Laserfiche WebLink
30 in order to finish the present discussion, should it not conclude prior to adjournment of the present <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark indicated that he would vote for the item in order to forward it for further discussion. <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to institute a street and bike path lighting fee to <br />generate sufficient funds to operate and maintain and provide for reasonable expansion of <br />Eugene’s street and bike/pedestrian path lighting system (estimated to cost the average <br />household $1.50 per month). <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not support the item. She asserted that some people did not want street lighting and she <br />opposed charging people for what they do not want. She hoped another funding mechanism could be <br />determined. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon observed that this funding mechanism had been implemented in other municipalities <br />successfully. She ascertained from Mr. Corey that it could be structured to include an ‘opt-out.’ <br /> <br />Mr. Corey related that this mechanism worked well in the jurisdiction from which he had come. He viewed <br />it as an efficient way to deal with the “ups and downs” of energy costs and to provide the service. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka stated that he would support it in part because it took $850,000 from the Road Fund and made <br />it available for another use. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked what the procedure would be to do so. Mr. Lidz replied that the original motion directed <br />the City Manager to develop the idea further and bring a proposal back before the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling reiterated his preference to address the need for curb-to-curb repairs as this was what the <br />constituents wanted. For this reason, he said, he would not support the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that a person who lived on a minor arterial street could not opt out of the street lighting <br />fee. She could not support the motion because many people would be “subjected” to the street lighting fee <br />whether or not they wanted their street lit. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey pointed out that street lighting on arterial and collector streets was part of the City’s design <br />standards. He said there would not be an ‘opt out’ for residents if it would be in conflict with other adopted <br />standards. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz underscored that there would be more time to refine the item. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark expressed his support for the motion because he believed it was a political compromise that <br />would take the $850,000 from the Road Fund and free it for curb-to-curb repairs. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to seek voter approval in May 2008 for a capital <br />local option levy to generate approximately $6 million-per-year over a 10-yer period dedi- <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />