Budget Meeting Minutes 05/11/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Ms. Ortiz averred that the City Council should undertake considerable discussion prior to choosing to privatize any City services. ' In response to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Corey explained that the County's Road Fund was derived primarily from what used to show up in their budget as federal timber receipts, but it now is derived from the federal legislation called the Secure Schools Program, slated to expire in 2006. He affirmed that the City's share would have to be negotiated if the program is reauthorized. Ms. Beaman asked what the strategy was in terms of State and County funding to change the road allocations.. She remarked that the reason the County roads looked so good was that they had adequate road funding while the City did not. Mr. Corey replied that some people had been working on that strategy for four years and some for ten or twenty years. He said the County, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the City would continue to be partners and would continue to have government structures. They would also continue to have their own CIl' and their own operational needs and make decisions on revenue sharing based on that: Ms. Beaman asked if the City had any leverage with the County. Mr. Corey opined that the leverage was based on relationships; adding that this was why he continued to emphasize locally controlled sustainable funding sources to deal with those issues. He felt that any time the decision process was placed in someone else's arena, the City had. to live with the outcome. Ms. Beaman encouraged staff to rethink that strategy. She said on one hand the Citywas cooperative with ,: r the decisions to fund new capital projects out of Lane County Road Funds but on the other hand the City said it did not have enough money for operations; maintenance, and preservation. She suggested the City explain to the County that it did not want to partner on new projects until those functions were adequately. funded..: Mr. Demboski questioned the wisdom of including the $1.22 million that came from partnering with the. County in the. budget given that it was anticipated that this funding level would diminish. Mr. Corey replied that the County carried ahead atwo-year commitment on the partnership agreement. He said, though the Federal legislation was about to expire, he believed that the revenue would not "dry up." He believed that the $1.22 million figure.was the best estimate. the City had at present. Ms. Taylor echoed Mr. Kelly's recommendation that the council explore tax reform. Ms. Rygas asked Mr. Corey to discuss the backlog of street preservation and maintenance projects. Mr. Corey said when the Budget Subcommittee had looked at the issue and reported, in 2001, that there was no money to meet the need. At that time, he indicated that the backlog was estimated at $67 million. He . explained that the City Council had instituted the gas tax and it would be generating about $3.5 million and, additionally, there was a reimbursement component of transportation SDCs that had newly been dedicated to the backlog which would provide on the order of $500,000 to $700,000 annually. He stated that the other major component that had provided some fmancial relief had resulted.from the adoption of the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act III (OTIA III). He said Lane County's CIP had been balanced when the legislature passed the OTIA III and the County had passed along its share to the Lane County cities and this provided approximately $850,000 to the City of Eugene. In response to another question from Ms. Rygas, Mr. Corey said the backlog had grown to approximately $94 million. He stated that with the approximately $5 million that was now dedicated to road maintenance and preservation, the growth of the backlog had been slowed considerably. He estimated that it would take $7 million annually to keep the backlog from growing. MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 7, 2005 Page 11