New Search
...%""; ° :z <br />Re: remarks for tomorrow Page 1 of 3 <br />~,,;~^; . .z <br />COREY Kurt A <br />From: CARLSON Becky A <br />Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:25 PM <br />To: Barry Pack; CUTSOGEORGE Sue L; COREY Kurt A; CARLSON Jim R; JONES Eric R; <br />LANKSTON Jeff; LIDZ Jerome (Harrang); SOMMERS Lauren (Harrang); HILL Larry K; <br />stevej@nsdssurvey.org <br />Subject: RE: remarks for tomorrow <br />Sue, I think Barry's paraphrase is a flne aiternative to the PPP project jargon, except when we're asking them for <br />legislative direction (council motions) or estabiishing the legal uses of the proceeds (and Jerry/Harvey may have a <br />better distinction to offer around this). Eric and I use "street repair projects" a lot in public communications, <br />explanations to citizens, etc.; in developing AISs, I frequently do just as Barry described--use the more technical <br />term in the item summary, but then switch to using layman's terms in other sections. Trying to balance <br />"understandable to the average citizen" and describing the uses of the bond proceeds in legally-accurate terms <br />may get more challenging as we move on to the tasks of developing the resolution and ballot title language and <br />explanation. <br />I also thought we'd moved away from characterizing the city staff costs as "planning" and instead were using <br />something like "engineering design and project management activities". My concerns about calling these services <br />"planning" is 1) that term has a different (and, to some, negative) reference to a completely different set of <br />activities at the city, and 2) it infers that the project engineering costs are for up-front activities, when a lot of those <br />efforts occur throughout, and even after, the actual construction period. The fact that we use any of the project <br />funding to pay ciry staff is a sensitive issue, so I just want to make sure we don't over-simplify or understate the <br />necessity for funding this category of project costs. <br />I can't think of anything else right now. I was really relieved to see that you made it back into town! ~becky <br />From: Barry Pack [mailto:barry@perrinpack.com] <br />Sent: Sun 1/27/2008 4:24 PM <br />To: CUTSOGEORGE Sue L; COREY Kurt A; CARLSON Becky A; CARLSON Jim R; JONES Eric R; LANKSTON Jeff; <br />LIDZ Jerome (Harrang); SOMMERS Lauren (Harrang); HILL Larry K; stevej@nsdssurvey.org <br />Subject: Re: remarks for tomorrow <br />I continue to be unhappy with the phrase "pavement capital preservation <br />projects." While this is probably legally accurate it is completely <br />un-understandable to the average citizen. Can we use that once, and then <br />from then on (and forever) say "street repair projects?" <br />I leave it to Steve to confirm the polling data that should get presented as <br />it's his poll, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with highlighting the 62% number. <br />Some of those folks who said yes at that level were only saying yes because <br />it was a lower number and we didn't give them any indication of what the <br />amount would do. There's an inherent risk that they assumed the same level <br />of street repair would get done, it would just cost them less. So that <br />increase in support is pretty soft to me. <br />Maybe better to use the 56% number, mention that that number is higher than <br />polling a couple months ago, and say there is more support for a lower <br />dollar figure, but that support would need to be confirmed with additional <br />data on the amount of repair that would be done before assuming that was <br />hard support. Probably not the best language, but you get my point. <br />1/28/2008 <br />