Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Carlson assured him that, should the bond fail, staff would come before the council to determine how to proceed. Councilor Kelly commented that from conversations with constituents it was clear that the public was not supportive of the bond measure. While he strongly supported the need for new facilities and the other components of the measure, he would oppose placing the measure on the ballot. He expressed concern that the measure only provided adequate space for the next ten years. He called it short-sighted. He acknowledged that the structure was planned with future expansion in mind but speculated that building codes could change in the interim and prevent this from happening. He was concerned regarding the legal risk of the telecommunications money and felt there should be a "Plan B" for financing the project. Councilor Meisner said this had been discussed at length during the previous week. He concurred with Councilor Bettman about how the whole vision and the whole set of needs could best be implemented. He supported the motions before the City Council and stated that he would campaign for the bond measure. He commented that he missed the days when the City Council would have a divided vote but then, once decided, would speak with one voice. Councilor Meisner shared the previously voiced frustrations regarding building for the needs of the year 2018. He was not persuaded that the building would be too small or too large and believed the measure before the council made sense. Councilor Pap6 also wished that the City could embark on the whole project. He stated that this would involve $70 million in a bond measure, which would push the City up against well-conceived and well- founded City policies with regard to bonding and debt incursion and would prevent the City from achieving other needed goals for some time. He felt it sensible to "bite it off in chunks" rather than to try to gain the whole project at once. He asked Chief Lehner to discuss how the building would be expanded in the future. Chief Lehner stated that the proposed size of the building was based on several assumptions, one of which was that the entire patrol operation would be staged out of this building. He said this may not be the model that the City of Eugene would move toward in the future. He thought that, should the City decide to move toward a precinct or substation model in terms of police patrol service delivery, the major growth aspect of the proposed building was potentially entirely mitigated. He underscored that he was not advocating for a precinct model for police services at this point in time. However, he said Eugene was poised at a unique point of population and service load where a precinct deployment model must be considered. In terms of sizing the building, he felt it was appropriate for the long-term future. He added that, should the City size the facility for 2028, it could ultimately rule out the option for service delivery through the precinct model in the future. Councilor Poling called it essential to include the social services agencies in the new Community Safety Building, as well as address the other concerns of the Civic Center vision. He believed approval of the bond measure to be a responsible action to take at this time as it was a small step to attain the vision. He related that he had spoken to constituents and heard they were not ready to pay for the entire Civic Center and Community Safety Building project. He felt that the bond measure indicated that the City was acting in good faith by using available funds and asking for additional funds to help with the social services and the basic beginning steps of the Civic Center vision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting