Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Ruiz explained that the amended motion was in response to the council's direction to specify the <br />amount of funds related to downtown public safety. <br />Mr. Clark remarked that the ublic safe needs were massive and the package represented a good initial <br />p safety <br />step. He was reluctant to place limits on future efforts based on new opportunities, revenues or solutions. <br />Mr. Ruiz said the intent of the limitation was related to the current initiative being proposed. Mr. Klein <br />added that the language placed limits on the City Manager, not the council; the council could decide to <br />spend additional funds in the future or take other action in the future. <br />Mr. Zelenka said he had requested the motion because the initial recommendations did not include any <br />direction to the City Manager with respect to cost. He said there were real budget constraints on what <br />could be spent and the motion placed limits on the current downtown public safety proposal, not future <br />actions the council might take. <br />Ms. Taylor said she found the language confusing and thought it could be reinterpreted to mean the <br />council approved spending that amount instead of establishing a limit on expenditures. She said it was not <br />clear what the funds would be used for. <br />Ms. Ortiz would support the motion, but noted there were other areas in the community with pressing <br />public safety needs. <br />Mr. Pryor said it was helpful to have a dollar figure attached to the proposal in order to understand the <br />financial implications of council action. He did not see it placing limitations on future discussions of <br />public safety. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Ortiz that there were significant public safety problems in other areas, <br />particularly related to property crime, which is why he wanted to place a financial limitation on the <br />downtown initiative. He said people wanted to feel safe in their neighborhoods and that needed to be <br />addressed as well. <br />The amended motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Clark voting no. <br />Wtion 2_ <br />I move to include for the proposed downtown Lane Community College <br />development at l O Avenue and Charnelton Street, $8 million as part of the <br />proposed urban renewal plan amendment, a portion of which can facilitate a <br />public plaza or open space area at that site and potentially a downtown public <br />safety substation. <br />Mr. Brown asked if LCC was supportive of a public safety substation at its facility. Mr. Ruiz said that <br />LCC was open to the suggestion as long as it was not a dominant feature. <br />Mr. Poling asked if funding for the LCC development would be included in the analysis of all three <br />funding options that staff would provide to the council. Mr. Ruiz said it would be included. <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to incorporate language in motions 2; <br />3 and 4 that included $S million for the LCC development as part of a UR plan <br />amendment, general obligation bond, or local option levy. Mr. Clark and Ms. <br />Taylor accepted the amendment. <br />The amended motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council February 22, 20 10 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />