New Search
Mr. Kelly suggested the committee formalize the recommendation to create an addendum that <br />distinguished between funded projects and unfunded projects. He said if the adopting motion spoke of <br />what it meant to adopt funded and unfunded projects it could be bound into the final copy of the CIP. <br />Mr. Kelly asked how the total cost for stormwater projects had grown from $2 million in the last budget to <br />$15 million in the current project list. <br />Mr. Mulligan asked for a motion to extend Mr. Kelly's time. <br />Mr. Pape, seconded by Mr. McDonald, moved to extend Mr. Kelly's <br />time. The motion passed unanimously, 15:0. <br />Mr. Kelly noted that traffic calming fimding had"vanished." Given the huge backlog of requests from <br />residents, he asked staff to look for possible ways to fund it at the same "low level" it had previously been <br />funded. <br />Continuing, Mr. Kelly asked, regarding the Planning Commission recommendation to restart the <br />neighborhood needs analysis process, how this could happen. Ms. Boyle said she would put together a <br />response. <br />Ms. Bettman said an errata sheet containing the unfunded projects followed by a motion would meet her <br />need for clarity. <br />Ms. Bettman asked how one could place a project on the CIl'. She cited the Acorn Park neighborhood as <br />an area in need of improvements such as sidewalks. She also wanted information on the status of the <br />project to improve the Park Blocks. She noted~there was to be a scoping process included in the previous <br />funding allocation and asked where the project was in the CIP. <br />Regarding the Park Blocks, Mr. Svendsen said the Budget Committee had recommended an allocation of <br />up to $60,000, the project was in the design phase, and permits had been applied for with the Planning <br />Information Center (PIC). Ms. Bettman responded that part of the project was to scope the means for <br />providing water and wastewater facilities. Mr. Svendsen replied that it would probably be addressed in the <br />next budget process. <br />Mr. Mulligan asked for a motion to extend Ms. Bettman's time. <br />Ms. Rygas, seconded by Mr. McDonald, moved to extend Ms. Bettman's <br />time. The motion passed unanimously, 15:0. <br />Ms. Bettman -asked staff to bring back a "ball park figure" for what water facilities would cost for the Park <br />Blocks. She also asked, in terms of SDC credits, that staff suggest in a memorandum how credits given to <br />non-prioritized projects could be "recaptured" and applied to prioritized projects. <br />Mr. Pape surmised that all of the Parks and Open Space projects on the previously funded but not <br />constructed list on page 49 were to be completed by the end of 2005. He asked how they were <br />progressing. Mr. Schoening replied that the engineering division had sent out a list of projects to build in <br />the summers of 2005 and 2006 but he could not recall exactly which projects were on the list. He said that <br />the parks projects were being funded from bond money. . <br />MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 7, 2005 Page 7 <br />