Budget Meeting Minutes 05/11/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

funding to preserve and maintain local streets and roads. He noted that the council had tried to adopt a funding mechanism for it. The transportation systems maintenance fee (TSMF) had not passed; the gasoline tax had been approved, but did not meet the need. He asked if it would be possible for staff to make a recommendation to take part of the $28 million set aside for new facilities and invest it in the streets without discontinuing the planning process for a new Public Safety building and City Hall. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the work session scheduled for the following day would focus on refming the ideas on how to move forward with the City Hall complex. He thought it would provide the council the opportunity to give staff direction that could end up providing clarity on how to move forward and in what manner the project should be phased. City Manager Taylor felt that the issue of pavement preservation had been considered in many venues, including committees and subcommittees and progress had been made in a variety of ways including the gas tax and Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA III) funding. He noted that councilors would be presenting recommendations to the Roads Advisory Council on February 23. He said this was a multi- year strategy that sought to address the backlog of projects. At the same time, he noted that some steady progress had been made to address facility needs, including the construction of new fire stations and the police evidence building. He stated that the last council action, part of the supplemental budget approved in December, had directed some funding toward addressing opportunities for a City Hall complex.. Mr. Pape asked how part of the $28 million placed toward the City Hall projects could be moved in another direction. City Manager Taylor replied that the City Council gave direction to staff to put the money into facilities projects and staff was following that direction. If the Council gives a different direction, then staff would follow it. Ms. Rygas said in order to vote for the CIP she wished to be assured that in two years the CII' would look different and be more comprehensible for the public. She suggested that a subcommittee of the Budget Committee be formed to review the CIP and make a recommendation on how it could be made more understandable. Mr. Carlson said the CII' contained a clear delineation between funded and unfunded projects. He asked what Ms. Rygas wished to do differently. Ms. Rygas clarified that she wanted the projects not to be mixed together. Mr. Carlson replied that. the funded projects were not mixed in with the unfunded projects in the current CIP. He underscored that the projects that were funded were in completely separate tables than those not yet funded. o Ms. Rygas agreed that all of the information was in the document but opined that it took many hours of reading to discern which projects were funded. She thought the CIP could be crafted in such a way that it would not be so labor intensive to understand it. Ms. Bettman averred that without a motion staff would not follow through. She commented that during the last meeting the committee had asked for a worksheet that delineated what was an authorized project and what was not. She said this worksheet was not in the committee's packet. She recommended that Ms. Rygas put her suggestion into a motion. Continuing, Ms. Bettman said she did not understand how a project like the Monroe-Friendly Bikepath could be funded but not built, and not be shown in the CIP or in the budget. She asked why the $250,000 allocated to a project did not carry over. Mr. Schoening responded that it did carry over. He pointed out that there was a table of previously funded projects that were not yet constructed in the CIP. City Manager Taylor elaborated, stating that funding for a project was either carried forward if it was not yet undertaken or encumbered if it had been initiated. MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 22, 2005 Page 6