Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy felt the issue was important enough to work on further to develop a list of projects that could <br />be agreed upon and to complete the budget process before an election. She said the City was constantly <br />working within its capacity to repair streets but was hampered by limited resources. She supported waiting <br />until November. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion unless there was a specific project list and the bond <br />was on the May ballot. She did not believe that 10 to 20 percent of the funds were required for project <br />planning and engineering since the problem was well defined. She reiterated her objection to allowing staff <br />discretion regarding the project list and to using the funds in a project that also included capacity enhancing <br />funds. She characterized the garbage hauler surcharge as a pass-through to residents, who would be paying <br />for street preservation through several different mechanisms. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he was willing to accept Ms. Bettman's request for a complete <br />project list as a friendly amendment. Ms. Ortiz accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka clarified that the bike and pedestrian path language was still included in his motion. He said <br />the garbage hauler fee and gas tax were part of the transportation funding package because there was a <br />direct connection between the damage to streets and who paid for it. He said more time was required to <br />better understand and communicate information about the need for the bond to the public, develop a project <br />list and go through the budget process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark noted that streets in the vicinity of City Hall were not on the project list. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling thought it was appropriate to retain some flexibility in the project list and use some funds for <br />engineering because over time conditions changed and a road that might currently be at the top of the list <br />could be surpassed by one that was deteriorating more rapidly. He did not want to be handcuffed by a list of <br />projects that could not be reevaluated on a regular basis and revised as necessary. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon agreed there should be some flexibility in the project list as councilors were not traffic <br />engineers and could not predict what projects would be priorities over the life of the bond. She preferred to <br />see a project list for at least two-thirds of the bond proceeds. She asked if that was Mr. Zelenka’s intent. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka explained that the intent of his motion was to develop a full list for the $81 million in bond <br />proceeds, but also allow flexibility by including a process whereby the list could be adjusted. He agreed <br />with Mr. Poling that ten years was a long time and priorities could change during that period. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the capital improvement program (CIP) process could provide the flexibility to develop a <br />project list. He stressed that the subject under discussion was not a garbage hauler fee; more information <br />was required before that fee came before the council again. He would support the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she preferred to commit to a specific list and reserve a small amount of discretionary <br />funding for emergent issues. She objected to publishing a list that could be changed in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka clarified that his motion was intended to direct the City Manager to develop a resolution for a <br />bond measure that identified the time, the size and the content and there would be an opportunity to debate <br />that, including details of the project list, when the resolution was presented to the council. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />