New Search
Ms. Rygas asked for clarification regarding the mid-year supplemental budget process. Mr. Svendsen <br />explained that the Budget Committee had discussed forming a mechanism to supplement the budget in <br />1999. to meet budget needs that arose through the year. Ms. Boyle added that a goal had been adopted <br />` within the financial goals and policies that sought to take unallocated end of year resources carried to the <br />subsequent year and dedicate them to bring the general capital contribution up to the adequate level. This <br />action had been taken because the goal of keeping two percent of minimum replacement .value in facilities <br />preservation was not being met. She noted that the City was still not at the low end of the benchmark. <br />Ms. Rygas asked if this was still an appropriate policy to follow. She felt it was de facto saying that mid- <br />year capital needs would take priority over other needs that might arise. She also asked where the goal to <br />maintain an investment of two to four percent of replacement value had come from: Mr. Svendsen replied <br />that it hearkened back to research done by a national research board consisting of representatives of <br />industry and government on public infrastructure. He thought it to be the most complete research done on <br />this topic to date. Ms: Rygas commented that there was potential that the research did not translate from <br />one economic environment to another. <br />Continuing, Ms. Rygas remarked that it was difficult to track projects in the CIP because of the melding of <br />funded and unfunded projects. She felt the process to obtain public commentary was backwards as the <br />current process required citizens to study the CIP and make comment on it. She thought the public should <br />be consulted first and the process should start with the neighborhood needs analysis and other resources. <br />She noted that the library was a good example of citizenry identifying a community need and pursuing it <br />through fruition. <br />Ms. Boyle said_the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan had a sign~cant public input <br />process ahead of what would be submitted into the CIP. She stated that in most cases there was some <br />public participation in reviewing and approving projects prior to their placement in the. CIP._ She <br />underscored that there were few examples in the CIP in which the project had not arisen from an adopted <br />or publicly reviewed plan. <br />Mr. Pape commented, regarding the parking garage needs for sealant, that it seemed the garage had only <br />recently been built. He joked that it should still be under warranty. Mr. Svendsen said he would look into <br />why the project had been included on the CIP. <br />Regarding the airport, Mr. Pape asked why further expansion was being considered given that the capacity <br />seemed "fine" and there were several open gates. Mr. Schoening reiterated that the potential expansion <br />was in the last year of the six-year plan and that the airport was slated to undergo another Master Plan <br />process in the interim. <br />Mr. Pape cited page 46 of the draft CIP and asked how the cost for the airport expansion, $2,276,000, had <br />been arrived at. Mr. Schoening replied that the amount had been from the Airport Master Plan. Mr. Pap6 <br />could not recall approving such a plan in the council. Mr. Schoening assured him that it had been <br />recommended by the Airport Advisory Committee and then approved by the City Council. <br />Mr. Mulligan agreed that there should be truth in disclosure and that placeholders in the CIP should <br />include a disclaimer. <br />Mr. Mulligan said the bond ratings the City maintained were evidence that the old policies that adjusted <br />the cash balance had proved to be prudent. He encouraged the committee and council to continue with the <br />adopted policies. <br />MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 7, 2005 Page 5 <br />