New Search
Mr. McDonald, noting that block grant funds were 20 percent of the total revenue, asked if staff had made <br />any contingency plans to address the president's recommended reduction in funding. Mr. Svendsen replied <br />that two years earlier the City had reduced the portion of funding it contributed. He stated that the <br />previous ADA plan was being completed and the next level of planning was being undertaken. <br />City Manager Dennis Taylor said staff was monitoring the possibility that the President's budget could <br />negatively impact the City. He emphasized that since the proposed reductions were for federal year 2006, <br />there was still an opportunity for Congress to weigh in and there was some time yet for staff to understand <br />how possible cuts could affect the City's budget in FY07. <br />Mr. McDonald asked how many of the facilities were considered to be inside of the Urban Renewal <br />District: Mr. Svendsen surmised there were about 95 facilities on the list and said he would have to sit <br />down with a map to determine exactly which ones were inside the district, though he knew that the Hult <br />Center for the Performing Arts, City Hall, and the building at 858 Pearl Street: were within its bounds. <br />Mr. McDonald asked if Urban Renewal Funds could be used in the facilities budget. Sue Cutsogeorge, <br />financial analysis:manager for the Finance and Court Services Division of the Central Services` <br />Department, explained that there were plans adopted and developed by the City Council for Urban <br />Renewal Funds and any project would have to go through that process. She did not believe that ongoing. <br />maintenance projects would qualify for such funds. <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff for providing thorough written answers to his previous questions. <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated that when Eugene adopted the TransPlan, aEugene-specific fmance policy had been <br />included which dictated that the existing system must be preserved prior to adding new parts to the system <br />and, if a new part would be built, justification and findings must be provided as to why the project was <br />more important than preservation of the existing system. He asked what projects had been subjected to the <br />policy analysis, noting that he did not expect an immediate answer. <br />Mr. Kelly asked if City Hall replacement Phase 1 was funded or unfunded. Ms. Boyle replied that the <br />portion that was reflected as a "funded project" was really a placeholder. Mr. Kelly responded that the City <br />Council had not "put" the funding to that project. He opined that the public would extrapolate from this <br />that the City did not care about their input. He also wished to clarify that the City Council had not made a <br />distinction between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the City Hall project. <br />Ms. Boyle remarked that several staff compiled the information in September using the best information <br />available at the time. <br />Ms..Bettman commented that a certain "fuzziness" lay in placeholders as the CIP document was used to <br />keep a project's place on a list and lobby for money. She asserted projects took on a life of their own. She <br />opined that there should be a distinct line between placeholders and planned projects because otherwise it <br />was difficult to approve a plan. <br />Ms. Bettman called attention to the $2.4 million for SDC credits, which she said was money used to <br />provide capacity for future projects as well. as the projectunder development for which the credits were <br />provided. She asserted that what this did; functionally, was to elevate the project. She opined it created a <br />separate list of priorities in that there was not enough SDC money to build for new capacity because "new. <br />capacity we had not planned for" was being put in. <br />MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 7, 2005 Page 4 <br />