Item 3: Resolution on GO Bond for Streets

Home Browse Search

Miles of Off- # of Street Street Bike & Average Tax Average Ped Path Total Cost to Preservation Rate Annual Cost Projects/# of Preservation (Per $1000 of to Average Average Bond Size Projects Taxpayer Miles AV) Taxpayer 32 projects / $495 over 5 $35.9 Million 3+ miles $0.59 $99 per year 70 miles years 86 projects / $1,070 over 10 $81.1 Million 7+ miles $0.59 $107 per year 150+ miles years It should be noted that both measures would have the same estimated tax rate. The lower cost for the five-year measure is due to the fact that assessed values for homes are expected to rise over the period of the bond measure, and the first five years will have lower assessed values than the last five years. Attachment H includes a map comparing the $35.9 million and $81.1 million project lists. In develop- ing the five-year project list, staff took into account geographic equity and the “visibility” of projects. Having a higher portion of the $35.9 million bond measure dedicated to the more visible, highly traveled streets means that the smaller measure has a greater share dedicated to reconstruction projects. Because reconstructions tend to be significantly more costly than overlay treatments, the five-year list represents less than half of the projects, both by number and lane miles, than the ten-year list. The bond resolutions for the two measures are otherwise the same, with the exception of the language that grants council the authority to add or delete projects from the bond list. ? As the council directed, the $35.9 million resolution does not allow for any projects to be removed from the bond list. It does, however, allow council to add projects, once all the other projects on the bond list are complete, upon a majority vote of council. Councilor Bettman asked for a footnote to be added to the resolution that provides for council approval to allocate the balance of bond proceeds to the next highest priority street preservation project in the event all the projects are completed and there is a remaining balance in the bond authorization. The resolution included in Attachment D contains language to accomplish this in Section 4, although it is not in the form of a footnote. ? The $81.1 million resolution allows the council to remove projects from the list, upon the approval th of at least six councilors, but only in 2018 (the 10 year of spending). It also allows additions to the project list, with a majority council vote, but again, only in 2018. In addition, based on successful measures in other areas, the City Manager is recommending a street repair review panel for the bond measure. This review panel would produce an annual report that evaluates how well the City has implemented the bond measure project list. This provision has been added to both resolutions in Recital I. 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 the council. There were questions at the July 16 meeting about ways to allow projects that are no longer feasible to come off the list “automatically.” The difficulty in automatic removal stems from the council’s desire to Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080728\S0807283andattA.doc