dec Council meeting 02/02/09 pdf
by matthew on Tue Feb 03 07:53:46 CST 2009

I arrived late (it's very busy at work). Here's the official press release, it covers the facts of the meeting really well: 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2, 2009


 

COUNCIL TO CONTINUE
POLICE BUILDING
TALKS


 

DECATUR — The Decatur City Council on Monday decided to revisit the issue of finding additional police space at a later date, directing city staff to formulate and return with additional options for funding such a project.

The council spent the first portion of Monday’s meeting in study session discussing a slate of potential funding options which had been put forth as possibilities — not recommendations — for funding a new police building. While all members stated a desire to assist the police department to find necessary additional space they did not find an acceptable lineup of ways to best pay for such a project.

Estimates indicate that a building to house the entire department would cost $15-$17.5 million. Council also discussed the possibility of building a smaller facility to house a part of the police department with the facility being designed so that it could be expanded at a later date.

It is estimated that a smaller, expandable building might be constructed for about $ 6 million. The debt service on the larger all-encompassing facility is estimated to be $1.3 million per year while the debt service on the smaller facility is estimated to be about $450,000 annually.

Council will revisit the issue once staff has had an opportunity to investigate other funding options. The agreement between the city and BLDD Architects to provide design services for a 60,000 square foot police building was pulled from the agenda.

Though there was no vote, the council did seem to be in favor of enacting a local ordinance for illegal use of a vehicle that could be applied when individuals commit certain common offenses. Offenses covered could include, among other things, driving with a suspended or revoked license, prostitution, possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia and weapons offenses that occur while a person is driving. The ordinance can require vehicle impoundment with a bond of $250 with the bond having to be paid before the vehicle is released and an administrative court date set if the offender does not plead guilty at the time of payment.

This is very similar to the way in which the current noise ordinance works.

The Police Chief, City Manager and City Council cautioned against “Policing for Profit,” or seeing this ordinance as simply a revenue source for the city. The goal, they said, through such an ordinance is to dissuade the illegal activities.

For more information contact Billy Tyus at 424-2753.


----------

I have to say, I'm really impressed that the City is putting these press releases out so quickly (This one was posted within an hour or so of the meeting's conclusion).  It makes posting a conversational "starting point" extremely easy! 

I'll post my firsthand impressions of the meeting in the comments section... 
by matthew on Tue Feb 03 11:07:22 CST 2009
On Police space expansion:
 
Councilman Caulkins wants to spend money we don’t have on a new building while cutting taxes. There’s only one way to do this: cut services. So, councilman (and Dan-Fans), what $1.3M amounts to what - 15 Firefighters, Police Officers, or combination of the two (total cost, not salary!)? How many Neighborhood Inspection people would the councilman like to eliminate? Which roads should no longer be cleared of snow and ice when a storm hits? The councilman has spent 4 years “protesting”, but I have yet to see a single workable idea from him.  Lol - and no, mistakenly cutting 2 million dollars in 2007 for the 2008-2009 budget doesn’t count! Search the H&R Archives for “Stockard put brakes on costly vote Political Watch”
 
Maybe we should put the question to billboard-mate and council candidate Adam Ruderman? As president of the Fire Fighter’s union, how many jobs is he willing to give up for the shiny new building?
 
What do I think? Well I’m with Councilman Laegeler. We need to keep all options on the table – including going back to look at re-habing the Millikin National Bank building. Like I’ve said on jacksonfordecatur.com, unless someone finds a source of external funding (State or Fed), we can’t afford a shiny new undersized building.  Let’s not forget the target is 68,000sf – not the less-than 60,000sf the council is talking about now.
 
 
Strangely absent was Steve Daniels. Surely each mayoral candidate would have thoughts on such an important and far-reaching issue…Yet he wasn’t there.   The only person who spoke was candidate – whoops…I mean…“Candidate-Husband” John Phillips. His wife was in the audience (sitting in the City Staff section), but apparently she didn’t have anything to say. Also I saw Adam Brown, Carey Grady, and Adam Ruderman in the audience, but I didn’t get a chance to talk to anyone after the meeting (too hungry!).
by haydiz on Wed Feb 04 12:03:26 CST 2009
Boy, am I so sick of the police space issue.  Personally, I'd rather see the city invest $20 million dollars into the community, (neighborhoods, lake front development, schools, etc.) to help encourage job growth and increase property values, rather than build a police station.  It seems like we're attacking the symptoms of the disease instead of the cause.  The real goal should be to DECREASE the amount of police officers we need, not cater to criminals.

I'm not a big fan of impounding vehicles just to blackmail people into paying large sums of money to get their vehicle back either, unless the crime warrants such action.  Forgetting to carry an insurance card or forgetting to renew a driver's license is not an offense worthy of stranding a mother and her children on the side of the road without their vehicle.  I don't want to see the city get carried away and greedy over these types of "sin taxes".

by matthew on Wed Feb 04 15:44:16 CST 2009
Yup. At the risk of sounding “pie-in-the-sky-ish” if we’re going to issue a big honkin’ bond at this point in time, I’d prefer to see several things happen…More than just a shiny new building…including…
 
I think a modest 68,000 square foot rehabbed facility would fit the bill nicely for the police.
 
I think bringing Amtrak to town and consolidating long-distance and municipal transportation systems (busses) with a modern train station is a good, long-term investment in the community. 
 
I am also in favor of spending money installing underground power and upgrading communications lines as part of a methodic “accelerated infrastructure upgrade” program. It’s a long-term investment that has both practical and aesthetic benefits.  On the practical side, underground power and communication lines are “harder” than above ground lines, and (not surprisingly) less susceptible weather-related failures. Aesthetically, we could improve the “look” of our neighborhoods by reducing the number of power/light poles and wires strung around town.
by Sue on Wed Feb 04 22:04:48 CST 2009
I would love to see the power lines buried. I am a tree fanatic and the lack of trees in Decatur older areas (specifically my block) concerns me greatly. As they die they are not being replaced. People don’t want them due to the work caused by the leaves and the ice storm discouraged people even more from planting trees. In the summer it is 10 degrees hotter on my block then other areas that are more treed…. 
 
As to the police station issue - I want the police to have what ever they need to do a good job but I am also a fan of more officers. I am not sure a brand new real expensive building is the only thing that would work for them. I like the intergovernmental cooperation that the law enforcement center was about and would like to keep that spirit but how we do this is not a real big issue for me I just want my police force happy and efficient.
 
Regarding impounding the vehicles to collect money - I don’t agree either. But I do agree with impounding to STOP the noise…. I know this was a different discussion but the purpose of the present noise ordinance was not to get money but to STOP the noise. In certain areas it was not an occasional problem. Rather numerous times a day that you would have a vehicle parked outside your home running the sound system FULL BLAST. During this time your home is not your own…. you have to delay your phone calls or sleep or give up trying to study or deal with kids it just woke up or miss your favorite TV show or anything BUT use your home as your home. I guarantee that MANY of the reasons people have chosen to move from our inner city area are so called “minor issues” that stem from disrespect for our neighbors just like this one…. The reason I support this ordinance - it WORKS!
 
I want to see stronger fines and creative enforcement for other “minor issues” as well - like no garbage service and piling your garbage up in your garage. Or dumping or littering.
 
At the same time I want to see both government and private groups and churches step up efforts to help those who need help repairing and maintaining their homes. 

By the way - excellent presentation tonight at the study session...  I'm hoping it will be posted on the city's website.  If it is I'll email it out to have folks check it out...

Sue
by Sue on Wed Feb 04 22:13:27 CST 2009
Oh and a minor brag  - our officer at our neighborhood meeting last night liked my chili best - cause it was the hottest and that made me feel pretty proud   :-)
Username
Password