CC Minutes - 10/26/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

regard to funding mechanisms, he reminded the council that the City lacked a billing system for a device such as a transportation utility fee (TUF) and suggested that obstacle could be overcome by cooperation between the Eugene Water & Electric Board and the City. He did not think the concept had been discarded and could be part of a longer term discussion of street repair funding. Mr. Zelenka suggested a TUF was the funding mechanism with the best nexus to road use. Mr. Clark also thanked staff and the panel. He supported the project list. He asked if County Farm Road between Coburg Road and the city limits was within the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Schoening did not know and said he would follow -up. Mr. Clark advocated for the City to develop a strategic plan for unimproved streets such as the section of County Farm Road he mentioned. He noted that the existing and proposed development in the area and said he was concerned about safety caused by the additional development and hoped staff had a strategic plan for addressing those concerns. Mr. Schoening anticipated the road would be within the City's jurisdiction at some point if it was not now. He said the road was included in the Capital Improvement Plan but was not funded. He explained that the City did pavement overlays on local streets on a one -time basis with the expectation that they would be improved to City standards through a local improvement district. Mr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the additional streets shown on Attachment B to the list of streets to be repaired with bond measure proceeds. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The council viewed a brief public service announcement featuring Ms. Calvert that highlighted the road projects funded through the 2008 measure and thanked Eugene voters for supporting the bond. Mr. Corey sought council direction on a future bond measure. He recommended that staff work with the Street Repair Review Panel to assist it in preparing a measure to be offered to voters. The panel would consider the amount of the bond measure, the projects to be funded, and the timing and term of the bond measure. He said the council could consider placing a bond measure on the November 2012 general election ballot. That would provide continuity of funding. Mr. Corey anticipated he would return to the council early in 2012 with the review panel's recommendations. Mr. Poling supported Mr. Corey's recommendation. He encouraged staff to be consistent with its past approach and the guidelines that governed the use of the funds from the last measure. He was not sure how large the bond should be but believed it would be difficult to go much beyond the last measure. Mr. Poling thought it would be more acceptable to taxpayers if the amount they were currently paying remained the same. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Poling about being consistent with the past approach. He said public faith was essential to the success of any future bond measure. He thought the success of the first measure would reinforce support for another measure. He did not want the amount to be more than staff could work with during the life of the bond. Mr. Pryor said there was much work left to do but he was proud of what had been accomplished after years of discussion without action. He did not want to stop working on the problem. He believed that if the voters believed their money was being spent wisely, they would support the bond. Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of Mr. Poling and Mr. Pryor. He supported taking a similar approach to the 2008 bond measure. He agreed that the public would be more receptive to renewing the bond if the amount they paid was unchanged. He believed the City had done a good job of implementing the 2008 measure and had earned the voters' trust. Mr. Zelenka pointed out the City had been able to MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 26, 2011 Page 2 Work Session