked shifts and needed to walk to their cars at odd hours, adding that the employees would <br />pay for parking. He estimated that 175 spaces would be needed. Mr. Johnson referred Mr. <br />Rayor to the diagram on page 89 of the packet showing how parking could be positioned on the <br />site. He added that Chief Hill had been discussing the issue with employees, and there was <br />mention of many incidents when employees were leaving City Hall late at night. Chief Hill said <br />there were many such incidents, and as more civilians worked for the department during different <br />shifts, the problem could worsen. It was a major issue for employees. Employees accepted the <br />notion of paying for parking as part of working downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined that the current proposal did not include employee parking. Mr. Johnson <br />concurred. Mr. Kelly clarified that initially, there would be an option for some staff parking <br />because the size of the parking area for official vehicles was planned at a higher capacity than <br />would first be needed. He asked if it was possible to price the parking so that employees could <br />afford it and the City could bond for additional structure levels against those revenues rather than <br />a general obligation bond. Mr. Johnson said yes, adding that staff was looking into that possibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor requested information on the number of employees that City Hall could house if the <br />two departments were moved out. Mr. Johnson responded that the City needed to do some <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 5 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />