My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCMinutes - 07/26/04 Mtg
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2004
>
CCMinutes - 07/26/04 Mtg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:29:09 AM
Creation date
9/17/2004 9:50:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilor Nathanson recalled that there had been a public meeting on this topic very recently. She <br />supported the measure for the same reasons she had previously cited and declined to repeat them. She asked <br />the City Manager to state once again the purpose of the bond in order to dispel any public confusion. She <br />noted others had spoken as though the bond measure was only intended to pay for building a police station. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor stated that the bond was slated to pay for a 92,000 square foot building, including 77,000 square <br />feet for housing the police services and 15,000 square feet for general office space to provide the opportu- <br />nity for collocation of victims' services. He said it would also make improvements along 8th Avenue and <br />would make the previously discussed improvements to the Park Blocks. He called it another step in the <br />phased implementation of Civic Center vision, using the policy principles adopted at the last meeting. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson underscored that the public was being asked for a relatively small amount of money in <br />the perspective of what the entire project would cost and the money would pay for public amenities, for <br />public improvements downtown, to make the downtown area greener, and to add a new approach for social <br />services and public service. She felt it was a very different proposal from merely saying it was to build a <br />police station. She called it an ;;incremental step to achieving everything we need." <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Carlson assured him that, should the bond fail, staff <br />would come before the council to determine how to proceed. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly commented that from conversations with constituents it was clear that the public was not <br />supportive of the bond measure. While he strongly supported the need for new facilities and the other <br />components of the measure, he would oppose placing the measure on the ballot. He expressed concern that <br />the measure only provided adequate space for the next ten years. He called it short-sighted. He acknowl- <br />edged that the structure was planned with future expansion in mind but speculated that building codes could <br />change in the interim and prevent this from happening. He was concerned regarding the legal risk of the <br />telecommunications money and felt there should be a ~Plan B" for financing the project. <br /> <br />Councilor Meisner said this had been discussed at length during the previous week. He concurred with <br />Councilor Bettman about how the whole vision and the whole set of needs could best be implemented. He <br />supported the motions before the City Council and stated that he would campaign for the bond measure. He <br />commented that he missed the days when the City Council would have a divided vote but then, once decided, <br />would speak with one voice. <br /> <br />Councilor Meisner shared the previously voiced frustrations regarding building for the needs of the year <br />2018. He was not persuaded that the building would be too small or too large and believed the measure <br />before the council made sense. <br /> <br />Councilor Papd also wished that the City could embark on the whole project. He stated that this would <br />involve $70 million in a bond measure, which would push the City up against well-conceived and well- <br />founded City policies with regard to bonding and debt incursion and would prevent the City from achieving <br />other needed goals for some time. He felt it sensible to %ite it off in chunks" rather than to try to gain the <br />whole project at once. He asked Chief Lehner to discuss how the building would be expanded in the future. <br /> <br />Chief Lehner stated that the proposed size of the building was based on several assumptions, one of which <br />was that the entire patrol operation would be staged out of this building. He said this may not be the model <br />that the City of Eugene would move toward in the future. He thought that, should the City decide to move <br />toward a precinct or substation model in terms of police patrol service delivery, the major growth aspect of <br />the proposed building was potentially entirely mitigated. He underscored that he was not advocating for a <br />precinct model for police services at this point in time. However, he said Eugene was poised at a unique <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.