Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews phased plan for new public safety building; Resolution 24-24 on COPS funds introduced
Summary
Council members reviewed a proposed public safety building at Pine and Sixth, discussed phasing options and rough budget estimates, and introduced Resolution 24-24 to recoup FY 2022–23 COPS program funds; no final vote on the resolution appears in the transcript.
The council examined plans for a new public safety building sited at Pine and Sixth and discussed whether to build the administrative portion or the vehicle bays first, citing budget constraints and phasing advantages. Presiding Speaker 1 described site features including parking, generators and elevations and said funding options could include bonds, CDBG and ARPA dollars.
The proposal’s rough figures were described as a ballpark $4–5 million for the project with about $2,400,000 of site work noted as likely necessary. "We may have, you know, 4 or $5,000,000 on hand," Speaker 1 said while urging the council to review current figures before deciding how to proceed.
Speaker 1 framed a phasing option that would build the administrative building first and use a temporary bay for vehicles, an approach the council discussed as potentially more accessible than funding the entire project up front. Council members pressed staff to assemble current financial figures and to return with a formal presentation on available funds and borrowing capacity.
Separately, Speaker 1 introduced Resolution 24-24, described as “requesting the appropriation of additional fiscal-year 2022–23 funds allocated from the State of California citizen option for public safety (COPS) program” to support frontline policing. Speaker 1 noted the city “gets a hundred thousand dollar allocation every year” and said the city missed the 2022–23 allocation and would need an action to recoup it. "It's just free money. So let's take it," Speaker 1 said about pursuing the unclaimed funds.
The transcript records the introduction and discussion of Resolution 24-24 (funding source and purpose) but does not include a recorded vote or final action on the resolution. The council directed staff to gather up‑to‑date financial figures and options for phasing and funding; a formal decision on the building’s sequence and the resolution was not recorded in the provided transcript.
The council’s next procedural step, as stated in the meeting, is for staff to assemble current numbers and return with a formal presentation so council members can decide whether to proceed, borrow, or use a phased approach.
