Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 07/26/04 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall July 26, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Council President Bettman reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Cheryl O'Neill, 24347 High Pass Road, Junction City, assistant director of Womenspace women's shelter and coordinator of the Domestic Violence Council, spoke in support of collocating with the City in a Community Safety Center. She provided a copy of the grant her organization had received on which all of the partners were listed. She stressed that collocation had been a ~part of the conversation" among victim services providers for some time. In response to a concern heard at the public hearing, she stated that collocation would not replace any of the other locations that services for domestic violence victims were provided. She underscored that the victim services provided in such a center would be for victims already involved in a criminal matter. David Sonnichsen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, noted he had sent the council an email on July 15 regarding the unanimous opposition of the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee (WNACPC) to the proposed Agate Street extension. He read the motion into the record, as follows: ~The Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park opposes the proposed Agate Street extension and recommends that the Eugene City Council favor a Patterson Street extension into a proposed hospital site on the current Eugene Water & Electric Board property. Extend- ing Agate Street would compromise the integrity of the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park by impacting the open space river corridor and would potentially result in a subsequent conversion of Autzen Footbridge into a structure designed to carry regular motorized vehicle traffic." While he recognized the need for another access point, he maintained that the Agate Street extension was not the answer. He asked what the schedule for public input and public discussion was. He wished to know when the City would begin to schedule public hearings. Glen Love, 393 Ful Vue Drive, member of the WNACPC, commented that he noticed in the planning documents for the Riverfront Research Park a zoning change from open space to University-related research. He questioned whether a hospital with no intention of conducting research would fall under this heading. He added that the Riverfront Research Park had failed to attract researchers after 20 years of trying. He thought it advisable to return to the Metro Plan to determine how to zone the land appropriately. He opined that most cities had shut themselves off from their rivers and Eugene had yet to cut itself off from all of the unique qualities of flora and fauna the river provided for the community. Tony McCown, 1960 Potter Street, introduced himself as the president-elect of the student body at Lane Community College (LCC). He spoke in support of housing standards for renters. He outlined some of the arguments brought up by the Rental Owners Association and the counter-arguments presented by Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, as follows: 1) The tenant can terminate tenancy or move - a threat to move was unlikely to cause a landlord to make the repair. 2) The tenant can sue the landlord for a court order - a tenant cannot sue in small claims court and would be required to hire an attorney. Most renters cannot afford an attorney. 3) The tenant can do repairs and deduct them from the rent - this forces a tenant to come up with the money for repairs up front. 4) The tenant can withhold rent - this puts the renter at risk of eviction and most evictions were for withholding rent. Mr. McCown looked forward to working with the City Council on this issue. Carmen Urbina, 788 Blackfoot Avenue, called the collocation of victims' services an exciting proposal, given that it would create partnerships with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and victim services such as Womenspace and Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS). She had participated many times in taking victims of both domestic violence and sexual assault from agency to agency to try and get their needs addressed. She thought this collaboration could provide victims with one place that would provide effective and compassionate services for them. She applauded the community and its leadership for considering such collocation in a Community Safety Building. Craig Opperman, 72-B Centennial Loop, Executive Director of Looking Glass, shared his excitement regarding Police Chief Bob Lehner's vision of community policing and police partnership. He felt collocation of service programs in a police facility represented a true opportunity. He related his experience with the Children's Receiving Center, a program he helped design. He said the center had been part of a campus which included law enforcement, child protective services, a shelter, a health center, and more. He stressed that the collocation of services had truly benefited the children. He was happy to see this kind of collaboration being discussed in Eugene. Elaine Walters, 210 West 37th Avenue, spoke in support of collocation of victim services providers in the Public Safety Center. She explained she was the interim director of Kids First Safe Alternative Centers, an agency that hoped to be a primary partner in the collaboration. She said Kids First provided supervision for visits between children and non-custodial parents when domestic violence had happened. She shared that, though she had only worked in this capacity for several months, she had already witnessed numerous phone calls from potentially violent people. Having the center in proximity to the Police Department would truly benefit it as it would allow some people to connect appropriately with their children without being able to act out violently. She stated that the domestic violence service providers worked together, but having a centralized location would improve the victims' ability to access services. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, related that the Cal Young Neighborhood Association had recently held an emergency meeting of its executive board because residents were concerned about safety. He said an area was being developed but only had one access road. He stated that there was a pending development that could provide them with a second access road. He hoped he could come to a future City Council meeting and ask for help and support in finding a solution that would not only benefit the developer, but the citizens at large. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and asked for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke at the Public Forum. Regarding development of a Community Safety Center, she thought the nuance of the bond measure would be lost on most of the public. She opined that it would have been more beneficial to the community had the non-profit service providers had advocated for a replacement of City Hall, which should be the highest priority. She asserted that such a center was a '~fiscally short-sighted project." She said while she supported the services the agencies provided, she would not support this particular proposal. Councilor Bettman thanked the members of the WNACPC for speaking. She noted she had requested that staff provide some options other than Agate Street for hospital access and asked if staff had been able to find this information. She also asked that the timeline for public input be made available as soon as possible. She said the public needed opportunities to participate. Councilor Pap6 asked if it was known yet whether the access to the hospital would be an overpass or an 'Gat grade" crossing. City Manager Dennis Taylor responded that the work session scheduled for September 22 would address the issues of access, cost, and timing, and would provide an update on the hospital issue. Councilor Pap~ appreciated the diversity on the council as to what direction the City should take as far as planning for a Civic Center. He said a new police facility was needed that was up to seismic and safety standards. Given that the most likely site for the new Civic Center building was on the present City Hall site, he thought it prudent to move the police out and into a ~proper" facility first. He acknowledged the testimony in support of collocation and said it would help to get the bond measure passed. He hoped the service agencies would help to pass the measure. Councilor Taylor expressed admiration for the University students who were making a continued presence in support of housing standards enforcement. Councilor Taylor also thanked Mr. Sonnichsen and Mr. Love for trying to protect the river. She felt the placement of roads and buildings along the river would reduce access to it. Regarding the police station, Councilor Taylor thought it was the wrong time to place a bond measure on the ballot. Councilor Kelly commented that, because of the visibility of the issue on access to the proposed hospital, it would be beneficial to have information for the public as soon as possible. Mr. Taylor said he would work with Public Works Director Kurt Corey to provide the council with the latest information with regard to the work. Councilor Bettman commended the students working for housing standards for showing up in August. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Taylor affirmed that staff was working on access issues to the hospital area as well as barriers. Councilor Bettman asked if staff was soliciting options from other areas. Mr. Taylor responded that staff was working with the options adopted in the council work session. Mayor Torrey said he wanted a statement from Triad/McKenzie-Willamette Hospital clarifying what it was willing to accept regarding access routes. He stressed that if the hospital was not willing to accept the outcome of the discussions, there was no point in pursuing them. He added that this did not necessarily mean that the City had to accept what the hospital set forth either. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 16, 2004, Work Session - June 22, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Meeting - June 23, 2004, Work Session - June 28, 2004, Work Session - July 12, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4800 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of Property Interests for Improvements to the Transporta- tion Infrastructure in the Vicinity of the new Federal Courthouse The Consent Calendar was approved during the earlier work session, with the exception of Item 2C. Councilor Bettman pulled Item 2C as she had questions regarding it. She noted that staff had answered one question during the break and she understood that the proposed project would help to extend 6th Avenue. She asked to what extent systems development charges (SDCs) would be used in financing the improve- ments. Michelle Cahill, Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that there had been no discussion regarding the use of assessments to help finance the projects because it was slated to be funded by $ t .6 million that Lane County agreed to give the City as its share of the federal road money. She felt there could be an SDC component to the project, but at this point the forthcoming federal money and the local share that had been identified would cover the improvements. Councilor Bettman registered her opposition to the resolution. She opposed the 6th Avenue extension, saying it would multiply safety issues for pedestrians and increase barriers to the connection of the downtown area to the river. She reiterated that the project should be funded by SDCs and, as it was a State road issue, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) should help to pay. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Cahill said the cost of the project included land acquisition and staff had an estimate on the land value. Councilor Taylor said she would oppose the project. She echoed Councilor Bettman's concerns regarding the barrier a 6th Avenue extension would create. She also had qualms about the funding. She wished to remind everyone that federal money was still taxpayer money. Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Bettman that the County Road Fund money could be used for preservation projects. He urged staff to continue to look into utilizing SDCs for local matches. He said he would support the motion. Mayor Torrey acknowledged there would not be a tie but registered his support for the motion nonetheless. He said the Government Services Administration (GSA) expected the City to proceed with this. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Resolution 4800, authorizing the institution of proceed- ings in eminent domain for the acquisition of property interests (Map 17-03-31-14 lot 200; Map 17-03-32-22 lots t tee, 1300, 1400; Map 17-03-32-23 lots tee, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, 2400, 2600, 2700, 2900, 3002 and Map 17-03-32-24 lots 1600, 1601, and 1700) for the improvements to the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the new federal courthouse passed, 5:2; Councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Storage of Vehicles on Streets and Amending Section 5.135 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Dennis Taylor called this a straightforward amendment that provided vehicles a longer period of time to sit on a public street and identified specific ways the vehicles could be towed for failure to have proper registration. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak to the ordinance, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called on the council for comments. Councilor Bettman said she was prepared to support the ordinance. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Parking Enforcement Program Manager Kay Kronholm stated that staff did not anticipate that the change would affect vehicle camping. She noted that such camping was specifically addressed in Eugene Code 4.815. Councilor Kelly supported the ordinance. He asked if staff had made a distinction between a car or pick-up truck and a semi-truck or large motor home. Ms. Kronholm responded that semi-trucks were not allowed to park on the street between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. She said there was usually a small increase in motor home parking during the summer and occasionally boats were parked on the street. She explained that the process began with a warning which was usually effective. Councilor Poling asked if obviously disabled vehicles were covered by the ordinance. Ms. Kronholm replied that they were not, but that there were internal policies in place which, when initiated, called for a 72-hour warning with the possibility of an extension for such a vehicle to be moved. Once a vehicle was processed and tagged, the vehicles were the highest priority to tow. Councilor Meisner noted that abandoned vehicles were not uncommon in his neighborhood. He commended the department for being very responsive. In response to a question from Councilor Meisner, Ms. Kronholm affirmed that the process would remain complaint-driven. She added, regarding a second question, that she was uncertain whether chronic violators who merely moved their vehicles a few feet would not continue to get away with this behavior. Councilor Meisner conveyed his support for the ordinance. Councilor Pap~ asked if the ordinance would help deter semi-truck parking in the Ferry Street Bridge area. Ms. Kronholm replied that she was uncertain whether it would provide such deterrence. Councilor Pap~ recommended that staff pay particular attention to Brewer Street in his ward as it was a popular place for semi-trucks to park overnight. Mayor Torrey asked if there was any objection to taking action at the present meeting. Councilors indicated that they had no objections. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4878, an ordinance concerning the storage of vehicles. Roll call vote; the mo- tion carried unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section G, Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter ¥ Glossary; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date And An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) by Adding New Tables and Maps Identifying Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Conveyance Systems in Chapter II; Amending Chapter I¥ Wastewater Sys- tem Condition Assessment and Adopting Table 16a; Adding a New Chapter ¥I Amend- ment to the PFSP; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, file MA 04-01) Mr. Taylor asked Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department Kurt Yeiter to speak to the ordinances. Mr. Yeiter explained that the findings were the same for both ordinances because the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities Plan were intertwined. He noted that a memorandum from Greg Mott, Planning Director for the City of Springfield, collected and addressed the testimony given at the recent public. He said legal counsel for all three jurisdictions had collaborated and agreed the ordinances should be adopted. Mr. Yeiter reported that the City of Springfield had adopted the ordinances by a unanimous vote on July 19 and the Lane Board of County Commissioners was scheduled to vote on them later in the month. Councilor Papd pointed out that the total cost of the capital improvements was listed at $160 million on page 113 of the packet. He asked why there was a discrepancy from the original number presented before the council. Dave Jewett, legal counsel for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, responded that the cost for the improvements had not increased. He explained that Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) required the cost estimate to encompass all possible work. Because of this, the estimate involved additional work that would not be completed unless the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) required it. He said efforts were being made to convince the DEQ that the additional work was unnecessary. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the Council adopt Council Bill 4876, amending the Metro Plan text. Councilor Bettman voiced her support for both motions, though not unconditionally. She believed the financing proposal to be better than what was in place, but felt some of the cost should be borne by SDCs. She reiterated her feelings that SDCs were "artificially low," which means the expense of providing additional capacity to new development is being shifted to the ratepayers. Councilor Meisner conveyed his reluctant support for the motions. He recapped his previously stated concerns regarding MWMC, its contemplated 20-year plan, the cost of the plan, its specific choices, and, most of all, the lack of public knowledge about the process and the consequences of the process. He predicted "it" would "come back to bite us." Councilor Papd echoed Councilor Meisner's concerns, particularly the lack of public process. He agreed that the statutory process had been followed, but felt the lack of information on the cost of the 20-year project list did not allow the public to consider what the MWMC was setting forth in an educated way. He asked if approval of the two ordinances would prejudice taking on a partnership with the City of Coburg. Mr. Yeiter stated that the ordinances would not change the existing policy. City Attorney Glenn Klein agreed, adding that at this stage the result of a ~yea" or ~nay" vote would have an identical effect on the possibility of partnering with Coburg. Councilor Papd wanted to state for the record that the legislative intent was that, should efficiencies be found through partnership, the City of Eugene would be willing to partner with Coburg on a wastewater facility. Mayor Torrey voiced his respect for what Councilor Meisner and Councilor Pap6 said regarding reaching out to the public. He said the frustration, however, lay in the fact that this was not a %exy item" for the public. He remarked that as often as the MWMC tried to reach out and invite the public to speak to this, they had not been able to raise much interest in its long-term planning. He complimented the staff of the MWMC and the three jurisdictions who weighed in on the matter in their recent efforts to reach out to Coburg. Councilor Meisner clarified that he was not concerned with the number of people who testified on the item. He felt the communication to the public did not state in a clear fashion that the public hearings were about a double-digit percentage increase in wastewater rates. Councilor Poling spoke as an MWMC commissioner. He related that the commission had debriefed the whole issue and understood that the information to the public had not been adequate. He conveyed the commission's desire to do a better job in the future in this respect. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4877, amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan. Roll call vote; the mo- tion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman remarked that it seemed that staff was already working on a partnership with the City of Coburg. She asked if the council had given the authority to staff to do so. Mr. Taylor responded that there had been talk of an interjurisdictional meeting of staff. He said there had been two meetings and a document on the expedited scope overview was being prepared for the council. Councilor Bettman reiterated her objection to staff moving forward on this without council authorization. She wished to clarify that staff started to move on this issue without a ;;decision point" at the City Council or the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) levels. She felt staff was moving forward on a ;;monumental issue" which would cost the ratepayers money. She expressed alarm at this. Councilor Nathanson stated that her understanding of the staff activity was that it was usual in that staff was conducting scoping activities prior to bringing information to the council. Mr. Taylor affirmed this. Mayor Torrey pointed out that this was becoming another agenda item. He recommended the council proceed with the agenda before it, as written. Mr. Taylor said the MWMC was generating a detailed memorandum to all three jurisdictions regarding the potential partnership with Coburg. 5. ACTION: Adoption of Resolution 4801 Calling a City Election on November 2, 2004, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authorizing the Issu- ance of a Maximum of $6,790,000 of General Obligation Bonds to Partially Fund the Civic Center Vision Project Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4801 calling a city election on November 2, 2004, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure authorizing the issuance of a maximum of $6,790,000 of general obligation bonds to partially fund the Civic Center Vision Project. Councilor Taylor noted that the last sentence on page 229 of the agenda packet indicated that funding from the General Fund may need to be reallocated for operations and management of the new Community Safety Building. She asked why this was so, as the Eugene Police Department (EPD) would be vacating its City Hall location and this would create more space for City functions that were currently renting. She posited that the savings in rental expenditures would match the increased cost of the new structure. Mr. Carlson cited two issues in response: the current costs would increase given the larger size of the new Community Safety Building; and the current costs of the City Hall would still be there. While it was possible the rental savings could offset the new costs, he said the savings would not likely be greater than the increased expenditures. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. She opined that it was not the right time to place such a bond measure on the ballot. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Carlson explained that the $5.2 million in right-of- way revenues listed in the agenda item summary (ALS) was the franchise fee revenue that had been deferred revenue for several years. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Carlson assured her that the one percent allocated for public art in the new building was included in the total construction costs. Councilor Bettman asked what would happen should the bond pass and the at-risk revenue was not available. Mr. Carlson said it was hoped that the legal issues would be resolved by then. He stated that bonds would not be sold until there was a firm financing plan for the entire facility. Councilor Bettman then asked what staff would do should the revenue not be available. Mr. Carlson explained that staff would have to return to the council to determine whether to go forward or to backfill with another revenue source. Councilor Bettman asked what was planned, should the bond fail. Mr. Carlson responded that the current staff recommendation would be to proceed with the construction of a new basic police services building with existing resources. Councilor Bettman expressed her opposition to the motion. She called the bond measure short-sighted. She asserted this would build a police station with capacity for only ten years. She reiterated her preferred option that the bond measure finance both the police building and the Civic Building. Councilor Nathanson recalled that there had been a public meeting on this topic very recently. She supported the measure for the same reasons she had previously cited and declined to repeat them. She asked the City Manager to state once again the purpose of the bond in order to dispel any public confusion. She noted others had spoken as though the bond measure was only intended to pay for building a police station. Mr. Taylor stated that the bond was slated to pay for a 92,000 square foot building, including 77,000 square feet for housing the police services and 15,000 square feet for general office space to provide the opportu- nity for collocation of victims' services. He said it would also make improvements along 8th Avenue and would make the previously discussed improvements to the Park Blocks. He called it another step in the phased implementation of Civic Center vision, using the policy principles adopted at the last meeting. Councilor Nathanson underscored that the public was being asked for a relatively small amount of money in the perspective of what the entire project would cost and the money would pay for public amenities, for public improvements downtown, to make the downtown area greener, and to add a new approach for social services and public service. She felt it was a very different proposal from merely saying it was to build a police station. She called it an ;;incremental step to achieving everything we need." In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Carlson assured him that, should the bond fail, staff would come before the council to determine how to proceed. Councilor Kelly commented that from conversations with constituents it was clear that the public was not supportive of the bond measure. While he strongly supported the need for new facilities and the other components of the measure, he would oppose placing the measure on the ballot. He expressed concern that the measure only provided adequate space for the next ten years. He called it short-sighted. He acknowl- edged that the structure was planned with future expansion in mind but speculated that building codes could change in the interim and prevent this from happening. He was concerned regarding the legal risk of the telecommunications money and felt there should be a ~Plan B" for financing the project. Councilor Meisner said this had been discussed at length during the previous week. He concurred with Councilor Bettman about how the whole vision and the whole set of needs could best be implemented. He supported the motions before the City Council and stated that he would campaign for the bond measure. He commented that he missed the days when the City Council would have a divided vote but then, once decided, would speak with one voice. Councilor Meisner shared the previously voiced frustrations regarding building for the needs of the year 2018. He was not persuaded that the building would be too small or too large and believed the measure before the council made sense. Councilor Papd also wished that the City could embark on the whole project. He stated that this would involve $70 million in a bond measure, which would push the City up against well-conceived and well- founded City policies with regard to bonding and debt incursion and would prevent the City from achieving other needed goals for some time. He felt it sensible to %ite it off in chunks" rather than to try to gain the whole project at once. He asked Chief Lehner to discuss how the building would be expanded in the future. Chief Lehner stated that the proposed size of the building was based on several assumptions, one of which was that the entire patrol operation would be staged out of this building. He said this may not be the model that the City of Eugene would move toward in the future. He thought that, should the City decide to move toward a precinct or substation model in terms of police patrol service delivery, the major growth aspect of the proposed building was potentially entirely mitigated. He underscored that he was not advocating for a precinct model for police services at this point in time. However, he said Eugene was poised at a unique point of population and service load where a precinct deployment model must be considered. In terms of sizing the building, he felt it was appropriate for the long-term future. He added that, should the City size the facility for 2028, it could ultimately rule out the option for service delivery through the precinct model in the future. Councilor Poling called it essential to include the social services agencies in the new Community Safety Building, as well as address the other concerns of the Civic Center vision. He believed approval of the bond measure to be a responsible action to take at this time as it was a small step to attain the vision. He related that he had spoken to constituents and heard they were not ready to pay for the entire Civic Center and Community Safety Building project. He felt that the bond measure indicated that the City was acting in good faith by using available funds and asking for additional funds to help with the social services and the basic beginning steps of the Civic Center vision. 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 underscored 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 partners 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 creative and different ways. She thought Eugene was showing more creativity than most cities by investing in prevention in this manner. She predicted it would be a forthcoming crime prevention technique. She wished all of the people could reach a point at which they could affirm incremental change. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in op- position. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to authorize the expenditure of not more than $10,000 from the General Fund Contingency account for neutral public in- formation related to the proposed measure for the November 2004 election; and to authorize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund contingency account that are required to produce a voters pamphlet for the November 2004 election, estimated to be approximately $25,000. Mary Walston, Council, Public And Government Affairs Manager for the Central Services Department, affirmed, in response to a question from Councilor Kelly, that candidates could purchase space for statements in the related voters pamphlet. Councilor Kelly said he would support the motion because he felt the City should do everything it could to inform the voters. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to appoint George Poling, Jim Torrey, and Cheryl O'Neill to the proponent committee for the measure. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey asked if there was any other council business for the good of the whole. Councilor Bettman asked to reaffirm that there would be time during the August 9 work session to discuss the charter amendment for the utilization of a performance auditor. Mr. Taylor replied that 30 minutes would be set aside for this at the work session. Councilor Bettman then asked if, should final action not be taken at the August 9 work session, the revised language could be ready for the work session of August 11 in order to place it on the ballot for November. Councilor Pap~ called a point of order. He noted that Councilor Bettman wanted to bring an issue back. He felt this was preempting the normal process. Mr. Taylor responded that a work session had been scheduled for July 28 on the issue of a charter amendment to deal with a performance audit, but three councilors were unable to attend. He explained that Councilor Poling had requested that no vote be taken until he could be available to vote. He stated that a full discussion was scheduled for July 28, the vote was scheduled for August 9, and staff would bring the final language before the council on August 11. This would be enough time to place it on the November ballot, should it be approved. Councilor Meisner said he would not be present for the meeting on August 9, but he would not request that the vote not be taken. Councilor Poling withdrew his request to postpone the vote on July 28. Mayor Torrey clarified that this was not an indication of agreement. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)