Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka observed that the Crest Drive project was not on the list. Mr. Corey said there was significant discussion by the council of Crest Drive within the context of whether the bond would be used for improved or unimproved streets. He said there was specific direction from the council that unimproved street projects would not be included in the bond measure. Ms. Ortiz supported referring the bond to the ballot in November and was willing to help pass the measure. She said the community recognized that something needed to be done about streets and the challenge would be to education people about the importance of the bond as part of the funding structure. Ms. Taylor asked who was in the community group convened by Mr. Ruiz and how were they selected. Mr. Ruiz said he would provide a list of members to the council; members were recommended by councilors and the mayor in response to his request and he had identified others to fill in gaps. Ms. Taylor asked for a list of members and an explanation of why they were considered to know how an election would go. Mr. Ruiz said his interest was not in predicting election results, but rather what could various community interests agree upon. Ms. Taylor opined that including Crest Drive might improve the chances for passage. She was in favor of a bond measure, although she preferred using the General Funds if there were sufficient sources of revenue. She said voters could make a choice with the bond. Ms. Piercy stressed the council’s commitment to road repairs over the past several years and had imple- mented several short-term strategies. She said it was time to focus on long-term solutions and hoped that there would be strong council support and consensus if the measure was referred to the ballot. She suggested formation of a focus group to help prepare for an election campaign. She said the council could decide what type of advisory committee might be appropriate and agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the project list should not change. Ms. Solomon supported including a project list in the bond measure and agreed with the concept of an advisory committee to provide review and oversight. She did not see the advisory committee adding or deleting projects as much as reprioritizing them based on circumstances. Mr. Corey said the committee would provide advice if there were proceeds remaining after the project list was completed or if the funds were not adequate to complete all of the projects on the list. He said the project list was to some extent a moving target as a project that was now an overlay could become a reconstruct by the time funds were available. He said the list represented staff’s best estimate based on how pavement deterioration occurred. Ms. Solomon said there had to be a balance between asking voters to commit to paying for projects and the City’s ability to identify which projects would be constructed. She asked if a reduction in the number of municipal bond underwriters would have any impact on the bond measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge said there would be no problems as the bond measure was relatively small compared to those issued by other jurisdictions. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that bond measures could be referred to any ballot, but a double majority was required for all elections except November in even numbered years. Mr. Zelenka said his concern with the bond measure as a funding mechanism was the lack of connection between the value of a house or commercial property and road use. He preferred fees that were based on road use, such as a gas tax, street utility fee or carbon tax. He was opposed to a DAC adding or deleting MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session