Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Torrey pointed out that all of the City Councilors had indicated that the City needed the new facilities, though some felt the bond measure in question was not the right approach. He noted that some felt that the recent conviction of two Eugene police officers would impact the vote. He opined that it would impact the vote regardless of whether the vote was on a measure for a portion of the vision or for the whole vision. He thought the proposed building made great planning sense as it allowed for flexibility and expandability. Mayor Torrey called the inclusion of victim services element a statement that the City recognized that something meaningful needed to be done to step forward to address some of the incidents that had happened, not because such incidents happened but because it was just the right thing to do. He expressed amazement regarding the number of people who had shown a willingness to help campaign on the behalf of this bond measure. Mayor Torrey recognized that some councilors would vote in opposition. He expressed hope that, should the motion pass, that no council members would oppose the motion in the public because individual points of view did not succeed in the present vote. Councilor Bettman hoped the bond measure would fail to be approved for the ballot. She advocated for planning for the ultimate replacement of all of the services that were in the City Hall and upgrading facilities. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Chief Lehner stressed that the precinct model would only encompass patrol deployment. He stated that there was, by no means, a commitment to that model at present. He would not recommend, at any point, the decentralization of the investigations unit, which was the primary partner for the victim services providers. He noted that some information had been provided to the council on how this model had worked in other cities, such as San Diego, California, and Mesa, Arizona. He explained that, typically, the type of collaboration housed in such a facility included law enforcement investigations staff, primary prosecution and advocacy staff from a district attorney's office, social service and victim service advocates for victims of domestic violence and child abuse. He asserted that the planned facility was adequately sized for such partnerships. Councilor Bettman asked if the Chief was suggesting that a victim of such a crime would not go to the nearest precinct but, rather, would have to go downtown to the centralized Community Safety Building. Chief Lehner replied that where the victim would go had to do with the victim's condition. He under- scored that the benefit of collocation was that the victim would not be bounced around from the Police Department to the District Attorney's Office and so on. He said properly choosing the parmers to collocate with community safety would result in the right group of victim advocate agencies being available, primarily those who dealt with domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. Councilor Bettman also objected to only allocating $3 million to the victim services. She said the other $3.8 million was allocated to infrastructure improvements. She asserted that there were other funding sources for such improvements such as urban renewal funding, fees and assessments, and other kinds of capital funds. Councilor Nathanson remarked that the proposal was not what she had hoped or advocated for. She recognized, however, that hers were only one set of ideas out many good ideas brought by both staff and the City Council. She felt that, though it was not what she had proposed, she would support it because it was obvious that staff and its partners had come up with a progressive idea that fulfilled the objectives in MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting