Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor said all things considered it was wiser to refer the measure to the 2008 ballot than the 2010 ballot, where it would be competing with other funding measures. Mr. Poling asked about the estimated cost of an external auditor and if the cost would be paid from bond proceeds. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would research the question and provide the information later. Mr. Poling appreciated the checks and balances built into the proposal and liked the preliminary project list. He supported an advisory committee that would review the project list on a regular basis because it was difficult to predict with certainty exactly what projects would need to be done at what time because of the variables of weather and traffic conditions. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that a viable solution needed to be crafted now, but was concerned with placing the measure on the November 2008 ballot because of other measures that would be on the ballot. He felt that politicizing long-term solutions in the budget cycle would add challenges to passing the measure in November. He liked the concept of involving the public through an advisory committee, but had grave concerns about the measures passage in November. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Ruiz said if the council chose to refer the measure to the November 2008 ballot, it was essential that everyone be involved in the difficult task of assuring it was successful. He said the bond was part of a long-term, comprehensive solution to street maintenance. He had convened a community group to discuss what the public would be willing to support and he would have a better sense of that when the council had its next work session in late July. He commended staff for developing the information and the thorough assessment of street conditions. Ms. Solomon agreed that the bond measure would only account for less than half of the annual estimated cost for street maintenance, but it was essential to begin to address the issue. She was willing to refer the measure to the November ballot, but it would require the full support and efforts of the council to help educate the community about the need for the funding mechanism. Mr. Zelenka said the problem had grown so large that it could not be solved with just one revenue sources. He said lack of resources from the State and federal levels meant that local governments had to bear the full burden for road maintenance; the GO bond was part of a package of solutions to address the backlog of maintenance projects. He asserted that the project list should be very specific and not subject to change. He did not favor a DAC with no accountability that could revise the list once it had been approved by the voters. He did not object to prioritization, but objected to adding or removing projects from the list. He stressed the need to build trust and credibility with the public. He did not understand why a very specific list could not be developed. Kurt Corey, Public Works, explained that the list was the department’s best estimate of how $16 million would be used if it was currently available, based upon the pavement management system. He said the DAC was proposed in response to the council’s discussion at its January meeting of the need to establish some level of accountability in the process. He emphasized that the projects on the list represented high priority reconstruct projects and projects that would prevent deterioration to the point that reconstruction was necessary. Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Zelenka comments that the parks bond was somewhat ambiguous in terms of how revenue would be used and he wanted to avoid that problem with a street maintenance funding measure. He asked if the bond could be referred to the May 2009 ballot. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that the measure would be subject to a double majority in May 2009. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 7 Work Session