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