HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - Capital Improv.ProgramEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: FY06-FY11 Draft Capital Improvement Program
Meeting Date: March 7, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 4
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Patty Boyle
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8417
ISSUE STATEMENT
This item is a request for the council to take action on the Draft FY06 - FY11 Capital
Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a planning document that forecasts the City's capital
needs over a six-year period based on various City-adopted, long-range plans, goals and policies.
The Capital Improvement Program for the Airport, Parks and Open Space, Public Buildings and
Facilities, Stormwater, Transportation and Wastewater totals approximately $387 million in
funded and unfunded projects. The Funding Overview on pages 11-14 of the document contains
tables summarizing all CIP projects in the plan and a two-year funding summary.
The goals of the CIP are to:
· Provide a balanced program for capital improvements given anticipated revenues over a
six-year planning period;
· Illustrate unmet capital needs which are beyond the capacity of anticipated funding
levels, and;
· Provide a plan for capital improvements which can be used in preparing the capital
budgets for the coming two fiscal years.
The underlying strategy of the CIP is to plan for land acquisition, construction, and major
preservation of public facilities necessary for the safe and efficient provision of services. A
critical element of a balanced CIP is the provision of funds to preserve or enhance existing
facilities and provide new assets that will aid response to service needs and community growth.
Funded Projects
As drafted, projects with identified funding in this CIP total approximately $156 million. Nearly
$54 million of anticipated spending on transportation projects represents the largest portion of
the CIP, including close to $12 million for construction of the Patterson Street Underpass.
The Airport is expecting to complete significant improvements during the CIP period totaling
almost $18 million. The FY06 program includes paving preservation, installing an emergency
generator at the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Station, and replacing the HVAC system in
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
the terminal. In future years, expected projects include a de-icing collection system and
expansion of the terminal building.
Major projects are also anticipated over the next six years in the Public Buildings and Facilities
category. The approximately $51 million of funded projects in this category are mainly for
preservation and maintenance of existing City facilities and Phase 1 of the City Hall replacement
projects. The Budget Committee has recommended that Phase 1 of City Hall Replacement be
combined with Phase 2 and reflected as an unfunded project in FY09.
The City's wastewater system is scheduled for almost $12.5 million of improvements in the next
few years. Included in these improvements is $8.5 million to preserve and rehabilitate the aging
wastewater system, decrease inflow and infiltration and address increased wet weather flows.
Over $7 million of improvements to the stormwater system are planned in this CIP. The
restoration effort includes a partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other metro
agencies to complete projects that may include restoration of portions of Amazon Creek and
salmon habitat restoration. Also included are restoration and enhancement of the wetlands in
West Eugene.
Finally, the Parks and Open Space program is anticipating about $13 million of improvements
during the CIP period. Because the Draft Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive
Plan is still being reviewed, the CIP does not include any unfunded projects. The complete list
of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space CIP projects will be included in future CIP documents.
Unfunded Projects
Also included in the CIP are projects totaling $227 million for which funding has not been
identified. As drafted, the Public Buildings and Facilities category includes $131 million of
these unfunded projects. The largest project in this category is the consolidation of general City
services in Phase 2 of City Hall Replacement. If the council accepts the Budget Committee's
recommendation to combine the City Hall replacement projects, the amount of unfunded projects
will increase by approximately $29 million.
Transportation projects continue to reflect significant need for additional funding. The CIP
includes approximately $67 million of unfunded projects that would upgrade and enhance
capacity and preserve and maintain existing assets, as well as build new bike paths, collectors
and other improvements. The Stormwater and Wastewater categories identified a total of
approximately $29 million of unfunded projects.
CIP Development and Review
During the summer and early fall of even numbered years, staff compiles the Draft CIP using
input and requests from a variety of sources, including neighborhood groups, individual citizens,
adopted plans and policies, etc.
On December 13, 2004, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Draft CIP. Staff
responded to questions from commissioners regarding projects at the Airport, the proposed
Patterson Street Underpass, the location of the proposed replacement of City Hall and the status
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
of a variety of transportation projects. Commissioners were also interested in the on-going
discussion regarding the acquisition of land to develop a community park in the Santa Clara area.
On December 14, 2004, three members of the public spoke at a public hearing held by the
Planning Commission. In addition, three pieces of written testimony were received by the
Planning Commission and have been included with this material as Attachment A.
On January 10, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend that the
council adopt the Draft CIP with the following amendments.
· Move projects including traffic-calming, residential street lighting, residential street trees,
access ramps and mixed-use pedestrian amenities from the unfunded category to the
funded category of the transportation section. (The Planning Commission did not
identify a funding source.)
· Reinstitute the neighborhood needs analysis process in the next CIP process.
The Planning Commission also asked that the council pay close attention to the long held goals
of the City while reviewing the CIP and to acknowledge that not all of the projects in the Draft
CIP were completely through the deliberation process.
On February 7 and February 22, the Budget Committee reviewed the draft CIP. While the
committee did not conduct a formal public hearing, at those meetings two individuals provided
testimony indicating projects they supported and those they did not support (Attachment A).
They also expressed concern regarding funding for capital projects ahead of other City needs.
On February 22, the Budget Committee recommended that the council adopt the Draft CIP with
the staff recommended changes (Attachment B) and the following additional amendments:
· Combine City Hall Phase 1 and Phase 2 into a single, unfunded project in FY09.
· Restore $30,000 in General Funds for traffic calming in each of the six years of the CIP.
· Increase the funding for Street Lighting (Arterials and Collectors) by $30,000 and reduce
the funding for Transportation Services for New Development by a like amount.
The Budget Committee also deliberated over the formatting of the draft CIP document and
debated the future uses of the document as a planning and budgeting tool. The Budget
Committee agreed to form a subcommittee to develop formatting recommendations for the next
iteration of the CIP that would improve communication with policy makers and citizens and
would increase their understanding of project choices.
On February 28, the council held a public hearing on the draft CIP where one person provided
testimony identifying projects that he did not support and expressed concern regarding the
opportunities for the public to provide input on the Draft CIP (Attachment A).
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The City's Financial Management Goals and Policies include a goal to have a capital
improvement program that adequately maintains and enhances the public's assets over their
useful life. In part, the policies state that the City will plan for capital improvements over a
multi-year period and the projects will directly relate to the long-range plans and policies of the
City.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
There are three options, should the council choose to take action on this item at this time:
1. The council may choose to adopt the FY06-FY11 CIP incorporating the recommendations of
the Planning Commission, Budget Committee and/or staff.
2. The council may choose to further amend the CIP by identifying changes in the projects and
funding sources and subsequently adopt the FY06-FY11 CIP.
3. The council may choose not to adopt the FY06-FY11 CIP.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council adopt the FY06-FY11 CIP including the recom-
mended amendments of the Budget Committee and staff.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt the FY06-FY11 Capital Improvement Program incorporating the recommendations
forwarded by the Budget Committee and staff.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Testimony regarding the CIP received by the Planning Commission, Budget Committee, and
the City Council
B. Staff recommended changes to the CIP
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Patty Boyle
Telephone: 682-8417
Staff E-Mail: Patricia. A.Boyle~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Testimony regarding the CIP received by the
Planning Commission, Budget Committee, and the City Council.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Written testimony regarding the CIP received by the Planning Commission
1350 Lawrence #1
Eugene, OR 97401
5 January 2005
Eugene Planning Commission
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene OR 97401
Re: Draft Capital Improvement Plan
Commissioners
Before ! comment on the Draft CIP ! would like to suggest a change in the procedure
followed in developing the CIP. Years ago annually each neighborhood submitted a
Neighborhood Needs Request. As its name implies, this document was a list of those things that
the neighborhood felt it needed or wanted. Over the years the list submitted by the Jefferson
Area Neighbors (now part of Jefferson Westside Neighbors included requests for a pedestrian
overpass across 18th Avenue (which was constructed after several years on the list), a swimming
pool (never constructed despite being requested for years) traffic calming, street trees, traffic
signals, sidewalk ramps and pedestrian refuges. These requests were merged by Neighborhood
Services and then distributed by them to the appropriate city departments to be considered when
they developed their part of the CIP.
Given declining public resources, ! believe it is time to reimplement the Neighborhood
Needs Request program. By doing so City Staff would have an indication of the projects the
residents of Eugene consider important. Hopefully the City Staff would develop a CIP that the
public would support.
Capital Improvement Program
As ! have bi-annually for too many years, ! will start my comments by requesting that the
Neighborwoods (street trees), street lights, sidewalk ramp and traffic calming programs be fully
funded. ! am at a loss to understand why every draft CIP lists these as unfunded while the
adopted CIP provides funding. As the amount of traffic in Eugene increases the need for these
programs also increases.
As a frequent pedestrian ! am fully aware of the need for the proper lighting of our streets
to provide increased safety and security (as well as making flooded sidewalks visible at night).
A the son of an elderly parent ! understand the need for sidewalk ramps at every street
crossing. The absence of these ramps converts our streets into impassable obstacles.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
As any regular driver knows, traffic in Eugene often exceeds the speed limit, particularly on
residential streets. The use of properly placed Traffic calming devices can go a long way towards
slowing traffic to safe levels. The $30,000 funding level indicated on the unfunded list is totally
inadequate to meet the communities current traffic calming needs. When I calculated, for the last CIP,
the date of completion of the then listed traffic calming projects, the result was around the year 2300 and
that assumed that no new projects were to be added. As the typical project is $75-100,000, a funding
level of $100,000 would be more reasonable.
The Neighborwoods Program is one of Eugene's great successes. In addition to getting street
trees planted in a most economical manner it also provides for a positive neighborhood and community
building experience.
Street Maintenance Shortfall
While street maintenance is not a capital project, due to a lack of maintenance the condition of too many
streets are reaching the point that they will need to be reconstructed. For that reason I propose that the
construction of all new road projects as well as all capacity increasing projects be pushed back two
years. And that all road fund and general fund dollars allocated to these projects be devoted to street
maintenance. Doing so will accomplish a number of things, first and most important it will get streets
fixed. Second, it will show that the city is serious about getting its streets fixed and is not just using the
repair back log as a reason for new and increased taxes.
Patterson Street Underpass
This project should be limited to doing site investigation and preliminary design work, leaving
construction funding till more accurate cost figures are available. As the proposed route includes
relocation would require moving the electrical substation which provides power to the downtown area,
the relocation of the steam generator providing heat to many downtown buildings (including Sacred
Heart Hospital) and a major capped toxic site I believe the 15 million dollar figure is likely to be low.
Additionally while Triad has indicated an interest in the EWEB site, they are yet to sign any form of
purchase agreement on the property. And as this project is only defensible if a hospital is constructed on
that site. Including this project on the list is premature at best.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration my comments on this most important of
documents.
Sincerely
/S/
David Hinkley
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
..... Original Message .....
From: Kevin Matthews [mailto:matthews@artifice.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 4:59 PM
To: Susan Muir
Subject: Comments on Draft CIP
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o Susan Muir, Planning Director
City of Eugene
2005.0105
Dear Eugene Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for the extension of time for submission of written testimony regarding
the City of Eugene Draft FY2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) .
Unfortunately the unexpected event of an emergency MPC meeting to consider the
2005-2007 MTIP demanded a large amount of vacation-time political energy, and we
are still working through questions and research regarding the 188 page CIP
document. Nonetheless, here are a few more thoughts I hope you may consider.
"Projects with identified funding in this CIP total approximately $156 million.
Nearly $54 million of anticipated spending on Transportation projects represents
the largest portion of the CIP, including close to $12 million to construct an
underpass on Patterson Street."
As far as I know, neither you nor anyone else has seen even a conceptual plan for
this 800-foot-plus "Patterson Trench". It has not been through any kind of
reasonable public review and comment. Its construction would fly (or thud) in the
face of every existing community plan and goal for the priceless downtown
riverfront area.
And the Patterson Trench would serve a project whose fate is uncertain at best, in
light of the recent court findings in Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, which
denied and remanded sweeping attempts to add hospital uses to many zones where
prohibited by the Metro Plan.
Latest rumors suggest the Patterson Trench would force demolition of the historic
steam plant building, an elegant art deco building and the only significant
remaining symbol of industry in the rapidly-sanitizing cannery district.
Relocation of the steam plant itself (perhaps 10-12 million dollars), and the major
substation adjacent (perhaps a couple of million more), would highlight
skyrocketing costs of a really inadequately vetted project.
While almost any acquisition to truly protect key riparian areas would be favorably
recieved, is it really appropriate to use limited storm-water funds as part of the
subsidy for the Triad hospital deal?
The sources of funds for the ill-conceived public safety and city hall projects
should be described and accounted for in more detail. Have you considered the
potential alternative applications of those funds to other community priorities?
Even if paid for by outside sources, airport road building has environmental
impacts and may promote sprawl. Are all the airport expansion projects really
appropriate in the current economic climate?
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Isn't the Royal Node in fact an anti-node, given that increasing density
substantially out at the UGB edge will actually increase VMT, contrary to the
fundamental goals of the nodal development program? We are opposed to budgeting
any projects to subsidize or support Royal Node development until the focus,
intent, and direction of the nodal development program are adequately clarified.
In review of the CIP to date, I did not find mention of $950,000 widely promoted to
be spent as part of a UGB expansion and land exchange.
What other expected capital projects, and what other potential funding sources and
are not visible in this CIP?
What is your standard of review, as planning commissioners, for approving the draft
CIP?
Respectfully,
Kevin Matthews
President
Friends of Eugene
Friends of Eugene grows with your membership and support!
http://www. FriendsofEugene.org
Citizens State of the City 2005
12:00 to l:00pm on January 10, 2005
Eugene Public Library, Bascom Room
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
-~ ~r'~ ~ ~r~ 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204. (503) 497-1000. fax (503) 223-0073. www.friends.org
FRIENDS Southern Oregon office. P.O. Box 2442. Grants Pass, OR 97528. phone/fax (541) 474-1155
OF OREGON Willamette Valley Office · 388 State Street, Suite 604 · Salem, OR 97301 · (503) 371-7261 · fax (503) 371-7596 Lane County Office · 1192 Lawrence. Eugene, OR 97401 · (541) 431-7059 · fax (541) 431-7078
Central Oregon Office · P.O. Box 8813 · Bend, OR 97708 · (541) 382-7557 · fax (541) 382-7552
January 5, 2005
Eugene Planning Commission
99 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
Commissioners:
Thank you for extending the period for comments on the city's adopted draft of the FY 2007 - 2011
CIP. ! have spent only a brief amount of time reviewing the draft, but my initial impression is that it is
difficult to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the how the multitude of proposed projects are
funded (where is available funding coming from) and how funding sources have been determined.
For example, the Parks and Open Space funded project list includes a project, 'lNillamette River
Riparian c:orridor Acquisition' that indicates that the funding source is 'unknown.' Yet, within the
P&OS section, this project is indicated to be part of the 'C:SINI~lP, l~ugene Downtown Plan.' Two
questions come to mind: First, how can a funded project have an unknown funding source, and
secondly, how appropriate is it to consider the mainstem of the Willamette as a stormwater masterplan
related project?
! also have questions about the Transportation section. One project, the Patterson Street Underpass, is
not even part of any Plan, yet it is indicated to be fully funded and planned to be constructed and
completed in 2006. Is this a wish, or has the funding source and dollar amount really been established?
And what about the project 'Pedestrian Improvements at Bus Stops', which indicates that ten
(10) pedestrian islands on bus routes in Eugene will provide better access to bus stops for those who
must cross busy streets in Eugene. Doesn't the public get to have any information on what those 10 bus
stops are, and what Plan are these projects imbedded in, and why is LTD's share of the cost equal to city
of Eugene costs? Shouldn't LTD pay up for these types of safety improvements?
One also should wonder about the availability of Lane County monies for the $1,400,000 worth of
pavement and preservation projects. According to the Lane County public works director, it is very
unlikely that without reauthorization of legislation that directs Rural Schools funding to counties,
County Road Fund monies will continue to be available to Eugene (and Springfield) for these kinds of
needs. In fact, Lane County's public works director had not yet spoken to the city managers about this
issue as of the Wednesday before Christmas. Please ask that staff look into this issue and provide you
with an update prior to your approval of the draft CIP.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Thank you for taking the time to review these initial comments. During the next several weeks I hope to
have more time to review the CIP and to offer more comprehensive (and coherent) comments.
Lauri Segel
Lane County Planning Advocate
1000 Friends of Oregon
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Budget Committee Public Testimony on the Capital Improvement Program
February 7, 2005
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, wished to address the public buildings and facilities list. He asserted
that money from the settlement of the lawsuit with Qwest was never intended for public buildings. He
opined it was unwise to spend the money when the litigation with the Eugene Police Department (EPD)
was still unresolved.
February 22, 2005
Rob Handy, 455 lA River Road, asked whether the Airport projects were appropriate given the current
economic climate. He recommended the parks projects and asked that the City consider extending the
bike path north through Santa Clara to connect with the boat landings along the Willamette River. He
opined that the City Hall Replacement Project was premature and that a broader community process was
required before prioritizing it among other choices. He praised the Stormwater program, but said the
Transportation projects were premature and required more extensive public review. He also
recommended pedestrian improvements and requested funding for traffic calming projects.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, spoke about the wisdom of using resources to build a Public Safety
Building and City Hall when the City is faced with potentially large lawsuits. He also expressed
concern regarding the extent to which the City is leveraging debt and wondered whether investments
today would pay off in the future. He said the City is leveraging funds it does not have and that further
increasing taxes, such as adding cents to the gas tax, sends the wrong message to citizens.
City Council Public Testimony on the Capital Improvement Program
Keviu Matthews, representing 1000 Friends of Eugene and the SE Neighborhood Association,
acknowledged that while most projects in the CIP do come from long range plans, some come up
suddenly. He felt that the public does not understand this program and that is why there was no other
public testimony. Mr. Matthews identified the projects that were not supported by 1000 Friends of
Eugene and/or the SE Neighborhood Association and indicated that the limited parks resources should
be reallocated to the acquisition of parkland from park development.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Written communication to the City Council
..... Original IVlessage .....
From: Kat & Bill [mailto:rancholoco@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:31 PlY1
To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us; kitty.m.murdoch@ci.eugene.or.us
Subject: CTP Comments
Dear Mayor Piercy, City Councilors and Budget Committee:
I have a few comments on the draft Capital Improvement Program(CIP):
-Important projects like traffic calming, open space acquisition, and bike
paths are under funded.
-Filbert Meadows, Rosetta Place, Delta Ponds and Willamette River Riparian
Corridor acquisition are good Parks and Open Space projects. More parks please!
-Support pedestrian island improvements at bus stops. On River Road, it is about 3/4 of a mile from the
Chambers Connector to Park Avenue. Ever tried to get across on foot or bike in that area at 4:30p.m.?
Thanks for your time,
Kathleen Allison
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Recommended Changes to the Draft FY06-FY11 Capital Improvement Program
Staff Recommends that the Draft CIP be modified to reflect the changes described in the following
table.
Meeting Section/Project Title Draft FY06- FYll CIP
Date
2/7/2005 Airport - Airport Add this project to the map of previously approved but not
Road Realignment constructed projects to reflect Council supplemental budget
action.
2/7/2005 Airport - Construct Delete this project from the list of previously approved
Parallel Runway Airport projects. Parallel Runway Phase Five is the correct
title of the project and is currently included in the list.
2/7/2005 Public Buildings and This project should be deleted as it no longer required.
Facilities -Lincoln
Yard Storage Facility
2/7/2005 Stormwater - Sam R Modify text and maps to read Sam Reynolds St.
St. Water Quality
Facility
2/7/2005 Transportation - Update the description of the project to describe the
Berntzen Rd. Royal benefits that completing this project will have on the
Ave to Elmira Rd. delivery of fire services.
2/7/2005 Transportation - Bike This project should be added to funded projects planned
Path - West Bank for FY10. The project will receive 90% of its funding
Pathway from Federal sources and 10% from transportation systems
development charges.
2/7/2005 Transportation - The project should be changed from funded to unfunded.
Delta Ponds Bike The project could be constructed in conjunction with the
Path Corps of Engineers Delta Ponds restoration project if the
funds for the project become available.
2/7/2005 Transportation - Bike This project should be deleted as it duplicative with the
Path / Millrace (C) funded Bike Path / South Bank Trail project.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Meeting Section/Project Title Draft FY06- FYll CIP
Date
2/7/2005 Transportation - Reduce the URA-RRP funding from $11,913,000 to
Patterson St. $11,413,000 to reflect Council supplemental budget action.
Underpass
2/7/2005 Transportation - The description of this project should be updated to clarify
Roosevelt Extension that this funding is for design and construction of the
project.
2/7/2005 Transportation - Change the project from unfunded to funded for the six
Sidewalk Access years of the CIP. The project has traditionally been funded
Ramps with Community Development Block Grant money and
this is anticipated to continue.
2/7/2005 Transportation - Change the project from unfunded to funded for the six
Street Tree Stocking years of the CIP. Residential street trees are planted
and Planting Program through the NeighborWoods Program and are funded by
the Stormwater Fund.
2/7/2005 Wastewater - Update text to reflect that the needed funds are net of the
Community Sewers 12% anticipated increase in wastewater utility fees.
Rehabilitation
(Unfunded)
2/22/2005 Pubic Buildings and Modify funding to indicate that the project is currently
Facilities - City Hall unfunded.
Replacement Phase 1
2/22/2005 Transportation - The following projects should be included on the Site
Various Projects Specific CIP Projects (2006-2011) Transportation Map.
Game Farm Road from City Limits to I-5, Bertelsen Road
(1 8th -- Bailey Hill)
2/22/2005 Transporation - The following projects should be included on the
Various Projects Transportation Map as CIP projects previously funded but
not currently constructed. Courthouse Area Improvements,
3rd-4th Connector, Monroe Street/Friendly Street Bikeway,
Fern Ridge - Chambers to City View, North Bank Trail,
Greenway Bridge to 1500' east of I105, and River Ave.
2/22/2005 Transportation - Modify the funded and unfunded portions of the pavement
Pavement preservation projects based on a recent temporary increase
Preservation Projects in the Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers Tax, changes in
anticipated OTIA III funding and the updated fund
forecast.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc
Pavement Preservation Program (Funded Portion, Changes to the table on pg. 134 - 135)
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FYI 1
Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update
Lane County
(OTIA lll) 700 505 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation
Utility Fund 2,010 3,395 2,010 3,400 2,010 3,150 2,010 2,200 2,010 2,200 2,010 2,200
Transportation
SDC 570 570 580 580 600 600 610 610 630 630 650 650
Total 3,280 4,470 3,290 3,980 2,610 3,750 2,620 2,810 2,640 2,830 2,660 2,850
All numbers are in thousands.
Pavement Preservation Program (Unfunded Portion, Changes to the table on pg. 145)
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update Draft Update
Pavement
Preservation 4,500 4,520 4,500 4,750 4,500 5,690 4,500 5,670 4,500 5,650
Program
All numbers are in thousands.
Staff also intends to correct a number of minor text and formatting errors.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc