Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Funding, which had developed a recommendation that included a street utility fee. He supported a street utility fee due to its direct tie to transportation and how much residents used the street. In addition, it was paid by all users of the streets. A bond measure had no relationship to how much one used the street, and it only captured revenues from those inside the city. He said that 50 percent of the people who use Eugene streets were nonresidents. He termed such individuals “free riders” who did not pay for the cost of streets. He found that inequitable, and would not support another bond measure unless the council moved forward with a street utility fee. Mr. Poling agree with Mayor Piercy’s remarks. He supported the increase in funding dedicated to alternative modes. Mr. Farr believed that people would question the fact that assessed rates and their tax bills continued to rise while real home values were lower and he thought the City needed to be prepared for such questions. He supported moving forward with the bond because he believed the City could convince the voters they were getting real value. Mr. Pryor also supported the proposed measure. He believed the voters would judge the measure on whether the City was asking for what it needed or for what it could get. He said the need was greater than what the bond asked for, but the bond would address the streets most in need. He invited input from residents and councilors in identifying the streets to be repaired but wanted that input to be balanced with staff’s professional advice. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka’s remarks, Mr. Pryor recalled his own support for a street utility fee but pointed out that since that time, other needs arose that could be funded through a similar fee. He thought the council needed to discuss how to proceed with those options but thought it was important to recognize the changed context. Mr. Clark favored moving forward with a new bond. He believed voters would recognize the City did what it said it would do with the proceeds of the past bond. He advocated for a more comprehensive plan to address the condition of unimproved local streets. Mayor Piercy believed the City’s geographically balanced approach toward the 2008 bond measure had led to its success and hoped that the council took a similar approach. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mayor Piercy. He appreciated that the rate would stay about the same. He also appreciated the additional funding for alternative modes and hoped the council would see a priority list of alternative mode projects. Mr. Zelenka reiterated his previous remarks about the remaining backlog and said the City still lacked a plan to address the backlog. He believed the council should discuss a street utility tax before it voted to forward the bond measure to the voters. Mr. Poling said the distinction between reconstruction projects and street overlays and why streets that appeared to be in good shape were reconstructed rather than overlaid should be made clear to the public. Mr. Brown supported the panel’s proposal but expressed concern about the cumulative impact of increased fees on residents. He suggested the potential of limiting the bond measure to $35 million, acknowledged the reduced revenues but pointing out that people would be paying about the same rate as they were now. Mayor Piercy pointed out the council would have another opportunity to change the amount. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2012 Page 2 Work Session