New Search
and wished to be able to distinctly ascertain which category a project fell under. She opined it was <br />inappropriate to have projects in the CIP with no funding source. <br />City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that the CIP outlined in logical order the projects that had been <br />through the planning process. He underscored that the specific authority for projects lay in the budget. He <br />said the document provided the opportunity to review a variety of planning documents that had already <br />been approved by the council. <br />Ms. Bettman inferred that the CIP was a planning document. City Manager Taylor replied that the CIl' was <br />a fmancial planning document. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson explained that because the CIP was a <br />planning document it was submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. He stated that <br />the City Council received two different recommendations, one from the Planning Commission and one <br />from the Budget Committee: He reiterated that the CIl' did not appropriate any money. He said staff tried <br />to make the first two years of the ClP as close to the actual projects that were planned for as possible <br />because this aided in charting the course of the budget. <br />Ms. Schaeffers asked how funding for collector street lighting was specifically used.. Mike Sullivan, <br />division manager for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department <br />(PDD), replied that part of the funding was used for new lighting and part was used for maintenance of <br />existing lighting. <br />Ms. Rygas commented that she supported consolidation of the two Phases of the new City Hall project in <br />the language of the CIP. She felt inclusion of two phases made the project. look like the planning for it was <br />much farther along than it actually was. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Kelly stated that the funding for traffic calming was <br />intended to be ongoing. <br />Mr. Mulligan indicated that he supported the amendment. He shared Mr. Kelly's concern regarding the <br />separation of the new City Hall project into two phases. He added that the budget was a planning <br />document and not a checkbook. <br />Ms. Taylor did not think it appropriate to discuss replacement of the City Hall. She asserted that the <br />Budget Committee should not vote upon a planning document. She did not want to vote on the building <br />without knowing where Phase 1 and Phase 2 were planned to be located. She added that she was not in <br />favor of traffic calming unless she knew what kind of traffic calming elements would be used. <br />Ms. Bettman asked what year the combinedphases of the City Hall wereprojected to be funded. Mr. Kelly <br />said 2009, adding that this was his best guess. <br />The motion to amend passed, 14:1.; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br />Mr. Mulligan asked the Budget Committee to consider the main motion. <br />Mr. Kelly said the CIP as a multi-year planning document and has value. Those reading it should be able <br />to tell whether it is a planning or a budget document. The format needs to change. Mr. Kelly suggested <br />putting some of the material in Patty Boyle's memo in the front of the document. In the future; the <br />document should more clearly state that it is fiscal and project planning, but it is at some level speculative <br />MIl~lUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 22, 2005 Page 3 <br />