CC Minutes - 07/16/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

know that was the case and agreed with Mr. Clark that the survey would be helpful in that regard. Mr. Pryor questioned if making and delivering on one five-year promise was better than asking the voters to trust the council for the entire amount. He recalled the community survey that demonstrated a lack of confidence in the council as it regarded a new city hall, and said he did not know the answer to the question. Ms. Taylor suggested the council could prove it could spend the money responsibly but do it with the wrong roads. She thought that people thought about the annual cost of a bond when they considered their support. She did not think it was any easier for residents to pay for five years as opposed to ten years if the cost was the same. It was not her experience that people cared about the total amount of the measure. She agreed it would be better if all the councilors supported the bond, but it did not sound as though they would. Ms. Solomon agreed that the ten-year plan did not solve the problem, and suggested the issue came down to a leadership issue. She did not favor a shorter period and said the council needed to put forth a bond measure that would solve the problem, and she considered that to be the ten-year bond in combination with the other elements of the funding package. Ms. Bettman said that people were looking both at what they paid annually and how long they paid it. She thought the amount for the ten-year bond too high and the period too long. She pointed out the council reduced the library levy out of concern it would not pass at a higher amount, and it barely passed at the lower amount. Ms. Bettman spoke to the distribution of projects, pointing out there was a higher concentration of arterials and collectors in the affected neighborhoods, reflecting a higher concentration of population. She was not willing to micromanage the list, pointing out there were streets in her ward that badly needed repair, such as th sections of West 18 Avenue, but she was not going to propose it being added. Ms. Bettman said the council needed to start small and build the confidence of the voters. City Manager Ruiz said the council could direct staff to return with two motions, each reflecting a different funding period and amount, on July 28, at which time the survey information would be available. He said that staff would need clear direction about whether projects could be removed. Mr. Zelenka said that the problem was even larger than mentioned, and it simply continued to grow. Ten years was not half of the solution; it was really a question of how often the council went out with a measure. He suggested the second bond measure could be a ten-year bond. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were other survey sources to test the amount proposed. He supported having two motions. He agreed the list should be geographically dispersed. He noted that the November ballot included several other levies, and he thought the council needed to consider that, although it was true of most such measures. He thought doing a five-year bond could build more trust in the City. He anticipated a continual education process faced the City. He did not want a five-year measure to include a way to remove a project. Mr. Clark supported seeing multiple options but he thought there were other factors affecting the trust factor mentioned by Mr. Pryor. He supported a ten-year option and would like to see an adjustment possible, and expressed support for the last-year approach suggested by Mr. Zelenka. He did not see a circumstance where he would be willing to support the five-year option. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session