CC Minutes - 01/28/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said she was unwilling to support the recommendation as it allowed too much discretion on the part of staff. She understood that the bond measure would be a package of projects on which the funds would be spent. She said the list of priority projects did not appeal to her as it omitted several sections of heavily traveled road in her ward, but even if those were on the list they could be supplanted by other projects that staff deemed a higher priority. She objected to combining street repair funds from the bond measure with funds for new construction as that would add bond funds to a capacity enhancing project without a clear dividing line. She said inclusion in the resolution of five principle areas of restriction on the use of bond proceeds meant there were other non-principle areas that were not listed. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Corey said the list of priority projects presented to the council represented about one-third of the street repair projects. He said the pavement preservation program for each construction season derived projects from the pavement management system, which identified projects before they reached the point where reconstruction became necessary. He said that system considered several factors that guided developing a project list. He said the priority projects list represented a broad cross-section of the City and matched with feedback from citizen polling about street repair priorities. Mr. Pryor said he trusted the Public Works Department and traffic engineers to identify the streets most in need of preservation. He agreed it was important to be clear with the public about how the bond proceeds would be used on projects. He said he was considering changing the election date from May to November when he placed the motion on the floor and asked for feedback from councilors. Mr. Zelenka said the intent was to address the $170 million backlog of street repairs that was growing daily. He said it was unlikely that State or federal funds would be available for projects, which was why the council subcommittee had recommended a funding package that included several funding components. He agreed that there should be a list of projects for which bond proceeds would be used and it was reasonable to begin with a short-term list of projects for the next two or three years, as it was difficult to predict what projects would be priorities over the next ten years. He said the criterion was to prevent streets from moving into the reconstruction category, which was five times as expensive. He did not want to see the funds used for new system capacity increases when the City could not afford to maintain the ones it had. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring a resolution forward placing an $81 million General Obligation bond to be used for preservation only, no system capacity enhancements, on the November 2008 ballot. Mr. Clark concurred with placing the bond on the November ballot. He felt that fixing the problem of street repairs was one of the council's most important tasks. He said in the spirit of compromise he was willing to consider a garbage hauler surcharge as part of the solution to the problem. Mr. Poling agreed with waiting until the November election as it would allow the council additional time to build trust and confidence with the community. He said it would also allow the council to consider during the budget process whether there were existing funds that could be directed toward street repair. He stressed a focus on street repair and was not willing to support any initiative that included increasing capacity. Ms. Taylor agreed with limiting use of funds to street repairs, but felt the bond should be on the ballot in May. Ms. Ortiz agreed with limiting use of funds to street repairs and placing the bond on the November ballot. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 5 Work Session