Laserfiche WebLink
City Manager pro tem Jones spoke to the timing issue, saying that staff recommended a November election <br />for the purpose of public education and because she would like to see the council take consensus action and <br />not split the vote. She thought it would send a strong message if the council was unanimous, no matter the <br />date selected. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark concurred with City Manager pro tem Jones. He said the council’s ability to work together was <br />important to his constituents. He said his constituents did not think the City spent its money well, and he <br />thought the council needed to demonstrate it could spend money on items of high priority to the community, <br />such as fixing the streets, before it sought more tax money. He received many e-mails, phone calls, and <br />“comments on the street” that the council had enough money to fix those high-priority items first. He <br />thought the upcoming budget process was an opportunity for the council to show it could do so, and then it <br />could ask the voters for more assistance in November. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thought it important the council demonstrate it could work together as a group. She said her <br />constituents wanted housing and family wage jobs from the council. She said her constituents work for $7 <br />and $8 an hour and wanted to know what the City was going to do about those issues. Ms. Ortiz said that <br />people do not like to ask for help; they wanted work. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked if Mr. Corey was aware of the Elmira-Maple reconstruction project. Mr. Corey said <br />yes. Ms. Solomon said at this point it was being considered as a local improvement district (LID), and <br />asked if it could be added to the project list. She could not ask the Elmira-Maple residents to vote for such a <br />measure if they were going to pay a LID for their improvements and be asked to contribute more. Mr. <br />Corey suggested that was a separate policy issue from the backlog of maintenance. There was also a large <br />backlog of unimproved streets and the City had yet to discuss underwriting the costs of what would normally <br />be assessed to property owners. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring a proposal to <br />a future council work session for a GO bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capi- <br />tal preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate timeframe to place the ques- <br />tion on the May 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that <br />provides for both a list of high-priority pavement capital preservation projects and appro- <br />priate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project <br />priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute the May 2008 election date with <br />the November 2008 election date. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Poling, and <br />Mr. Clark voting yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion but wanted to make it clear to staff that the ballot language should state <br />the new revenue from such a bond would not displace any revenue now dedicated to maintenance and <br />preservation, the measure was project-specific, and people would clearly understand the percentages <br />incorporated into the flexibility element. Ms. Ortiz accepted that as a friendly amendment, which staff <br />would incorporate into a future motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked when a gas tax sunset repeal vote would occur if the petroleum owners were successful <br />in their referral. Mr. Corey said that would occur in September 2008. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark voting no. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />