New Search
addressed. He emphasized that most of the projects in the CIP were fairly large complicated projects that <br />staffwould work on over time. He explained that some projects required cooperation with the State and <br />Federal governments, some had combined funding from different government partners that required <br />coordination, or some projects had to be coordinated under multiple facets, such as accomplishing a <br />stormwater prof ect while also constructing a road: He underscored that adoption of the CIP did not <br />commit the City to the projects, but it did provide direction to staff to begin development of proj ects over <br />time. He thought atwo-year CIP would accomplish some goals, but would shortchange staff development <br />of the larger projects. <br />Mr. Peters, seconded by Ms. Rygas, moved to allow Mr. Pape a minute to <br />complete his line of questioning. The motion passed unanimously. <br />Mr. Pape asked if staff paid more attention to funded projects than unfunded projects in the years beyond <br />the first two years of the CIP. Mr. Carlson responded that staff absolutely did. He added that staff could be <br />working on trying to fmd the funding for a project, but would not work on the project delivery itself. <br />Ms. Rygas indicated she would make a motion to form a subcommittee to review and improve the <br />readability of the CIP. She expressed concern that there was not enough time for the Budget Committee to <br />review the CIP. <br />Ms. Bettman concurred. She said it was not so much that it was difficult for the Budget Committee to read <br />and understand the CIP. She felt the public saw projects progranuned out in actual fiscal years, whether <br />the projects were funded or not. She thought this made the projects "very much a part of the program." <br />She suggested printing the document in two colors and that unfunded items would come back for scrutiny <br />before moving up in the CIP. <br />Mr. McDonald asked what would happen to money allocated to a project approved for FY05 if the project <br />was removed. Mr. Carlson replied that this depended on where funding for a project was coming from. <br />He cited, as an example, that removal of the Monroe/FriendlyBfkeway from projects approved in FY05 <br />would return the federal funding to the Metropolitan Policy Committee which would then reallocate the <br />money to another project on its prioritized list of projects and, most likely, this funding would go to <br />another municipality. City Manager Taylor said SDC funding assessed through an LID could be removed <br />and the funding would be returned to the SDC fund and be reprioritized. <br />Mr. McDonald asked how a dramatic increase in costs for a proj ect would be dealt with. Mr. Schoening <br />replied that staff, if faced with a substantial increase,. would return to the City Council with a supplemental <br />budget that would increase the allocation from the same source that the fiuiding had originally come from. <br />Mr. Mulligan called for the vote on the main motion. <br />The motion passed, 12:3; Mr. Pape, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Rygas voting in <br />opposition. <br />Ms. Rygas, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to create a budget subcommittee <br />charged with reviewing the Capital Improvement Program document and making <br />recommendations as to how it could be formatted to improve public <br />understanding. <br />Ms. Solomon arrived at 6:48 p.m. <br />MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee February 22, 2005. Page 8 <br />