CC Minutes - 07/16/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling spoke to the perceived concentration of projects in south and southwest Eugene, and said the measure was aimed at older, more used roads; that needed to be communicated to the public. In regard to the cost of the measure, he pointed out the City would still have the same amount of street repairs at the end of five years, and the voters would forget about the conversation the council was having and believed they had already voted to fix the streets. He recommended the council communicate to the public what it required to fix the streets and propose a ten-year measure. He was not willing to support a five-year measure. Ms. Ortiz thanked the members of the ad hoc citizens’ group. Regarding the time period proposed for the measure, she recalled the approach taken by the Bethel School District and said that $89 million was a lot of money. She emphasized the impact that higher gas prices were having on her constituents. She was inclined to support a lower price tag and demonstrate to the voters that the City could do the job right and distribute the benefits equitably to the community, and thought they would understand. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the communication plan. He was torn between a five-year and a ten-year measure. He understood the argument about cost but wanted to solve the problem that existed. He pointed out that the problem was not a ten-year problem but rather a twenty-year problem, so the council was not solving it with a ten-year bond. He was willing to consider a five-year bond, and in that case wanted to limit the council’s ability to change the list. He suggested the council either eliminate the super-majority section or allow changes to the project list only in the last year of the measure. He thought that was a safety mechanism to allow for changes that came up during the decade. Mr. Zelenka thought that, although it was not on the list as an unimproved street, Crest Drive had a unique place in the discussion and he thought the council should consider including it in the bond as a way to garner more votes. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend time for the item until 1 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark did not want to support something that had no chance of passing. He did not think it wise to fix only half of the problem, and was inclined to support a longer bond measure. He wanted to see the results of the survey work and did not think he could support the motion proposed by Ms. Bettman until then. He continued to be concerned about the distribution of projects and was curious about which would be eliminated if the project list was halved for purposes of reducing the time for the measure. Mr. Clark advocated for the council subcommittee to reconvene to consider the parameters of the funding package. Mr. Pryor thought it worth recalling that the problem cost $173 million, so neither a five- or ten-year measure would solve the problem. The issue for him was which increment of time to support. He was supportive of an increment that was passable. He recalled the school board had continually phased its measures and presented them to the public in that manner, which worked reasonably well. He asked Mr. Corey if the city would have more projects completed at the end of a five-year or a ten-year bond. Mr. Corey said that a five-year bond would fund about half the program reflected on the map of projects. Mr. Pryor said that it was not a matter of being able to do more projects in ten years than in five, but the fact the City would have secured the funding. He suggested the issue was the security of having the funding for the entire ten-year period or going for a smaller five-year period because it was more supportable. He did not MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session