Budget Meeting Minutes 05/11/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

Ms. Bettman asked if it would be more appropriate to make a motion to defund a project during this part of the process or whether it should be made when the Capital Budget was being considered. Mr. Carlson stated that it would not be an amendment to the C1P. He said she was really talking about amending the FY05 budget and this would take a supplemental budget action or a direct motion by the City Council to stop action on a project. Ms. Bettman reiterated her query as to why this project would remain in the existing budget if it was not complete and the. money was yet unspent. She felt it should be possible to strike it from the CIP. Mr. Carlson clarified that exactly when a contract was let to initiate construction was separate from the authorization to proceed. Because~of this, he stated that it would take a council action to stop the project from moving forward. He underscored that the Budget Committee had taken its action two years earlier and the project had been included in the FY05 adopted budget. He repeated that the project was not in the proposed CIP. Ms. Bettman alleged that some projects that were funded and not yet~constructed had "disappeared" from the CIP. Mr. Carlson stated that the CII' had been done the same way for many years. He pointed out that the Park and Open Space Division bond projects were all in an adopted budget and then were carried forward and did not appear in a CIP again. He noted that some park projects in the bond measure that were not yet constructed were listed in the CIP, but were shown as previously funded projects appearing only for informational purposes only. The decisions on those projects had akeady been made. Mr. Mulligan noted that the Budget Committee had requested and received a copy of the "wish list" of projects that had not made the cut but needed to be dealt with. He appreciated the work that staff had done to respond to the request. He thought the document seemed relatively clear, though he acknowledged this could be subject to interpretation. He reminded the Budget Committee that staff had put in the unfunded information at the Committee's request. Mr. Peters remarked that he had not had any difficulty discerning funded from unfunded projects. He agreed that there was a small amount of ambiguity as. to where the funds for some projects were anticipated to come from, but he was able to clearly understand which projects were funded. Mr. Mulligan asked for a motion to extend to a third round. Mr. Pape, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion to a third round. The motion passed, 14:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Mr. Pape asked if there was any benefit to indicating that every project beyond two years was as yet unfunded. City Manager Taylor did not think this would be an improvement to the current format. He did not have any problem with a change to make the CIP more readable to the public, however this could be determined. He added that the format was not much different from the CIP presented two years earlier. Mr. Carlson said many of the projects did take years to develop and ultimately to implement and the purpose of the CIP was to provide staff some direction. He underscored that should the Budget Committee as a group not like a project in the CIP, this was the time to remove.it. If the committee did not like the funding source, then it should change it. He stated that, while staff would not focus as much time on a project slated for FY09 at this point as it would on a project planned for FY07, the underpinnings for such projects were being undertaken such as informing neighborhood groups that a project was in the CIP and was coming up or beginning to work with the County if there were coordination issues that needed to be MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 22, 2005 Page 7