Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments, Ms. Bettman said the City's highest priority was to move police personnel out of the basement because it was explicitly unsafe, and that had been accomplished. The need to move remaining police personnel was no greater than the need to move other City staff and the public out of the building. She supported the substitute motion and a conjoined facility remained her preference. Mr. Pap~ asked if the information on operating and maintenance costs on page 24 of the Agenda Item Summary represented an incremental increase in costs or only the costs for new facilities, not taking into account a reduction for costs of the current facility. Mr. Carlson said the figures were gross because there was not currently a strategy for eliminating the operation and maintenance costs in existing City Hall, although that was the goal. Mr. Pap~ asked for estimated figures based on elimination of costs for the existing City Hall. He clarified that under State law, police personnel could be grandfathered into existing space, but any relocation would have to be to space that met seismic code requirements. Mr. Penwell agreed with that clarification. Mayor Torrey announced that in the event of a tie vote, he would vote against the motion. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Pap~ commented that the public supported a partnership between the City and the County to build one facility to house police functions and encouraged the City to continue discussion with the County. Mr. Kelly noted that the County was in a financial situation that prevented it from collaborating on a new police facility and, while he understood the need for a new facility, he also understood the liability of placing what appeared to be the same measure for the third time on the ballot. Ms. Nathanson said the measure had new features such as combining certain types of community and social services to provide the best services to the public and she felt it was worth presenting to the voters. She remarked that the decision was a difficult one for her because she wanted it done right instead of fast and she was concerned that there was not enough council support for the measure to instill confidence in the community. Mr. Meisner stated he would reluctantly support the motion without high expectations and with the express commitment to help with the campaign. He asked what the deadline was for removing a measure from the ballot. He requested evidence in the form of names of community members who would conduct the campaign before he would vote in a final decision to put the measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman remarked that while $28 million was internal funds, it was still funds from the taxpayers. She asked if the City would move forward with the police station using internal funds if the pieces related to amenities such as the Parks Block improvements, Civic Center improvements and additional space for agencies failed at the ballot. Mr. Taylor stated his hope that staff would receive direction to pursue Option A using existing resources. Ms. Bettman said that failure of the bond measure would be a clear message from the public that it did not want a new police station and questioned whether the City should proceed with internal funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 8 Work Session