CC Minutes - 12/10/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka also liked the short-term GO bonds. He said the interest for long-term bonds was very expensive in comparison. He also liked the project priority list and the concept of flexibility as long as the council was clear that all the money would be spent on roads and bicycle paths and nothing else. He agreed that a priority list could show citizens how the money would be spent and how it would be used in their part of the city. He thought every ward would benefit. He liked the November election date for the reasons mentioned by City Manager pro tem Jones. He acknowledged the expense would go up but the council would not need to get a double-majority to pass the measure. He said that May was too soon, and if the council was not prepared it should not go to the voters. Ms. Bettman was surprised that speakers had not supported a May 2008 election date. She asked how many May primaries had lacked a 50 percent voter turnout in the last few years. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated staff had researched the two presidential primaries that happened since Measure 50 passed and the turnout had been well above 50 percent. Ms. Bettman did not think voter turnout was an issue. Ms. Bettman said that those who wanted to postpone the item were also saying their constituents found it a high priority. She observed that since the “Working City” video regarding the topic had been created it had been played over and over again, elevating the issue in the public’s awareness. People driving down West th 18 realized there was a problem. She said that if a GO bond measure failed in May the council would then have time for a Plan B, which would be difficult if the election occurred in November. She suggested the council might need to fix the problem using the Facilities Reserve. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the amount of money involved and said she would need more information before she could support flexibility. She wanted the bond to be project-specific with a percentage built in for flexibility. She said the revenues must be dedicated strictly to preservation. In regard to capital preservation of the bicycle paths, she understood that was $300,000 yearly for off-street paths alone. Ms. Solomon also supported the staff recommendation for short-term GO bonds. She said she got somewhat frustrated when staff included project development costs. She said that the council had been discussing the issue for years and she was sure that the City must know what the pavement conditions were. She interpreted project development costs as administrative overhead and was seeking information on curb- to-curb work. Ms. Solomon indicated her concurrence with Ms. Bettman about the May 2008 election date. She did not think the voters needed any more education on the issue. She thought The Register-Guard had done some good articles on it and people drove on the roads every day. Ms. Solomon said that she would ask the Budget Committee to make a larger allocation from the General Fund to the problem to both address the problem and build City credibility. Mr. Clark said that he would also ask the Budget Committee to place some General Fund money toward the preservation and maintenance deficit. He was happy to see the staff recommendation come out and concurred with the staff recommendation for a November 2008 election. Mr. Clark also concurred with putting off the City hall issue. He supported a November election because he thought the council had some trust to build with voters, and the proposal before the council was only part of the package; the council needed a thorough plan the voters could support after the council rebuilt their trust by showing some dedication to their priorities. He did not think the council could get that work done by May 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 5 Work Session