CC Minutes - 12/10/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

because it matched what staff projected as an increase in property values over the next few years and because it was close to the asphalt inflation range over the last few years. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of being able to specify projects that every resident could picture and evaluate. He asked what project development activities were involved and what impact those activities would have on the bond in regard to paving. Mr. Corey said people believed that as revenues came in repairs could be readily made, but because of the condition of the Eugene street network there was a value to be gained by upfront testing that allowed the City to identify streets for rehabilitation that staff previously thought must be reconstructed. Other project development costs were those engineering costs that went into prioritizing that work when it would do the most good. Other activities included coordination with utility providers and other stakeholders. Mr. Pryor asked what percentage of the bond that represented. Mr. Corey did not want to speculate, but thought the amount involved would be nominal. Mayor Piercy said she understood some projects benefited everyone but she questioned if there was some way to “spread it out” so that all residents felt as though they benefited. Mr. Corey said that was the way it worked out given the general disrepair across the network. Ms. Taylor liked the short-term GO bonds. She asked if references to flexibility regarded the projects themselves or how the money was used. Mr. Corey said in this context, it met not locking the City into a specific set of projects but to use the pavement management system to prioritize projects. Ms. Taylor asked if some cities used bond measures to pay for street reconstruction. Mr. Corey said yes. Ms. Taylor hoped the City considered that in the future as it was difficult for some residents to pay street assessments. Ms. Taylor asked why staff suggested the November 2008 ballot instead of May 2008. City Manager pro tem Jones attributed the recommendation to concern about the competition with other measures and the need for sufficient time to get educational information out to the public. She acknowledged that would postpone the receipt of any revenues for six months but she thought it worth the risk as it would result in a better campaign. Ms. Taylor was unsure if she agreed. Mr. Poling liked the idea of a high-priority project list. He asked if changes in priorities would require action on the council’s part. Mr. Corey said that implementation of the program would be generally done by staff with a report back to the council during the budget review process. Mr. Poling supported placing an item on the November ballot 2008 because of the double-majority issue and because it gave the council time to build public confidence. Mr. Poling asked what Eugene was spending on bicycle paths and path preservation. Mr. Corey indicated it was what the City could get through grants and other resources; there was no dedicated funding source. The local and State tax was constitutionally limited in that regard. Mr. Poling thought it important for the public to know that. Mr. Poling indicated he would support the motion prepared by staff as it merely started the process. He was not approving anything but additional work to be brought back to the council. Mr. Zelenka informed Mr. Poling that the council subcommittee recommended funding for bicycle paths because there was little or no money in the budget for bicycle path preservation and the City had an “amazing, nationally recognized” bicycle system plus the council had the goal of getting people out of their cars and onto bicycles. It made sense to have dedicated funding for that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 4 Work Session