|
~ ~ ' ~ . _ ~ . .. . ~ .. .~I , lY.. , . .. 1
<br />, ~
<br />' ' . ~ ' . . ~ fi ~ I'
<br />. ;~ ~.
<br />_ ~ '
<br />development and implementation_ of other elements of the package funding strategy, the ~City~'Manager is
<br />also recommending that tonight the council take action to extend the local fuel tax sunset pro`vision~by
<br />three additional years, leaving the fuel taac at five cents per.gallon until February 28, 201!~1. .,; ';;
<br />~~ •
<br />~, I, -
<br />In the course of its'work, the subcommittee learned that, in order to completely eliminate the'~pavement ~
<br />reconstruction backlog within the next,l0 years, an estimated $27 million in pavement preservatiori'
<br />funding would be needed per year. Tlie subcommittee deemed this revenue target to be too aggressive
<br />arid, instead, recommended additional annual funding of $13 million to $14 million, bririging''total ''
<br />pavernent preservation funding up to $18 million per year. While this. additional funding would no.t
<br />eliminate the backlog within 10 years, it was projected that it would stabilize the cost-effective annual
<br />overlay program and begin to reduce the reconstruction backlog. '~ ~
<br />~
<br />~ , ~~ ~, ~..
<br />,;
<br />The subcommittee recommended that the transportation funding package include a capital local option
<br />levy generating approximately $6 million net revenues ,annually to fund pavement capital. preservation
<br />projects. The City Council subsequently decided to allocate another $0.5 million to the capit'al local
<br />option levy instead of allocating this amount to a solid waste collection surcharge. In addition, the ~,>~
<br />subcommittee recommended and the council agreed that $350,000 of tliat amount should be allocated
<br />each year for bike and pedestrian path capital preservation. " j',
<br />''' ~~;
<br />~ ;~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~:
<br />On December 10, 2007, the council discussed a property tax approach to funding pavement capital ~;,
<br />preservation. Staff presented an approach using a short-term General Obligation ("GO")i;~bond. The
<br />council directed the City Manager to "bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO Bond
<br />measure to fund $81 million of pavement capital preservation.projects over 10 years witliin an {>.
<br />„
<br />appropriate timeframe to place the question on the May 2008 ballot, .The proposal should include b'allot
<br />measure language that provides for both a`list of high priority pavement capital preservation projects and
<br />appropriate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservatiorn,project j~
<br />priorities.;, ~ ~ f ~ ji i~
<br />RestricHons on the Use of Bond Proceed§ ;I, ;' I;
<br />The focus of this council work session will be determining more specifically what to include in the ~~
<br />resolution placing.this measure on the ballot. The resolution will become part of the materials included
<br />in the voters' pamphlet, and resolution language is the basis for the language contained iri the'~ballot~title
<br />,; ; I;
<br />(caption, question and summary). '~! ;! '~
<br />, ~ ,
<br />By state law, GO bond proceeds may only be used for capital purposes, not operations. Fyor tlie ~?'
<br />transportation system, GO barid proceeds may be used for street construction, overlays arid ';i j;
<br />reconstruction. In addition to these statutory restrictions, spending from GO bonds will l
<br />the language included in the measure presented to the voters. Measure language may be
<br />be narrower. Specific projects may be named in the. measure language, but this is not le~
<br />In accordance with council direction, the resolution will include five principal areas of
<br />use of the bond proceeds: . ~ °
<br />Pavement capital preservation treatments: The measure would allow overlay
<br />reconstruction of the driving surface of streets, as well as the preservation of existing int
<br />such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, on-street bike lanes,. traffic signals, street lights; media
<br />calming devices. In all cases, these preservation efforts would be.undertaken only to pre
<br />elements, not to expand the capacity of the system, for instance; by installing new lights
<br />iction ori the
<br />.
<br />~r ;; . ,`.
<br />al eleme~nts
<br />~~
<br />and traffic
<br />ve~~existing .
<br />~ike lanes. It
<br />City Council Agenda page 6 F:\CM0~2008 Council E
<br />
|