HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: GO Bond for Street Preservation
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: General Obligation Bonds for Street Preservation Projects
Meeting Date: July 16, 2008 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5589
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is a continuation of the discussion about funding for pavement capital preservation
projects with a General Obligation (GO) bond measure. The council is asked to provide direction for
development of a resolution to place a GO bond measure on the ballot in November 2008.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
Over the past several years, the council has worked on ways to adequately fund a large and growing
pavement preservation project backlog. Some highlights from the history of this effort are included in
Attachment A.
Most recently, on June 9, the council continued discussions about using General Obligation bonds for
street preservation projects. At that meeting, the council directed the City Manager to bring back a
resolution placing an $81.1 million GO bond measure on the November 2008 ballot, consistent with the
initial project list and the draft resolution provided at that meeting. There remained, however,
significant questions about how to provide assurance to voters as to which specific street repair projects
would be accomplished as a result of approval of the bonds, what the appropriate timing of the bond
measure should be, and how citizens will be informed about the need for the bond measure.
On June 23, the council discussed street assessment policies. At that meeting, several councilors
requested information about including an element in this bond measure to fund the City’s share of
assessment project costs.
As reported previously, the City Manager has convened a Street Maintenance Task Force. The list of
members on this task force is included as Attachment B. The task force has met three times and is
scheduled to meet three more times. As part of this effort, an updated community survey will be con-
ducted during early July. The results will be provided to the council later this month. The group has
focused on trying to reach consensus among the broad range of interests represented on the task force
for a recommended package of solutions that would provide approximately $15 million of additional
funding per year for street repairs in Eugene. At this time, the package under discussion includes the
GO bond measure, reallocation of General Fund resources, a county-wide vehicle registration fee and
some form of a monthly charge that would be collected through the City’s utility billings.
Project List
There are two main policy choices before the council around a bond measure project list: (1)
determining a method for providing assurance to voters as to which specific street repair projects will be
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
completed with bond money; and (2) deciding whether to include funding for the City’s share of local
street improvement projects in the bond amount.
Specific Project List:
At the council meeting on June 9, there was significant discussion about a
bond measure project list. Councilors were concerned about how best to provide assurance to voters
that the bond money would be spent on a very specific list of street repair projects. As requested, staff
has prepared a list of projects to include in the bond measure. There are 86 street preservation projects
on the list, and the measure would repair more than 150 miles of roads and 7 miles of off-street bike and
pedestrian paths.
Attachment C includes a list of specific projects that is staff’s best estimate of what could be done with
available bond funding over the next 10 years, given what is known today. This list has been adjusted
from the initial list presented at the June 9 meeting as a result of in-depth examination of the list from an
engineering perspective, as well as field assessment of the streets on the list. One of the major changes
is that the amount of proposed local street overlays has been reduced because, after performing site
assessments on the local streets, staff found that many of them could be addressed through slurry seal or
other alternative treatments. In addition, projects that were already scheduled for 2009 and would be
constructed regardless of the bond measure outcome have been removed from the list. To bring the total
project list back up to the total bond measure size, additional arterial and collector streets have been
included with an emphasis on reconstructions.
A map of the high-priority street preservation projects proposed for funding from the bond measure is
included in Attachment D. Note that the map does not include the off-street bike and pedestrian paths
that will be overlaid or reconstructed with the $350,000 annual allocation.
Project Implementation:
The council has expressed a desire to provide a high degree of assurance
to voters about the projects that will be completed with bond measure funds. This will reduce the risk
that Eugene citizens will think that the money could be used in a way that was not intended when they
voted for the measure. In order to provide the highest degree of assurance to voters, the council could
say that bond proceeds will only be used for projects on the list. If all the projects on the list are
complete and there is any remaining unused bonds, that authorization would lapse and those bonds
would remain untapped for street preservation projects.
Taking this approach, while reducing one risk, increases the risk that the City will not be able to maxi-
mize and most effectively use the funds for street preservation projects. Things can happen over the
next 10 years that might make it impractical or undesirable to complete one or more of the projects. For
instance, the community decides not to rebuild a street destroyed in a natural disaster, or a street is
rerouted or decommissioned for some reason, or artifacts of historical significance are found in an area,
and so on. For this reason, it is prudent to allow for some flexibility to remove projects from the list.
In addition, as mentioned previously, there is an inherent difficulty in projecting exactly how much each
of the projects would cost over time. Future inflation factors are unknown, and pavement condition
estimated in the pavement management report could vary from the original projections depending on
changes in weather, traffic patterns, and so on. Due to these uncertainties, there is a possibility that not
all of the projects will be completed, so the bond measure language should not guarantee that all projects
will be completed. On the other hand, there is a possibility that circumstances turn out better than fore-
cast today and there is money left over that could be used for more street preservation efforts. If all the
projects on the bond measure list are complete, it might be desirable to allow a future council to add
projects to the list in order to completely spend all available bond proceeds.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
Staff recommends that the bond measure include a provision that would allow a future council to re-
move projects from the list or to fund additional projects from any remaining bond measure money,
rather than letting any remaining authorization lapse unused. In order to ensure that any projects re-
moved from the list have a high degree of agreement among the council members, the vote to remove a
project could require approval by at least six councilors. If the council decides to allow additional
projects to be funded from bond proceeds, the additions could occur only after all the specified projects
on the list have been completed (with the exception of those projects which have been removed with
council super-majority approval). These two provisions would allow the City to utilize all of the bond
proceeds authorized by voters on important street preservation projects, but only under very limited
circumstances and with significant council input and agreement about any changes. The bond
resolution, which is included as Attachment E, includes these provisions in bold and italics so that it is
easy to identify the language.
At the June 9 council work session, staff recommended that a Department Advisory Committee be
formed to allow for prospective additions or deletions to the project list, based on actual experience and
remaining available funding. Based on council discussion, staff has removed that recommendation from
the bond resolution.
Outside Audit of Bond Proceeds:
In order to promote accountability in the use of bond proceeds,
staff is continuing to recommend that an outside auditor be periodically engaged to review and prepare a
publicly-issued report on the use of the bond monies for the purposes authorized by the bond measure
and within the restrictions established by council. At the June 9 meeting, Councilor Poling asked about
the estimated cost and source of monies for this work. Informal quotes suggest that for about $2,000,
the City should be able to engage an outside auditor for this work. These fees would not be paid from
bond proceeds but would come from department operating funds.
Funding for City’s Share of Assessment Projects:
There are approximately 75 miles of unim-
proved streets in the City (about 14% of the total lane miles), with a cost in excess of $90 million to
bring those streets up to City standards. This cost is not included in the estimated $173 million backlog
of maintenance for improved streets. As explained at the June 23 work session on assessment policies,
the City has no identified funding source for the City’s share of local street assessment projects. If the
council decided to add more funding to the bond measure for the City’s share of street assessment
projects, the chart in Attachment G includes the bond size and cost to taxpayer for different annual
amounts. Note that this chart has been updated slightly. The cost for the $81.1 million bond measure is
now estimated at $0.53/$1000 of assessed value, and $107 for the average taxpayer each year.
Staff recommends that funding for the City’s share of local street assessment projects not be included in
the bond measure. This will help to simplify the bond measure message presented to voters.
Communications Plan
Communications related to the bond measure face several challenges. As with any property tax mea-
sure, the complexity of the issue and the need to write bond measure language in terms that satisfy legal
requirements don’t always allow for easy-to-understand explanations. Placing the bond measure in the
context of a larger package, some elements of which haven’t yet been fully worked out, is another com-
munications challenge. Voters will also need to understand why the measure doesn’t focus solely on the
worst streets (i.e., why preserving streets from further deterioration is a financially prudent investment).
Including a number of reconstruction projects in the bond measure will help voters see visible benefit. If
unimproved streets are not included in the bond measure, the message needs to be clear why they are not
part of the bond package and what alternate strategies the City has to address those streets. Finally, as
with all election issues, City staff must avoid advocacy and provide only neutral information. To the
extent that it is important to communicate benefits, the council and any citizen groups that come forward
must carry those messages. Attachment F includes an updated Communications Plan related to transpor-
tation funding. If the council refers the bond measure, portions of the Communications Plan would need
to be put on hold until after the election.
Election Requirements
One of the topics that the council discussed at the June 9 meeting was whether the City should place a
measure on the ballot this November or wait until a future election. Current state law requires that new
or additional property taxes must be approved by a majority of the people voting in an election in
November of an even-numbered year. In any other election, there must also be at least a 50% turnout of
voters (the double-majority requirement).
During the 2007 legislative session, HJR-15 was passed. That resolution places a measure on the state-
wide November 2008 ballot that asks voters whether to change the double-majority requirement. If
voters agree, this would allow a simple majority approval of tax measures at May or November elections
in any year.
Timing
The council’s last opportunity to pass a resolution placing the measure on the ballot is August 5. July 28
is the scheduled date for council consideration of this resolution, which requires that the council provide
final direction for changes to the resolution at today’s meeting in order to allow for adequate bond
counsel review and approval of any changes.
Once the council passes a resolution placing the measure on the ballot, the City Attorney will create a
ballot title (caption, question and summary), which will be published in the Register-Guard. Citizens
will have an opportunity to challenge the ballot language by filing a petition with the Lane County
Circuit Court within seven business days of the date that the City Attorney files the ballot title with the
City Recorder.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The council’s goals for 2007 include “Transportation Initiative: Develop mechanisms to adequately
fund our transportation system for cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians including maintenance and
preservation and capital reconstruction.”
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The policy issues before the council at this work session are:
Project List:
· A street preservation project list is provided as Attachment C. The council could
modify the project list as deemed appropriate.
Additional Projects:
· The draft resolution assumes that the council would like to allow additions
and deletions to the list of projects to be funded from bond proceeds, contingent upon council
approval. The bond measure provision that allows for this to occur is shown in bold and italics
in the resolution.
Measure Size:
· The council previously approved $6.5 million of annual spending, adjusted in
subsequent years for inflation plus bond issuance costs, for a total measure of $81.1 million. The
council could choose a different amount for the bond measure, such as adding funding for the
City’s share of local assessment projects. Attachment G includes the effect on taxpayers for
different bond amounts.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
Measure Timing:
· City Council direction to-date has been to place a measure on the November
2008 ballot. That is the next election date that would not be subject to the double-majority
requirements of Measure 50. The council could choose an alternative election date.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that a resolution placing a GO Bond measure to fund $81.1 million of
street and off-street bike and pedestrian path preservation projects over 10 years on the November 2008
ballot should be prepared for consideration at the July 28 council meeting. The projects included in the
measure should be consistent with the project list included in Attachment C. The resolution should be in
the form included in Attachment E, including language allowing council to add projects once all the
projects on the list are completed, and to delete projects upon approval of 6 councilors.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to direct the City Manager to bring the council a resolution placing an $81.1 million GO bond
measure on the November 2008 ballot, consistent with the resolution in Attachment E.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Pavement Preservation Funding Action History
B.Eugene Street Maintenance Task Force Membership List – July 2008
C.List of Street Preservation Projects to be Funded with GO Bonds
D.Map of Street Preservation Projects to be Funded with GO Bonds
E.Draft Resolution Referring the GO Bond Measure to the November 2008 Ballot
F.Transportation Funding Communications Plan (Updated July 2008)
G.Impact on Eugene Taxpayers from Different GO Bond Amounts
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager
Telephone: 682-5589
Staff E-Mail: Sue.L.Cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us
ATTACHMENT A
Pavement Preservation Funding Action History
The City’s current 5-cent local gas tax, together with other dedicated pavement preservation funding,
has allowed the City to complete nearly $18.6 million in street preservation project work since 2002,
which has repaired 153 lane miles with slurry seals, overlays and reconstructions. Recent projects
include overlay of portions of 18th Avenue, Chambers Street and Bailey Hill Road. Projects planned for
th
2008 include portions of East 13 Avenue, Barger Drive, Chambers Street and Roosevelt Boulevard.
In spite of these accomplishments, the backlog of needed repair work continues to grow in the face of
rapidly rising construction costs and insufficient revenues. In late 2001, the City was facing an
estimated $67 million backlog in pavement preservation work. By spring 2008, the estimated cost of
that backlog had grown to $173 million and, with no new funding, was projected to grow to over $280
million within the next 10 years.
In January 2007, council formed a Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions (the
“subcommittee”) to study transportation funding options and bring back creative solutions for ade-
quately funding Eugene’s transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians in ways that
collect funds proportionately (or equally) from residents and non-residents who use the roads, are more
consistent with sustainability goals, have direct connection to use of the roads, and give incentives to
those who do not have a car or use one very little.
This proposal for a bond measure for street repairs is an integral component in a package strategy
recommended by the subcommittee, and approved by council, to adequately and equitably fund
Eugene’s transportation system for a variety of users. The package of proposed solutions included a
street user fee, a street and bike/pedestrian path lighting fee, and an increase in the local motor vehicle
fuel tax. The council also took action to extend the local fuel tax sunset provision by three additional
years, leaving the fuel tax at five cents per gallon until February 28, 2011.
In the course of its work, the subcommittee learned that, to completely eliminate the pavement repair
backlog within the next 10 years, an estimated $27 million in pavement preservation funding would be
needed per year. The subcommittee deemed this revenue target to be too aggressive and, instead,
recommended additional annual funding of $13 million to $14 million, bringing total pavement
preservation funding up to $18 million per year. While this additional funding would not eliminate the
backlog within 10 years, it was projected that it would stabilize the cost-effective annual overlay
program and begin to reduce the reconstruction backlog.
The subcommittee recommended that the transportation funding package include a capital local option
levy generating approximately $6 million net revenues annually to fund pavement capital preservation
projects. Council subsequently decided to allocate another $0.5 million to the capital local option levy
instead of allocating this amount to a solid waste collection surcharge. In addition, the subcommittee
recommended and the council agreed that $350,000 of that amount should be allocated each year for
bike and pedestrian path capital preservation.
On December 10, 2007, council discussed a property tax approach to funding pavement capital preser-
vation. Staff presented an approach using a short-term General Obligation (GO) bond. Council directed
the City Manager to “bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO Bond measure to fund
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
$81 million of pavement capital preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate timeframe to
place the question on the May 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that
provides for both a list of high priority pavement capital preservation projects and appropriate flexibility
for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project priorities.”
On January 28, council continued discussions of an approach to use General Obligation bonds for street
preservation projects. Council directed the City Manager to “bring a resolution forward placing an $81
million General Obligation bond measure to be used for preservation only, no system capacity
enhancements, on the November 2008 ballot.” A friendly amendment was added to provide a complete
project list as part of the ballot measure. The $81 million bond measure will provide for $6.5 million of
overlays and reconstruction activities each year, factoring in the cost of inflation over a 10-year period.
ATTACHMENT B
Eugene Street Maintenance Task Force Membership List
July 2008
Name Affiliation
Jon Ruiz City of Eugene City Manager
Janet Calvert League of Women Voters; Wellness Committee
Kurt Corey City of Eugene Public Works Director
Rich Gaston John L. Scott Real Estate; Greenhill Humane Society Board
Dave Hauser Eugene Chamber of Commerce President
Eric Jones City of Eugene Public Works Public Affairs Manager
John Kirk FarWest Steel Retiree; Water District Board
Bob Kline Harlow Neighbors Chair
Marvin Revoal Pacific Benefit Planners; Former Chamber President
Greg Rikhoff UO Public & Govt Affairs Community Relations Dir.
Ramin Shojai Business Owner
Ron Tyree Tyree Oil Inc. Owner
Rob Zako West Eugene Collaborative; Friends of Eugene
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
Attachment C
Eugene Street Preservation Project List
(To Be Funded by General Obligation Bonds)
Map #Street nameFromTo
04TH AVECOBURGPEARL
1
05TH AVEHIGHTAYLOR
2
05TH AVEBERTELSEN250' WEST OF COMMERCIAL ST
3
07TH AVEBERTLESENOSCAR
4
07TH PLSENECABAILEY HILL
5
08TH AVEPEARLOAK
6
08TH AVECHAMBERSGARFIELD
7
10TH AVEOLIVEWASHINGTON
8
13TH AVEKINCAIDMONROE
9
13TH AVECHAMBERSGARFIELD
10
18TH AVE510' EAST OF CHAMBERSCITY VIEW
11
18TH AVEHILYARDWASHINGTON
12
18TH AVE102' EAST OF JOSH STBERTELSEN
13
23RD AVEHILYARDPATTERSON
14
24TH AVEJEFFERSONCHAMBERS
15
25TH AVEHAWKINS LNBRITTANY
16
28TH AVEWASHINGTONFRIENDLY
17
29TH AVEOAKWILLAMETTE
18
39TH AVEWILLAMETTE100' EAST OF DENSMORE RD
19
40TH AVEHILYARDDONALD
20
AGATE STFRANKLIN13TH AVE
21
ALDERBROADWAY18TH AVE
22
BAILEY HILL RD7TH AVE11TH AVE
23
BAILEY HILL RD18TH AVEBERTELSEN
24
BAILEY LNBOGART LNCOBURG RD
25
BARGER DRALTAMONTPRIMROSE
26
BLAIR BLVD2ND AVEMONROE
27
BRAE BURN ST39TH AVEWILLAMETTE
28
BREWERGILHAMNORKENZIE
29
BRITTANY STW 18TH AVEW 25TH AVE
30
CAPITAL DRSPRINGCRESTA DE RUTA ST
31
CHAMBERS ST11TH AVE24TH AVE
32
CHARNELTONW 4TH AVEW 11TH AVE
33
CITY VIEW STW 18TH AVEPANORAMA
34
COBURG RDCRESCENTSOUTH ONRAMP BELTLINE
35
COBURG RD850' NORTH OF CALYOUNG450' NORTH OF I-105 OFF RAMP
36
CONGER ST7TH AVE11TH AVE
37
CURTIS AVE550' EAST OF NORKENZIENORKENZIE
38
EAST AMAZON DRHILYARDDILLARD
39
FAIRFIELDHWY 99ROYAL
40
GILHAM RDHONEYWOOD STCRESCENT
41
GOODPASTURE IS RDNORKENZIE RDDELTA HWY BRIDGE
42
GOODPASTURE IS RDBRIDGE OVER SLOUGH1250' NORTH OF VALLEY RIVER DR
43
GOODPASTURE LPGOODPASTURE IS RD1100' NORTH OF GP IS RD
44
GREEN ACRES RDAPPLEWOODDELTA HWY
45
HARLOW RDI-5COBURG
46
HIGH ST3RD AVEE 17TH AVE
47
HILYARD STE 24TH AVE34TH AVE
48
HILYARD STE BROADWAYE 11TH AVE
49
LINCOLN STW 5TH AVEW 13TH AVE
50
LYNNBROOK DR250' EAST OF TORRINGTON AVELANCASTER
51
1Eugene Street Preservation Project List7/8/2008
MADISON STW 5TH AVEW 8TH AVE
52
ML KING JR BLVDI-5CENTENNIAL LOOP
53
NORTH SHASTA LPFIRLANDE 43RD AVE
54
OAKMONT WAYCOBURG RDOAKWAY RD
55
OLIVE STW 10TH AVEW 11TH AVE
56
PATTERSONE 13TH AVE23RD AVE
57
PEARL4TH AVE200' NORTH OF BROADWAY
58
POLK STW 6TH AVEW 7TH AVE
59
POLK STW 18TH AVEW 24TH AVE
60
RAILROAD BLVDVAN BURENCHAMBERS
61
RIVER RDHORN LNRAILROAD
62
RIVERVIEW STSYLVAN16TH AVE
63
RIVERVIEW STFRANKLIN OFF RAMP250' SOUTH OF FRANKLIN OFF RAMP
64
ROYAL AVEHWY 99100' EAST OF WAITE ST
65
SILVER LNRIVER RDGROVE
66
SPRING BLVDFAIRMOUNTWOODLAWN AVE
67
TERRY ST1100' NORTH OF AVALON STROYAL
68
TIMBERLINE DR200' NORTH OF TIMBERLINE DRWINTERCREEK
69
VAN BURENRR CROSSINGBLAIR BLVD
70
WARREN STBAILEY HILLTIMBERLINE DR
71
WASHINGTONW 1ST AVEW 6TH AVE
72
WEST AMAZON DRHILYARDFOX HOLLOW
73
WILLAMETTE STE 10TH AVEE 11TH AVE
74
WILLAMETTE STE 20TH AVE350' SOUTH OF E 24TH AVE
75
WILLAMETTE ST306' NORTH OF 29TH AVE180' SOUTH OF SPENCERS CREST
76
WILSON STW 5TH AVEW 7TH AVE
77
02ND AVEBLAIR BLVDGARFIELD
78
33RD AVEHILYARDWILLAMETTE
79
AUGUSTA16TH AVE26TH AVE
80
DONALD ST46TH AVEFOX HOLLOW
81
GARFIELDROOSEVELTW 11TH AVE
82
HARRIS18TH AVE28TH AVE
83
HAWKINS LNW 18TH AVE100' SOUTH OF VIDERA
84
MINDAGILHAMNORKENZIE
85
TANEY STBARGERMARSHALL
86
2Eugene Street Preservation Project List7/8/2008
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬Ü
Û«¹»²»Í¬®»»¬Ð®»»®ª¿¬·±²Ð®±¶»½¬
̱޻ګ²¼»¼É·¬¸Ù»²»®¿´Ñ¾´·¹¿¬·±²Þ±²¼
ëï
ìï
êê
ìë
íë
íè
ìì
îê
îç
èê
ìî
èë
ìí
êèîë
ìð
íê
êî
êë
ëë
ìê
êï
éî
éè
í
éð
éé
ï
î
ï
ëí
èî
ë
ëç
ëî
ëè
îé
íí
ì
é
ê
îí
íé
ëð
éì
ìç
è
îï
ìé
ëê
ïð
ç
íî
êí
îî
êì
ëé
ïî
ïï
ïí
êð
íð
èí
íì
éë
éï
îì
ïì
èì
êé
èð
ïë
ïê
íï
ïé
ïè
êç
ìè
éê
éç
éí
Í»»¿½½±³°¿²§·²¹·²¼»¨º±®°»½·º·½°®±¶»½¬·²º±®³¿¬·±²
ïç
îð
ëì
îè
íç
ÙÑÞ±²¼Ð®±¶»½¬
éê
Ý·¬§Í¬®»»¬
Ý·¬§Ô·³·¬
Û«¹»²»ËÙÞ
èï
ððòîëðòëïÓ·´»
Ю±¼«½»¼¾§Ý·¬§±ºÛ«¹»²»ÐÉÛ²¹×²º±Ì»¿³ôÖ«´§èôîððèøλºýðéðèóïëéê÷
ATTACHMENT E
Draft Resolution
A RESOLUTION CALLING A CITY ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REFERRING TO THE LEGAL ELECTORS OF THE CITY
OF EUGENE A MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A MAXIMUM
OF $81,100,000 OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO FUND STREET
PRESERVATION PROJECTS.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
Using the City’s current 5-cent per gallon local gas tax and other dedicated pavement
preservation funding, the City has completed nearly $18.6 million in street preservation work since
2002, including contracts in progress. Since 2002, the City has repaired 153 lane miles of streets
through overlay, reconstruction and slurry seal treatments. Projects in progress for 2008 include
portions of 27th Avenue, Barger Drive, Chambers Street and Roosevelt Boulevard.
B.
The amount of funding for street maintenance and reconstruction has been insufficient to
keep up with deteriorating street conditions. The backlog of needed repair work continues to grow in
the face of rapidly rising construction costs and is currently $173 million. Streets that have failed to the
point of reconstruction create safety problems and cause vehicle repair problems, make walking, biking
or driving on the streets uncomfortable, interfere with economic activity and diminish the quality of life.
C.
In order to address the funding shortfalls with the City’s street maintenance and
preservation program, the City Council determined that a General Obligation Bond measure generating
approximately $6.5 million in net revenues annually should be referred to voters. Of that amount, the
Council determined that $350,000 should be allocated each year for off-street bike and pedestrian path
preservation and repair.
D.
A general obligation bond measure of $81.1 million would fund specific street preser-
vation projects over a period of 10 years. The $81.1 million figure accounts for $6.5 million per year for
ten years at an inflation factor of 4.8%. This amount represents 86 different projects that would repair
an estimated 150 lane miles of roads and approximately 7 miles of off-street bike and pedestrian paths.
E.
The measure is expected to cost an average of $0.53 per $1000 of assessed value each
year for ten years. For an average homeowner in Eugene, this would be about $107 per year.
F.
The bond proceeds will be used to overlay or reconstruct the driving surface of streets, as
well as to preserve existing integral elements of the street such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street
bike lanes, traffic signals, street lights, medians, traffic calming devices, and other integral parts of a
street preservation project. These preservation efforts will be undertaken only to preserve existing
elements, not to expand the capacity of the street system. In addition, the City will annually allocate not
less than $350,000 of the bond proceeds to fund the overlay and reconstruction of existing off-street
bicycle and pedestrian paths.
G.
A list of street preservation projects on which the City will spend the bond proceeds is
attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. The criteria for choosing these projects included: a) citizen
input with respect to prioritizing major streets in need of reconstruction; b) scientific information about
needed street rehabilitation and reconstruction from the pavement management system; and c)
geographic distribution throughout the community to ensure all areas of the City receive a benefit from
. If all of the projects listed in Exhibit A are completed and there are bond proceeds
the bond proceeds
remaining, the Council may add other street preservation projects to the list. If at least six city
councilors determine that one or more of the projects listed in Exhibit A has become impractical to
undertake, the project(s) may be removed from the list.
H.
In order to promote accountability in the use of bond proceeds, the City Manager will
contract with an outside auditor to prepare a written report on the use of the bond proceeds on a regular
basis. The auditor will ascertain and report on whether the bond proceeds were used for the authorized
purposes and in compliance with the restrictions set forth above. The City Manager will provide the
report to the Council and make the report publicly available.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the above findings,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1.
A city election is called for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the
City a Measure authorizing the issuance of a maximum of $81,100,000 of General Obligation bonds to
fund street preservation projects and off-street bicycle and pedestrian path preservation projects.
Section 2.
The City Council orders this City election to be held in the City of Eugene, Oregon,
th
concurrently with the general election on the 4 day of November, 2008, in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 254 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, and the ballots shall be counted and tabulated
and the results certified as provided by law.
Section 3.
The City Recorder is directed to give not less than ten days’ notice of the City
election by publication of one notice in the Register Guard, a newspaper published in the City and of
general circulation within the City.
Section 4.
If approved by the electors, the proceeds from the sale of the bonds will be used only
for costs related to street preservation projects, off-street bicycle and pedestrian path preservation
projects and payment of bond issuance costs. The use of bond proceeds for street preservation projects
unless upon completion of all the
will be limited to projects included in Exhibit A to this Resolution
projects listed in Exhibit A to this Resolution the Council adds other street preservation projects to the
list in order to utilize unspent bond proceeds. If at least six city councilors determine that one or
more of the projects listed in Exhibit A has become impractical to undertake, the project(s) may be
removed from the list.
Section 5.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of ______________, 2008.
_____________________________________
City Recorder
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
ATTACHMENT F
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
(Updated July 2008)
Goals and Objectives:
?
Effectively communicate the value of the transportation funding solutions recommended
by the council subcommittee and approved by the full council.
?
Generate adequate support to implement the solutions
?
Citizens, staff and elected officials trust Public Works and the City of Eugene to make good decisions
about local transportation services and how they are delivered and funded
Key Audiences:
?
City Council
?
Eugene voters
?
Taxpayers
?
Business community (Chamber of Commerce)
?
Local opinion leaders (including key media, neighborhood group leaders)
?
Public Works employees and all City employees
?
EWEB (as a potential billing agent)
Strategies:
?
Find and use benefit statements for every constituency/key audience
?
Build community support through constituent/opinion leaders (e.g., members of the Street Maintenance
Task Force)
?
Simplify benefit statement/messages (e.g., “street repairs” and “fixing the potholes” rather than
“pavement preservation”)
?
Recognize the communication value of “official” documents (agenda item summaries, resolutions, ballot
titles, etc.)
?
Separate issues (e.g., property tax measure, gas tax sunset) to manage the amount of information key
audiences need to have at any particular moment in time
?
Find opportunities to talk about “big picture” in ways that clearly describe what each component of the
package would do and how individual components work together as a balanced package
?
Enlist mayor and councilors as spokespersons for the issue
?
Look for groups invested in solutions as message partners
?
Develop an implementation schedule early on to coordinate communications on various solution
components
?
Ensure communication tactics are consistent with and support election laws and other procedural
requirements
?
Build on successes of pavement preservation program
?
Rename/reposition TSMF as a new solution
?
Use Final Report of the Transportation Subcommittee (2007), LOC “Investing in a Neglected Asset”
report, and PMS report (2008) and other source documents to support communications
?
Use a range of outreach tactics (e.g., meetings/presentations, internet, newsletter) to reach targeted
audiences as well as the general public
?
Address state and county relationships in a positive way; look for opportunities to work with and
coordinate our interests with those of our regional partners (Springfield and Lane County)
?
Develop a strong internal communications to inform employees, using supervisors to communicate key
messages and promote understanding through the City organization
?
Use surveys (specifically, the January 2008 NSDS survey and the July 2008 SRI survey) and focus
groups to test methodologies and key messages
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
?
Make effective use of consultant resources (e.g., Barry Pack, Steve Johnson, Gary Manross) in
developing plans and implementing strategies
Communication Constraints (Specific to Bond Measure):
?
As with any tax measure, the complexity of the issue and the need to couch language in terms that satisfy
legal requirements don’t always allow for easy-to-understand explanations.
?
Placing the bond measure in the context of a larger package, some elements of which haven’t yet been
fully worked out, is a significant communications challenge.
?
Voters will need to understand why the measure doesn’t focus solely on the worst streets (i.e., why
preserving streets from further deterioration is a good investment). Including a number of reconstruction
projects in the bond measure will help voters see obvious benefit.
?
Voters have trouble distinguishing between improved and unimproved streets. If unimproved streets are
not included in the bond measure, the message needs to be clear why they’re not and what strategies the
City has to address those streets.
?
The “list” of repair projects to be funded by the bond measure is a subset of a larger list of projects to be
funded from multiple sources of road repair funding, including current existing sources of revenue. Voters
may be confused if they don’t see beneficial projects that aren’t on the bond list because they are
scheduled to receive some other type of funding.
?
As with all election issues, City staff must avoid advocacy and provide only neutral information. To the
extent that it’s important to communicate benefits, the council and any citizen groups that come forward
must carry those messages.
Key Messages
Bond Measure for Street Repairs
?
Voters in November will be asked to approve an $81 million levy dedicated to local street repairs
?
The levy is estimated to cost the average homeowner $107 per year
?
A list of high-priority projects has been developed to indicate exactly which streets would be repaired
with bond funds
?
The project list will include overlay and slurry seal projects (to preserve streets from further deterioration)
and reconstruction projects (to fix streets that have fallen apart and need to be rebuilt)
?
Accountability will be provided, bond expenditures will be monitored and periodic reports will be issued
to the council and the community.
Overall Package of Transportation Funding Solutions
?
Eugene is faced with a $173 million backlog of street repair projects. The backlog could reach $280
million over the next decade if more funds are not invested in l needed street repairs.
?
To bring the backlog under control, at least $18 million per year needs to be invested in needed street
repairs. Currently Eugene is investing about $5 million a year in major street repairs.
?
To truly address the need, a package of revenue solutions is needed.
?
Package elements could include some combination of a general obligation bond measure, local fuel tax,
monthly street repair fee, street lighting fee, garbage fee surcharge, countywide vehicle registration fee
and/or countywide fuel tax, and/or reallocation of existing general fund revenue.
?
Any package, in total, needs to provide achievable, balanced and sustainable solutions to adequately fund
Eugene’s transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians
?
A good package element is one that collects funds proportionately (or equally) from residents and non-
residents who use our roads, is consistent with our sustainability goals, has direct connection to the use of
the roads, and give incentives to those who do not have a car or use one very little.
?
Since 2002 (including the 2008 construction season), the City has invested $18.6 million in street
preservation projects. Since 2002 (including the 2008 construction season), the City has repaired 153 lane
miles of streets through overlay, reconstruction and slurry seal treatments.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc
Local Fuel Tax
?
Eugene’s gas tax is 5 cents per gallon (it has been at 5 cents a gallon since January 2005)
?
2 cents of that is subject to a sunset provision; the sunset has been extended to 2011 to allow more time to
see if alternate sources of revenue can be found (examples: increasing the state gas tax to replace the
money that currently comes from the local gas tax, or a county vehicle registration fee)
?
Each penny of the local fuel tax generates about $650,000 per year; therefore, the current 5-cent local fuel
tax generates about $3.2 million per year for street repairs
?
The local motor vehicle fuel tax is closely tied to the use of the transportation system: the more you drive,
the more wear and tear you put on the streets, and the more you pay through a gas tax.
?
Currently, Eugene's pavement preservation program is funded primarily by the local motor vehicle fuel
tax.
?
More information is available on the City’s web site (go to www.eugene-or.gov/pw and click on the street
funding link.
Reallocation of General Fund Resources
?
Council allocated $1.5 million for capital pavement repairs in FY07. These funds were used to overlay
streets that otherwise would have deteriorated to the point of needing reconstruction (at a cost of five
times the cost of an overlay)
?
As part of a cooperative funding agreement with Lane County, Council made available $4.5 million from
the General Fund (facility reserve) for preserving critical county services in exchange for $4.5 million in
County road funds which will be used for repairs of Eugene streets beginning July 1, 2008.
?
Council approved $1 million from the General Fund for “pothole patching” in FY09 and another $1
million in FY10. Work efforts to be funded include a dedicated “pothole patrol,” maintenance overlays
primarily on unimproved streets, and repairs to a number of badly rutted and potholed intersections
around town.
?
All these allocations are in addition to the funds currently dedicated to street repairs in the City’s O&M
Road Fund (which comes primarily from state gas taxes and vehicle registration fees) and capital
pavement preservation program (which comes primarily from local gas taxes).
Street Fee
?
This is still in the conceptual stages
?
The best fee is one that is easy to understand and inexpensive to bill and collect (so that more money goes
to street repairs and less to fee administration)
?
Intended to generate annual net revenue of approximately $6.5 million, with $150,000 per year dedicated
to funding traffic calming measures
?
Estimated to cost the average household about $5 per month
Street Lighting Fee
?
This is still in the conceptual stages
?
Intended to generate approximately $800,000 annually to operate and maintain and provide for reasonable
expansion of Eugene’s street and bike/pedestrian path lighting system
?
Estimated to cost the average household $1.50 per month
Other Potential Sources of Funding
?
Garbage surcharge could raise $1 million to $2 million per year
?
County vehicle registration fee (could raise up to $9 million per year countywide; revenue to Eugene not
currently determined)
?
Countywide gas tax (could raise $1.5 million per penny per year countywide; revenue to Eugene not
currently determined)
?
State solutions, including an increase in the state’s gas tax.
ATTACHMENT G
Impact on Eugene Taxpayers from Different Bond Amounts
Total Bond First Year Average Cost to Average
Amount Project Spending* Tax Rate** Taxpayer
$62,400,000 $5,000,000 $0.41 $81
$74,900,000 $6,000,000 $0.50 $99
$81,100,000 $6,500,000 $0.53 $107
$87,450,000 $7,000,000 $0.58 $116
$99,700,000 $8,000,000 $0.66 $132
$112,250,000 $9,000,000 $0.74 $148
$124,750,000 $10,000,000 $0.82 $164
*Each subsequent year of project spending is increased by 4.8% in order to account for estimated future
inflation of project costs.
** Tax rate per $1000 of assessed value.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080716\S080716A.doc