City/County Road Partnership & Proposed County Capital Project Partnership

New Search

Some of these assumptions are tenuous. Nevertheless, if they all hold true, the Lane County Road Fund cash balance should be roughly $24 million at the end of FY06 (see attachments). This is in contrast to the negative balance that was forecast for FY04, prior to HR 2389. Assuming that the County will want at least a $3 to $4 million reserve to meet cash flow requirements for FY 06-07, the Board would have up to approximately $20 million that it could use to fund capital projects that are not now programmed. The capital project partnership could be established through our annual CIP process. We are scheduled to present the draft FY02-FY06 CIP to the Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) on January 24th. The draft will roll over projects from last year's CIP, but will leave the latter years under programmed. If the Board has an interest in the capital project partnership, the RAC could develop criteria for candidate partnership projects and present these to the public at its February hearing. The RAC could then select a priority list of candidate capital projects for inclusion in the FY02-FY06 CIP in March or April and send its recommendations to the Board for adoption with the CIP in May 2001. During the RAC process, the Board can review the Road Fund FinPlan and confirm, modify or reject the assumptions I used above. This will determine the amount of funds available for the capital partnership program. Key decisions will include, but not be limited to: 1. Determination of the set aside level for Title II and Title III projects. - ~ ~~ 'lam ~~r ~.~%l 2. Establishment of a prudent person reserve for the Road Fund at the end of 3. Identification of information technology and e-government needs to be funded from the Road Fund. ~~~'~"~'''" 4. Identification of desired service level increases for road maintenance activities. 5. Determination of whether to establish a set aside, or rate increase, to pay down the Road Fund share of outstanding PERS obligations. ~ 6. Determination of culvert replacement priorities to enhance fish passage. ~~:' ~ ~ ~`~'~~ ~ ~ ~`°'~` 7. Determination of other capital needs on the County system. In the event that the recommended project list from the RAC exceeds the funding the Board determines to be available, the Board could approve an abridged list. C. Options/Alternatives Direct RAC and staff, while preparing the FY02 to FY06 CIP, to develop guidelines and a list of candidate projects to be implemented under a capital project partnership program. 2. Develop another process to obligate the new funds. 3. Defer action until following the 2001 Legislative Session.