CC Minutes - 07/12/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

· Kelly: Request information regarding item 2(a), police substations, that appears on page 21 of the agenda packet. Support the concept of substations; however, constituents have requested that the mission for substations be clarified and a list of services to be offered by substations be provided. In addition, request information regarding why the proposal adds only one substation but many police personnel. (The substation mission is established by the community and the neighborhood in which it is located. Additional personnel are being proposed both for the purpose of extending existing substations 'hours of operation and addressing issues of capacity.) · Kelly: Request information regarding the large amount of funding associated with item 3(d), community policing. Would like background information to serve as the context for adding nine FTE. Would funds proposed for an additional detective be better spent on covering the community policing shortfall, given the minimal impact provided by one detective? (Attempting to show that when staff is added to one area, the remainder of the system is impacted. The system is interrelated. With regard to the proposed addition to detectives, the department is attempting to balance its needs across the organization.) · Rayor: Support the addition of police officers; however, want to minimize the addition of City FTEs in general. · Pap& Are all of the proposed shared-revenue services additive? Do they provide services above and beyond existing programs? (The City currently funds the youth summer program; however, it is supported by one-time contingency funding) · Pap& The City must be able to say to citizens that the proposed shared-revenue services are additive and will improve the community. · Nathanson: Disappointed that only one additional substation is proposed. In response to a statement that substations generally impact a 10-block radius in terms of law enforcement, think the impact of substations extends beyond that of law enforcement. For example, substations can contribute to strong neighborhood identification. · Nathanson: With regard to item 1 (g), interagency coordination, somewhat skeptical because Eugene would be paying for something the metropolitan area is not addressing. Not convinced this would be prudent. Lastly, does the revenue-sharing proposal include the addition of staffto conduct outcome measurements? (The proposal would provide the added capacity necessary to conduct such measurements. Ouwome measurements are a priority in the youth prevention and other areas of the proposal. Ensuring that the additional services are effective is considered a priority.) · Lee: Think the proposed program list is adequate, given the implementation of those minor changes that have been discussed. Request discussion regarding how the City will justify sharing its revenue to benefit non-City programs. In addition, would support a motion by Mr. Kelly to include in the revenue-sharing package the homeless camping services to ensure its continued funding. · Taylor: Would prefer a tax exemption for citizens who fall below a certain income level, such as $50,000 per year. In addition, concerned about the duplication of services. Not all services are provided more efficiently on a larger scale. Request information on how substations add to the safety of a community. (Staff will produce a memorandum in response to councilors 'questions concerning the value of substations.) · Torrey: Attempt to include in the package funding for counseling in schools failed. Concerned that the continuum of care stops when a child enters kindergarten and that children attending school are "falling through the cracks" due to a lack of available services. Think the City should MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m.