Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Cohen the public would consider the options at a forum later in the month and there would be input for the council to consider in April. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé about including the Forensics Unit and Property Control in a bubble diagram. Mr. Kelly said neither the public nor council wanted to be told one thing one year and a different thing another year. When the council discussed the Forensics Unit and Property Control functions it heard a clear message from staff that the need for space existed and the department could not wait for a police building. It was now implied the building housing those functions would become part of the Public Works campus. It was confusing and disconcerting to him that the council was now being given a different message than it had originally heard. Ms. Teninty asked the council if the considerations listed by the consultants were the correct considerations. Ms. Bettman asked what was meant by “essential services structure.” Mr. Wilson said the code mandated a higher level of structural resistance for public safety providers to allow them to provide emergency response after an emergency event. Ms. Bettman suggested that government decision makers should also be able to operate in an emergency because they were just as important as public safety providers. She thought the considerations seemed subjective. Mr. Wilson said the consultants were responding to the minimum requirements in the code. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wilson said the consultants have yet not estimated the costs of meeting those requirements. Mr. Kelly left the meeting. There was brief council discussion of the meaning of the consideration “public oversight of police activities.” Councilors acknowledged that the consideration was different from the external auditor function and accepted a suggestion from Mr. Wilson to supplant “oversight” with “awareness” to make that clear. Ms. Taylor wanted to replace the word “awareness” with the word “integration.” Ms. Teninty listed the suggestion separately. Councilors agreed there was value to keeping the consideration. Ms. Bettman suggested that where the consultants had identified City Hall and other related functions, it should footnote that it included the Police Auditor’s Office. She believed that it was an administrative function that would have to communicate with other City administrative functions. Mayor Piercy questioned whether the presence of police in City Hall added to the perception of public safety. Ms. Bettman believed that it did. Ms. Ortiz found the presence of police cars in her neighborhood a cause for alarm. Mr. Papé said he liked having a police presence in the area. Ms. Teninty indicated she would note different positions on the part of councilors. Ms. Bettman found the rankings for the considerations to be relatively subjective in the light of supportive analysis. For example, with regard to the cost of land, the City owned land downtown and did not own land outside downtown, but that was ranked as negative. She found it misleading information. She acknowl- edged, in response to a question from Ms. Teninty, that the considerations were generally those the council had in mind but she believed the rankings were discretionary. Mr. Papé asked how other communities of similar size to Eugene, such as Boulder, Colorado, and Salem, Oregon, operated their police functions, and suggested that research be done in that regard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Shop