Item A: GO Bond for Street Preservation

Home Browse Search

Staff recommends that the bond measure include a provision that would allow a future council to re- move projects from the list or to fund additional projects from any remaining bond measure money, rather than letting any remaining authorization lapse unused. In order to ensure that any projects re- moved from the list have a high degree of agreement among the council members, the vote to remove a project could require approval by at least six councilors. If the council decides to allow additional projects to be funded from bond proceeds, the additions could occur only after all the specified projects on the list have been completed (with the exception of those projects which have been removed with council super-majority approval). These two provisions would allow the City to utilize all of the bond proceeds authorized by voters on important street preservation projects, but only under very limited circumstances and with significant council input and agreement about any changes. The bond resolution, which is included as Attachment E, includes these provisions in bold and italics so that it is easy to identify the language. At the June 9 council work session, staff recommended that a Department Advisory Committee be formed to allow for prospective additions or deletions to the project list, based on actual experience and remaining available funding. Based on council discussion, staff has removed that recommendation from the bond resolution. Outside Audit of Bond Proceeds: In order to promote accountability in the use of bond proceeds, staff is continuing to recommend that an outside auditor be periodically engaged to review and prepare a publicly-issued report on the use of the bond monies for the purposes authorized by the bond measure and within the restrictions established by council. At the June 9 meeting, Councilor Poling asked about the estimated cost and source of monies for this work. Informal quotes suggest that for about $2,000, the City should be able to engage an outside auditor for this work. These fees would not be paid from bond proceeds but would come from department operating funds. Funding for City’s Share of Assessment Projects: There are approximately 75 miles of unim- proved streets in the City (about 14% of the total lane miles), with a cost in excess of $90 million to bring those streets up to City standards. This cost is not included in the estimated $173 million backlog of maintenance for improved streets. As explained at the June 23 work session on assessment policies, the City has no identified funding source for the City’s share of local street assessment projects. If the council decided to add more funding to the bond measure for the City’s share of street assessment projects, the chart in Attachment G includes the bond size and cost to taxpayer for different annual amounts. Note that this chart has been updated slightly. The cost for the $81.1 million bond measure is now estimated at $0.53/$1000 of assessed value, and $107 for the average taxpayer each year. Staff recommends that funding for the City’s share of local street assessment projects not be included in the bond measure. This will help to simplify the bond measure message presented to voters. Communications Plan Communications related to the bond measure face several challenges. As with any property tax mea- sure, the complexity of the issue and the need to write bond measure language in terms that satisfy legal requirements don’t always allow for easy-to-understand explanations. Placing the bond measure in the context of a larger package, some elements of which haven’t yet been fully worked out, is another com- munications challenge. Voters will also need to understand why the measure doesn’t focus solely on the worst streets (i.e., why preserving streets from further deterioration is a financially prudent investment). Including a number of reconstruction projects in the bond measure will help voters see visible benefit. If unimproved streets are not included in the bond measure, the message needs to be clear why they are not part of the bond package and what alternate strategies the City has to address those streets. Finally, as with all election issues, City staff must avoid advocacy and provide only neutral information. To the