Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Pryor agreed with other councilors in regard to the project list, flexibility, and the need to manage <br />project costs. He asked if staff was aware what items would be on the ballot. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated <br />that School District 4J and Lane Community College were considering measures for the November 2008 <br />ballot. That could change. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he reviewed data from Lane County Elections and found Eugene had done very well in <br />achieving a 50 percent turnout. He was unsure that would be a problem. He was cognizant of the need to <br />take time and process the issue although he wished to proceed more quickly. He suggested that one could <br />have it fast, right, or cheap, pick any two; he could go either way, but if staff believed November was better <br />he was reluctantly willing to wait that long. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was not afraid to let the voters decide. She advocated for giving the public clear and <br />specific information and ensuring that the council could deliver what it promised. She thought the council <br />needed to know sooner than later what the public wanted. She said all the work had been done and the <br />council knew what projects were “out there.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not favor a November ballot measure that competed with important school funding <br />measures. There were no other money measures on the May ballot. She would not support a November <br />election date. She also wanted the council to see the ballot language before it reached the point it had to be <br />challenged. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that many communities were moving toward concrete rather than asphalt because of the <br />high costs of petroleum. When the subcommittee brought that up, staff did not want to take that approach. <br />She asked for more information. Mr. Corey said the vast majority of the network was asphalt and replacing <br />it with concrete was not cost-effective as it essentially constituted street reconstruction. He said that some <br />cities had good cost experiences with concrete but he did not know if that would continue. In either case, a <br />natural resource was involved, and cost and design life were also factors. To the extent the City was <br />attempting to preserve asphalt streets, he thought it an apples and oranges mix. Ms. Bettman said that could <br />be true in regard to the preservation of asphalt but the City could transition to concrete for new roads and <br />reconstruction. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s remarks regarding a transition to concrete. She did not think public <br />confidence would be boosted by a six-month delay. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said his concern about a May ballot was less related to the double majority issue than to how <br />organized a support campaign could be. He noted that south Eugene had largely supported the gas tax while <br />other wards had not. He asked how the council could get more “yes” votes in those wards so a measure <br />passed, and what would be different this time. He suggested the more time the council had to build support, <br />the more likely it was a measure would pass in wards that did not favor the gas tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thought it possible to put a campaign together for a May 2008 election. He suggested that if the <br />council decided on a May election, it would be the clear choice as the only measure. He thought such a <br />measure would be more supported than a gas tax. Waiting for a November election meant the council could <br />be in competition with the schools. He agreed that it was a short time line and challenged the council to get <br />behind a measure. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />