Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/26/06 Workshop M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 26, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. A. WORK SESSION: City Hall Complex Strategic Issues Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined for the item by Thomas Hacker, Jonah Cohen, and Dana Ing Crawford of Thomas Hacker Architects; Ellen Teninty of T’N T Consultants; Doug Macy and Ken Pirie of Walker Macy; Dave Wilson and Rick Rehfeldt of McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie; and Kyle Brown of J. D. White Company. Police Chief Robert Lehner, and Glen Svendsen and Mike Penwell of the Facilities Division were also present. Ms. Crawford reviewed the agenda for the meeting. She indicated one deviation from the action proposed in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which was that the council delay action on the staff-recommended motion related to space needs until the council meeting of May 10. That would allow for more discussion of the consolidation option. Ms. Teninty facilitated the workshop portion of the meeting. Mr. Papé arrived. Mr. Hacker expressed enthusiasm for the project, saying he believed the City of Eugene had an extraordi- nary opportunity to revitalize City Hall. He said the project was quite complex, and could be implemented using many different approaches. Those different approaches presented challenges. Mr. Hacker said the public indicated a desire to see the council unified in support of the project. To reach that consensus, he proposed some changes in the process. First, staff would not be asking the council to take action on the space needs issue today. He recommended that at this time, the council narrow the police consolidation options to two or three, which would allow the project team to put together better information on the remaining options. Mr. Hacker asked the councilors to make themselves more available as individuals to the project team so the team could create criteria and be better prepared for the upcoming work shops with the council. Ms. Teninty recalled that some councilors indicated hesitation about meeting individually with the project team. Ms. Bettman said that councilors were elected officials who needed to express their preferences in public. She criticized the way the information from the first round of council interviews was processed, saying it represented a form of quasi-balloting. She said that given the importance of the process, the community MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 1 Work Session needed to be able to see what the council was thinking and what the issues were. Ms. Bettman said council decisions needed to be made in open public session. Mr. Kelly believed that the way information was previously synthesized had been a problem. However, he acknowledged the challenges faced by the project team, and suggested a way to have a pre-meeting check-in was via e-mail, which was information to be found in the public realm. Councilors briefly discussed what approach they should take to the suggestion proffered by the project team and accepted Mr. Kelly’s suggestion. Ms. Teninty called the council’s attention to the input from the public forum, contained in Attachment A, “Community Forum Summary Report.” She said that the forum report could be found at www.cityeugenehall.com. She noted that as a result of outreach, 20 percent of the participants were neighborhood association members. The project team would attempt to use that connection to do more outreach beyond the associations. Ms. Teninty emphasized that the results of the public forum were not scientific. All comments received were provided to the council in an unedited form. Ms. Teninty overviewed the process used to solicit input on the police consolidation options at the forum. She said the results the council saw reflected the small group discussions rather than full group discussions, and did not reflect if the larger discussion changed anyone’s mind. Ms. Taylor suggested the project team reconsider the use of the dot exercise for the remaining community forums. Ms. Teninty reviewed the results of the public input related to police consolidation, noting the lack of emphasis participants placed on the police function being housed at City Hall, and the suggestion that the solution was community policing. Participants wanted the police in their neighborhood, not at City Hall. Ms. Teninty recommended that the council focus its discussion about the criteria on the topics of functional efficiency, civic integration of the police function into the community and “structure of democracy,” cost, and the impact of how the police function issue affected the overall success of funding for the project. Ms. Bettman questioned the utility of the information collected at the forum as opposed to using a more scientific approach, particularly given the many unknowns surrounding the project. Ms. Teninty suggested that the forum served the function of allowing for face-to-face communication about the purpose of the project and the need for a new city hall. She anticipated a need for more scientific data in the future. Mr. Kelly thought the forum had value for the reasons cited by Ms. Teninty. He expressed appreciation for the comments from the attendees, which was more than the council might have otherwise received. Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Bettman had a good point, and some polling before the council came to a final decision about Phase 2 could be worthwhile. He did not know what questions would be asked, and suggested that the project team and City staff give the idea some thought. Mayor Piercy recalled the reason for the process was to engage the public more broadly and successfully. She anticipated the council would learn from the process and it would inform future council decisions. Ms. Bettman suggested that the community dialogue needed to be informed by the research the council was waiting to see, and once that research was available, the council might consider a mailing to the public and MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 2 Work Session forums, followed by a scientific survey. Mr. Kelly endorsed the suggestion. Ms. Taylor suggested the mailing could be in the neighborhood newsletters, which many people read. Mr. Hacker briefly discussed the space needs analysis, calling it a work in progress. The analysis had changed by a percentage or so and he expected further change. However, the basic numbers remained the same, and the relative area numbers for the different City functions were similar. He anticipated more discussion on May 10. With regard to questions for a future response, Mr. Kelly said he could not find the Council Chamber or meeting rooms on the chart. He recalled that earlier discussion indicated that City Hall would include office space for the councilors. That was not included. Speaking to the analysis for the Police Department, he said that it lacked information about current net square feet for the department. He wanted that information. Mr. Kelly said if one added up all the 2006 net square feet, that should roughly equal the net square feet of the Atrium Building, 858 Pearl Street, and City Hall, and he wanted that double-checked. Ms. Bettman asked where the police auditor’s office was proposed to be located. Ms. Teninty said the function was housed with the City Council and Mayor or the City Manager's Office (CMO). Mr. Hacker referred the council to Attachment B of the AIS, “Police Consolidation Options A-E.” He briefly reviewed the options. Ms. Teninty invited questions. Ms. Taylor asked whether the reason less parking was needed downtown was because the project team assumed greater use of mass transit. Mr. Hacker said yes. Ms. Taylor asked if police officers taking automobiles home reduced the need for parking. Mr. Hacker said the project team used information provided by a consultant. A member of the project team clarified that the parking numbers did not assume a full take-home car program. The majority of officers do not take their automobiles home. If that approach was adopted, the numbers could be adjusted. Ms. Taylor suggested that such a program reduced the need for spaces. Chief Lehner acknowledged there were a number of police agencies that had such programs. He said that the department would evaluate the cost effectiveness of that approach against the cost of secured downtown parking. Mr. Hacker indicated that in all downtown options, the project team assumed only patrol cars and administrative cars. City Manager Dennis Taylor pointed out the management ramifications of a take-home automobile program, which would require a vehicle to be provided to every officer. Mr. Kelly suggested Option A, One Building - Full Consolidation, should be revised with regard to the existing space diagram, which implied much of the space for civic functions was being tripled. With regard to the consolidation options, Mr. Kelly thought it was worthwhile to note that regardless of the option preferred, the community’s goal was to better integrate the police with the community. Mr. Kelly suggested that Option A was negative for many community members who felt uncomfortable with a significant police presence at City Hall, which would discourage them from coming to City Hall to do business. He thought that those concerns could be mitigated through design, but he was comfortable dropping options A and E. He wanted to keep Option D alive, with patrol functions separate but not necessarily downtown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Papé was unprepared to make a decision on the options because he thought more public input was warranted than could be provided through a single forum. He asked for information about the location of the front door of City Hall. Mr. Hacker clarified that the schematics were not building designs, but he thought City Hall needed multiple entrances and needed to accept people from the street in more than one location. There also needed to be a main entrance, such as at a public plaza. A visible information area would be immediately inside the door. He envisioned a very active space and said that could occur in an atrium-type space or in a mall-like setting. Mr. Papé requested information on the square footage required for secured parking. Ms. Bettman referred to the public comment and suggested it demonstrated a diversity of opinion that reflected to a degree the diversity of opinion among councilors. She thought that was a challenge but also a good thing. Ms. Bettman noted the Police Commission outreach indicated a similar conclusion with regard to police visibility in neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman asked why options C and D were combined. Mr. Hacker said they were combined because they were graphically the same and it reduced the number of sheets needed for the presentation. Ms. Bettman thought the public might find the presentation confusing as there were differences between the options. With regard to the options, Ms. Bettman agreed with the public that the council needed to be as unanimous as possible as it moved the project forward. Any option selected needed to be supported by the community. Ms. Bettman said that at this time, she was in support of Option B. She said the option realized much of the criteria. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly with regard to Option C. He said the process was a combination of public input and the chief’s vision for the future. He thought Mr. Papé right in that one forum did not constitute complete public input, and suggested the possibility that the four options could be taken back to the public. However, Mr. Poling did not think the public was very enthusiastic about either option A or E. While he personally favored Option B, he was in favor of moving forward with options B, C, and D and gathering more public input. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about the proposed approaches to police consolidation. She had hoped to see something along the lines of a precinct model. She saw the rationality of Option B as it regarded cost. Chief Lehner said that the option of precincts was not offered to the council as it was not affordable at this time. He acknowledged the public’s interest in police visibility in neighborhoods. With regard to the options before the council, none of the options precluded that visibility as the police left the police headquarters and go to different areas for deployment. Chief Lehner acknowledged the symbolism of the police’s location in a neighborhood, which could be realized through a very traditional and expensive community policing model. Ms. Ortiz said that many of her constituents never went downtown. She acknowledged that the precinct model was expensive, but said the council needed to address the concerns of those who lived in the outlying areas who depended on City services and who voted. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Chief Lehner pointed out the public safety stations were a big part of community policing in Eugene that was an attempt to get at Ms. Ortiz’s concerns. Mr. Pryor said he did not think Option A was financially feasible. He said he also could drop Option E from consideration as he did not think it fulfilled the criteria. He thought it reasonable to continue discussion of the remaining options. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt police consolidation options B, C, and D for use in future planning studies until the council is prepared to adopt a single op- tion in relation to an overall Development Plan. Mayor Piercy called for council discussion. Ms. Bettman was not able to support the motion because of the inclusion of Option D. She thought that Option B came closest to fulfilling the criteria. She agreed with Chief Lehner that the substations were a way of reaching out to the neighborhoods in an affordable manner. Ms. Bettman preferred Option B because she thought it important that the police function be downtown. She said that options C and D were very close to proposals the voters had rejected three times in the past. With regard to a precinct model, Ms. Bettman said she understood that was planned for the future. Option B did not preclude future adoption of a precinct model or location of a precinct in north Eugene, and was the only option she was willing to support. Mayor Piercy clarified that passage of the motion merely meant that all the options were on the table for future discussion. Mr. Papé pointed out that the page 15 of the packet did not indicate a clear public message regarding the location of the police function. He did not want to take Option E off the table due to its low cost. Mr. Papé asked if a second precinct facility located across the river would decrease the need for square footage in downtown. Chief Lehner said it did in the out-years of the project planning. None of the options precluded the development of a future second precinct. He agreed that such a precinct should be in north Eugene, which was under consideration for a public safety station. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by adding Option E. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Papé voting yes. Mr. Poling said he was comfortable with dropping Option A because the public input did not support it. He did not want to narrow the options to one because the other options could be used to generate input from the public. Then the council could eliminate the other options. He thought it was premature to eliminate options now. Mr. Kelly also supported the motion because he wanted a balance in moving forward. He was least supportive of Option D but lacked information about the cost differential. He supported the motion to get more cost information about Option D. Ms. Bettman indicated if Option D was removed from the motion, she could support it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Papé called for a vote. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 26, 2006 Page 6 Work Session