Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

determined the rating although changing it could have an affect and any change should be carefully considered. Ms. Nathanson remarked that changing the bond rating even slightly could cost several hundred thousand dollars. She contrasted options A+ and D by noting that the issues were what the City organization could afford and what the voters perceived they could afford. She said the City's uncertain revenue picture could send a mixed message if the voters were asked to fund a very large project and the City lost revenue for operations and was forced to lay off more staff. She expressed concern that Option D would expend voter goodwill and capacity to pay on one project. Ms. Taylor said she did not agree with the suggestion to combine the police facility with City Hall, but did agree that the initial pressure to move police personnel no longer existed. She also agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about public perception regarding the Police Department and expressed confidence in Chief Lehner's ability to change that perception. She agreed that the parks measure should not be on the ballot at the same time as replacement of City Hall and suggested that the parks measure could pass in 2004, which would address improvements to the Park Blocks. She expressed the opinion that nothing related to a police facility should be placed on the ballot in 2004. Mr. Meisner remarked that measures should be placed on the ballot based on priorities, rather than opportunism and Option A+ represented opportunism. He said he also could not support Option D for the reasons he stated previously, but acknowledged current police needs and did not want to postpone addressing them indefinitely. He stated that whatever his vote was and whatever the council decided to place on the ballot he would campaign for and personally support. He expressed concern that Option A+ would not have the full support of the council and that in addition to the cost of a campaign there was the need for people to conduct it and he had not seen evidence of volunteers. He asked staff to investigate the lease-to-own strategy, although not for a 25-year building or the quality of building the City would construct. Mayor Torrey encouraged council members to support the motion. He stated he would support Option D, campaign for it, and raise funds if that was what the council decided, but cautioned that a campaign would require the active involvement of the council to be successful as there was not currently community support for a new City Hall. The community was aware that a new police facility had been the City's first priority for several years and it was time for the council move forward. Mr. Kelly complimented the council on the substantive discussion of the issues. He said he could not support the motion because of the reasons stated by Ms. Bettman and based on the City's polling and constituent feedback, which indicated the measure would fail. Mr. Kelly offered a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to create a work plan that would lead to a full City Hall replacement measure in 2006. Ms. Bettman provided the second. Mr. Kelly clarified that he was speaking at the concept level to avoid trying to identify specific details of Option D to be included and fine tune the steps to be taken. Mayor Torrey clarified that if the substitute motion passed Option A+ was no longer on the table. MiNUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 7 Work Session