Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges more funding, repairs and security for downtown Passenger Center; contractor raises code-enforcement concerns
Summary
During public comment, Raven Twitty urged the council to add funding for cleaning, security, staff raises and a new ticket machine at the Passenger Center after reporting roof leaks and malfunctioning equipment; another speaker, representing Charlie Proctor, described confusing instructions from code enforcement affecting a local lawn service and asked for follow-up.
At the start of public comment on Aug. 26, resident Raven Twitty told council the downtown Passenger Center needs more funding for cleaning, security, staff raises, a new manager and a replacement ticket machine. Twitty described leaking roofs that drenched riders during heavy rain and said equipment frequently fails to display information when riders swipe cards.
Twitty also relayed reports from current and former employees that they had been promised $2 raises by a staff person named Brian, and she said on the record, "Brian is lying." The allegation was made during Twitty's two‑minute public comment; the transcript does not record a city response at that time.
A second commenter, identifying herself as 'SRA Proor Smith,' spoke on behalf of her father, Charlie Proctor, and raised concerns about repeated miscommunications with the city's code enforcement office. She described receiving mixed instructions about which property to maintain, cutting a lawn after receiving one email and later being told not to do the work; she asked to meet with staff and to have her father's emails shared with council for follow-up. City staff asked the speaker to provide copies of the emails so staff and council members could review and respond.
City staff did not provide immediate remedies on the floor but requested that the public commenters share their email records with staff for follow-up. The matters raised — building maintenance and the city’s code enforcement communications — were left for staff to review and respond to the speakers after the meeting.
