01/20/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Ms. Schue stated that she needs more clarification from staff as to what they are being requested to do with regard to the Capital Improvement Program. She thought the decision would be based on what would be desirable for funding, and priorities would then be established for how and when. Mr. Gleason responded that that is correct. The budget process is the arena where this will be done. He is sorry staff did not make it clear. Staff did not have the authority to make recommendations; that is up to the Budget Committee. The Revenue Committee will have to examine this issue; the Budget Committee will prioritize the pro- jects. Each budget year, it will be determined what can be afforded. Ms. Schue stated that she thinks it will be valuable for the council to indicate to the public their recognition of the needs. The council must talk more about the revenue aspect, though. Ms. Wooten indicated agreement, but noted it is diffi- cult to adopt a plan without any priorities. Ms. Schue reaffirmed that the council would only be stating what is desirable and then the problem is to determine how it can be done. Ms. Wooten stated that not having the "hows" is what worries her. Mr. Gleason added that the Capital Improvement Plan has received input from many sources. It has a planning tool, but there is no authorization inherent in the development of the plan to proceed. This planning element and the authorization element happen to coincide this January. The council could 1) adopt the plan as a planning document and send it to the Budget Committee for prioritization; or 2) they could pass the entire document to the Budget Committee and in that context, work through the document, initially establishing this year's priorities and then going on to the next year's. Mr. Lindberg asked if this would be a planning document for 1982-92 rather than for 1981-91. Mr. Gleason responded that that is correct. Mr. Lindberg stated that this fills the planning need. Ms. Smith stated that this plan should be addressed at the Budget Committee level, but if the document goes to the Budget Committee, she asked if there would be a timing problem. Mr. Gleason responded that there would not, with the exception of the sewer trunk lines and the decision regarding the 911 program. Ms. Smith stated that the responsibility for the total document except for the sewer and the 911 projects should then go to the Budget Committee. She would support the Budget Commmittee review and recommendation. Ms. Wooten noted agreement, but she assumes the council, as part of the Budget Committee, will be looking at a reduced plan since it is not possible to finance $47 million worth of projects. Ms. Schue stated that when they are talking about adopting the CIP, there are recommendations from staff and the Planning Commission. She asked how these will fit in. Mr. Gleason stated that the Planning Commission and staff recommendations are to include some items and to prioritize the rest. The executed document is the budget and the planning document is the CIP. The CIP leads to the budget document. The CIP could be adopted as is, or council could say it is blurred and send it to the Budget Committee and have them prioritize and adopt the CIP in smaller portions. Then, the City Council could deal with the long-term planning document next year. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 20, 1982 Page 7