My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Review of 2010 Implementation of Bond Measure to Fix Streets
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 01/19/11 Work Session
>
Item A: Review of 2010 Implementation of Bond Measure to Fix Streets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2011 9:32:12 AM
Creation date
1/14/2011 9:24:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/19/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />Street Repair Review Panel <br />In October 2009, a citizen group was formed to evaluate the City’s use of the first year of bond proceeds <br />and report whether the bond funds were used in compliance with the council resolution. The 12 <br />community members selected to serve on the Street Repair Review Panel (SRRP) were: Paul Adkins, <br />John Barofsky, Howard Bonnett, Dan Brown, Janet Calvert, Paul Holbo, Bob Kline, Steve Lee, Bruce <br />Mulligan, Clayton Walker, Gary Wildish, and Jim Wilcox. All members returned in October 2010, to <br />evaluate the City’s use of the second year of bond proceeds. The group met three times over a three- <br />month period, which included a physical inspection of the bond measure projects completed in 2010, and <br />those scheduled for 2011. <br /> <br />On January 10, 2011, the Street Repair Review Panel unanimously approved its second annual report <br />(Attachment A), which included the following conclusion: <br /> <br />“We unanimously conclude that the bond proceeds were used for the authorized purposes and in <br />compliance with the limitations and restrictions outlined in Council Resolution 4953.” (SRRP <br />2010 Report, Page 1). <br /> <br />The report from the SRRP highlighted the sustainable practices used on the bond projects, including the <br />use of warm mix asphalt and in-place recycling, as well as the cost-savings achieved through lower-than- <br />anticipated construction bids and the positive economic impacts of funding more than 80 full-time- <br />equivalent jobs during the period of construction. <br /> <br />Looking to the future, the SRRP and the Public Works staff recognize that even though the backlog <br />estimate has declined over the past year, the current level of funding, including the bond measure, is <br />insufficient to keep the backlog from growing over the long term. On a more positive note, it appears <br />likely that all of the projects listed in Exhibit A of the bond measure will be completed and there will be <br />bond proceeds remaining. These remaining bond funds will allow the council to add other street <br />preservation projects to the list. Staff will return to the council later this spring, after the 2011 <br />construction bids are opened, to further discuss the addition of projects to the original list. <br /> <br />A website tracking the bond measure implementation has been established at www.eugene- <br />or.gov/gobonds. The panel’s 2010 report has been placed on the internet, and links to the online report <br />will be sent to the Neighborhood Leaders Council and other community and business organizations. The <br />Street Repair Review Panel is scheduled to reconvene in fall 2011, upon completion of the 2011 <br />construction season. <br /> <br />Independent Accountant’s Report <br />The accounting firm of Isler CPA, who also performed the annual audit of the city’s FY10 financial <br />statements, was contracted to perform sufficient agreed-upon procedures in order to determine whether <br />the expenditure of G.O. bonds were made in accordance with the purposes and limitations outlined in the <br />street repair bond resolution – namely, that expenditures were: <br /> <br /> <br />1.Used only for costs related to street preservation projects, off-street bicycle and pedestrian path <br />preservation projects and payment of bond issuance costs, and not to expand the capacity of the <br />street system; and also, <br /> <br />\\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110119\S110119A.doc <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.