Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table until the answers to ques- tions had been provided to the council. The motion failed, 5:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the ordinance, but agreed the list should be reduced to those activities that were dangerous to others. She asked if the offense related to consumption of alcohol in unlicensed places could apply to someone attending the First Friday Artwalk. Sgt. Kerns said events like the Artwalk obtained a license, although someone walking along the sidewalk with a glass of wine could theoretically be cited. Mr. Clark pointed out that the council often forwarded staff recommendations as submitted to a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information about the community’s concerns and recommendations. He was willing to compromise on a shorter list of offenses, but wanted public input on the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Poling remarked that the list of offenses was based on a history of criminal activity in the area. He said those who wanted to testify at the public hearing could research the definition of offenses online if they were unclear. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting no. . WORK SESSION: General Obligation Bonds for Street Maintenance Projects C Sue Cutsogeorge, Central Services, provided an overview of a General Obligation (GO) bond measure. She said staff, at the council’s direction, had developed an $81 million bond measure for placement on the November ballot. She said the preliminary project list included in the agenda packet reflected full expenditure of the bond proceeds. She illustrated on a map the geographic distribution of projects, which included approximately 50 percent reconstruction projects and 50 percent overlay projects. In addition to the projects on the list, she said $350,000 would be set aside annually for preservation of off-street bike and pedestrian paths. She said the next step was to consolidate the data from the pavement management system into project groupings that made the most efficient use of bond funds. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council’s interest in accountability and flexibility was addressed through a draft resolution that included hiring an independent auditor to review expenditure of bond proceeds and report to the city manager, the council and the public and establishing a department advisory committee (DAC) to review the project list annually and assist in identifying the projects that would be done each year. She said the DAC would also advise the city manager on any modifications to the list. She said the project list represented staff’s best professional estimate of what could be accomplished with bond proceeds over the next ten years, but it was impossible to predict with any accuracy the pavement condition of particular street segments or the exact costs; the DAC would help decide whether projects should be added or removed from the list depending on expenditure of funds. She said the deadline for referring a measure to the ballot was August 6, 2008. Mr. Pryor asked if the GO bond was the same as or similar to a ten-year serial local option levy as discussed by the council’s committee on transportation system funding. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the committee had discussed both long-term and short-term bond and the proposal was for a short-term bond similar in operation to a local option levy. She said payoff was incremental and interest costs lower. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 6 Work Session