Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 911 Center Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates scope of 9‑1‑1 center; motions to reduce bond amount fail
Summary
Council considered lowering the previously approved $10 million bond for a new public safety 9‑1‑1 center to $8.9 million after public hearings. After procedural debate and multiple roll calls, the motions to adopt the $8.9M reduction were not adopted and the council left the issue in its prior posture for further work.
The Common Council spent significant time on Sept. 3 debating the funding scope for a proposed new public safety 9‑1‑1 center. The clerk read a notice for an ordinance authorizing $8,900,000 in bonds for the center; multiple public safety officials urged the council to retain the originally approved $10,000,000 scope, saying reduced funding would cut key training and redundancy.
Wayne Bartolotta, director of Central Communications, told the council the difference between the originally studied $10 million plan and the reduced figures would eliminate half of the planned training room and reduce built‑in capacity. “If you want the car, here’s the price. No floor mats for you,” he said, invoking an earlier candid remark and arguing for maintaining full scope to avoid higher costs and functional limits later.
Councilmembers debated procedural and substantive options, including a motion to rescind the earlier $10 million authorization and replace it with an $8.9 million bond question for the November ballot. After protracted roll‑call voting and a point‑by‑point procedural exchange, the council did not adopt the proposed reduction in the form presented; votes recorded in the transcript show the reduction motion failed to carry. The transcript reflects multiple roll calls and a contested interpretation of motions and subsequent votes; the clerk read the bond appropriation notice into the record and the matter will return for further steps tied to the referendum calendar.
Councilmembers said they wanted more clarity from staff and the building committee on what scope changes would cost in design, contingencies and long‑term lifecycle expense before finalizing a ballot question. Supporters of the full $10 million emphasized that the original plan allowed administrative flexibility — a building committee could hold back unused funds if bids came in lower — while opponents sought to pare scope to reduce immediate debt authorization.
Next steps: the council directed clerks and staff to prepare referendum language and explanatory text if a ballot question moves forward; the record shows continuing negotiation and the item remained active on the council agenda for subsequent meetings.
