CC Minutes - 07/16/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Bond Amounts. She also noted the distribution of copies of a motion Ms. Bettman intended to offer. Mr. Ruiz called the council’s attention to the list of members who served on the ad hoc citizens’ group that had been working on the issue. He reported that a community survey had been done, but the results were not yet compiled. The ad hoc citizens' group would hear feedback from the survey consultant on the issue on July 18, and he anticipated a similar presentation would be made to the council. He suggested the survey results might influence the council’s final decision. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Mr. Poling determined from City Manager Ruiz that the numbers used to identify the projects did not relate to any project priorities. Mr. Poling asked if “highly visible streets” correlated to heavily used streets. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes. Mr. Poling liked the idea of the council being able to take projects off and add projects to the list and clarified the process that would take with Ms. Cutsogeorge. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Poling about the potential of project reprioritization, Public Works Director Kurt Corey indicated that was a possibility. Mr. Poling wanted to keep the ballot measure simple. He thought the 2008 November ballot preferable given the rising costs of construction. Mayor Piercy suggested a circumstance could occur where a street not on the list became a priority because of need and asked if there was a way to add such a street to the list. Mr. Corey said no, not under the current proposal, and recalled that the council had discussed the need for providing the public with assurance about what would be funded. Mayor Piercy thought staff was trying to create flexibility to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, and the resolution seemed to remove that potential. Mr. Corey thought he had heard council resistance to adding such flexibility. He pointed out that the bond measure was one component of the street preservation package and a project of that kind might be funded through the gas tax or some other yet-to-be-identified tax revenue. Mr. Clark was struck by the large number of streets in south Eugene on the project list as opposed to the lack of streets in other areas of the community, including Santa Clara and River Road. He acknowledged the special circumstances surrounding the Santa Clara/River Road area in that large parts of it were not annexed and there were many unimproved roads. He thought that the result might be that voters would not perceive the measure as the solution to the problem. He wanted flexibility within the ten-year funding window to address emerging needs and changing circumstances. He was challenged by that fact as an inequity issue in regard to asking all to pay for it. He suggested staff consider both the importance of communicating the list of projects and reasons for them, as well as why this method of financing was preferable. Ms. Bettman appreciated the refined project list. She spoke to the ad hoc citizens’ group that had been assembled by the manager, which she did not consider representative of the community. There was a statement in the materials related to the use of the General Fund, and she said the council had agreed on funding strategy proposed by a council subcommittee that did not include that fund. Ms. Bettman wanted to support the resolution but felt the further out the City attempted to project the need, the less able it was to predict any variables. In the case of an emergency or natural disaster, there were other funding sources. In regard to taking projects off the list or moving them around, if people were MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session