Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: FY08-FY13 Draft Capital Improvement Program ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Public Hearing: FY08-FY13 Draft Capital Improvement Program Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Central Services Staff Contact: John Huberd www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5386 ISSUE STATEMENT This item is a request for the council to conduct a public hearing on the Draft FY08 – FY13 Capital Improvement Program to be held on February 20, 2007, with action to adopt the CIP scheduled to be taken on February 26, 2007. BACKGROUND The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 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 $177 million in “funding identified” and “funding secured” projects. The Funding Overview on pages 31 through 48 contains tables summarizing all CIP projects in the plan. 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 based on anticipated funding levels, and; ? Provide a plan for capital improvements which can be used in preparing the Capital Budget 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. This CIP has been updated in accordance with the Budget Committee recommendations on reformatting the document. The Executive Summary on pages 1–3 presents an overview of the CIP. The Reader’s Guide on pages 5 -11 details the document structure, changes to the document, and outlines the CIP process and public input opportunities. Next is a new Financial Summary section which provides a view of the funding sources for the projects. The Airport through Wastewater sections contain individual project pages providing detailed narrative and funding information. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702201.doc Funded Projects Municipal Airport continues to have a fully funded capital program with $33 million in funded projects. Projects are funded by the FAA, Passenger Facility Charges and excess operating revenues. With limited exceptions the projects are from the Airport Master Plan and/or the FAA and State five-year plans. The Airport’s projects include pavement preservation, a new de-icing collection system and expanding air cargo handling capacity. Parks and Open Space is the largest category in this CIP at $51 million over the six-year planning horizon. Neighborhood and community park acquisition and development projects account for over $39 million of the Parks and Open Space projects. The recently approved parks bond will fund $26 million in park and open space projects over the next six years. Public Buildings and Facilities has $22 million in funded projects, including $16 million allocated to preservation and maintenance. The Facilities section contains a discussion in the CIP on deferred maintenance and expected deficiencies. The placeholder list of facilities projects does include the City Hall Replacement project in the amount of $130 million. Stormwater is planning to invest $13 million on improvements in this CIP. Restoration efforts include partnerships with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other metro agencies to that may include restoration of portions of Amazon Creek and salmon habitat. Also included are restoration and enhancement of the wetlands in West Eugene and ongoing stream corridor acquisition. Transportation is the second largest category with just over $40 million in proposed projects. Pavement preservation accounts for over $20 million over the next six years in this category. Other significant projects include the Delta Ponds Overpass and the Chad Drive Extension. Smaller projects include street lighting, traffic calming, and installation of accessible pedestrian signals. Wastewater has listed four ongoing generic projects totaling $16 million. The majority of the cost, $11.8 million, preserves and rehabilitates the aging wastewater system, decreases inflow and infiltration and addresses increased wet weather flows. The remainder is for services for new development. Projects with Funding Not Identified and Placeholder Projects The CIP contains projects totaling $67 million for which funding has not been identified. The Public Buildings and Facilities category includes $46 million of these unfunded projects. The largest projects in this category are the Willow Creek/Churchill Aquatic and Community Center project at $14 million, the Fleet Maintenance Facility project at $12 million, and the Deferred Maintenance project at $9 million. Placeholder projects are large scale projects in the initial planning phase awaiting further review and direction from the community and the City Council. The City Hall Renovation or Replacement project at $130 million is the largest placeholder project. A complete list of all placeholder projects is on page 35. CIP Development and Review Neighborhood Leaders Council On September 26, 2006, staff attended the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) meeting to discuss opportunities for public comment on the Draft Capital Improvement Program. Staff also asked for, and was granted, the NLC’s support for including neighborhood specific CIP articles in neighborhood L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702201.doc newsletters informing citizens about local proposed projects and asking for their input. Neighborhood- specific articles have been sent to each neighborhood newsletter editor with the request that they be included in their December-February editions. The Draft CIP was published and made available to the public in early November. In addition to posting the CIP to the City’s web page and distributing the document to various public locations and interested parties, a copy of the CIP was sent to the chairperson of each neighborhood association along with an offer to make a presentation at any upcoming neighborhood meeting. Citizen Members of the Budget Committee Review On November 8, 2006, staff gave an informational presentation of the Draft CIP to the citizen members of the Budget Committee. The members gave favorable comments on the new document format. They also discussed how new projects are added into the CIP and how public input affects project selection. Specific questions were asked including the timing of park and open space acquisitions and the funding source for the City Hall Complex placeholder project. An excerpt of the draft minutes of the meeting is included as Attachment A. Planning Commission On December 11 and 12, the Planning Commission held a work session and a public hearing on the Draft CIP. The commission discussed the citizen involvement process, asked specific questions on Ridgeline Trail acquisitions, the funding status for the Courthouse District Plan, and the need for the Elmira Road Project. Upon completion of the discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to the council to approve the CIP without further amendments. An excerpt of the draft minutes of the meetings is included as Attachment B. Budget Committee Review Public Comment - On February 7, 2007 the Budget Committee met to review the CIP. The Committee received public comments from six citizens regarding CIP projects. Mike James, Lisa Warnes, and Robert Olsen expressed concerns about the Dillard Road project. ? Those concerns included the underlying geologic stability of the area, the impact on the environment, and the City’s process in reviewing this project. Arnold Hultberg commented on the Jeppesen Acres Road project and urged that traffic-calming ? improvements be added to the project. He submitted a petition signed by 54 residents who reside along Jeppesen Acres Road supporting traffic-calming efforts (See Attachment C). Rob Handy requested that the committee provide more funding for traffic-calming and street ? trees projects. He also suggested more work needs to be done on the River Road annexation process. David Hinkley commended the Budget Committee on its past efforts on traffic-calming and ? street trees. He asked that the City stop developing new roads until a solution can be found for the current transportation maintenance backlog. All citizen input received during the CIP update process will be summarized in the materials provided to City Council and incorporated in the Adopted CIP. A compilation of the public input received to date on the CIP has been included as Attachment C. Budget Committee Deliberations – The committee’s discussion included comments on the backlog of traffic-calming projects, the Roosevelt Boulevard – Legacy Street project, the Dillard Road project, and L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702201.doc getting community feedback for future capital needs via a neighborhood survey or needs assessment. The committee passed a motion to schedule a second meeting on February 20, 2007, to complete the recommendation. Projects New to the CIP A list of new projects that have not been in prior CIP documents is included as Attachment D. Roosevelt Boulevard Development per Council Direction During the December 13, 2006, City Council work session, the council directed staff to “Bring an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan for project development for the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard to the City Council as it considers the Capital Improvement Plan and to bring information regarding the impact the project would have on wetlands at that time.” This information is included as Attachment E. Staff Recommended Changes Staff has compiled a list of recommended changes to the Draft CIP. These changes are a result of updated information or errors and omissions. A complete list of staff recommended changes has been included as Attachment F. Responses to Budget Committee CIP Questions A list of responses to Budget Committee questions on the CIP is included as Attachment G. 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 FY08-FY13 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 FY08-FY13 CIP. 3. The council may choose not to adopt the FY08-FY13 CIP. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the council adopt the FY08-FY13 CIP including the recommended amendments of the Budget Committee and staff. SUGGESTED MOTION None; this is a public hearing only. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702201.doc ATTACHMENTS A. Excerpt of the draft minutes for the November 8, 2006, Budget Committee Citizen Member meeting on the CIP B. Excerpts of the Planning Commission meeting minutes for the December 11, 2006, work session and the December 12, 2006, public hearing on the CIP C. Public Testimony Received on the Capital Improvement Program D. List of Capital Projects that are New to the FY08-FY13 CIP E. Roosevelt Boulevard Development Memo and Exhibits F. Staff Recommended Changes G. Responses to Budget Committee CIP Questions FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: John Huberd Telephone: 682-5386 Staff E-Mail: john.c.huberd@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702201.doc Attachment A Excerpt from December 11, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes – CIP Work Session M I N U T E S (DRAFT) Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10 Avenue December 11, 2006 PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, members; Lisa Gardner, Allen Lowe, Steven Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Chris Henry, Gary McNeel, Emily Proudfoot, Public Works Department; John Huberd, Central Services; Anita Yap, Tom Schwetz, Stefano Viggiano, Graham Carey, Lane Transit District; Tom Adams, Charles Biggs, Bill Goetz, guests. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, John Lawless, Mike Sullivan, ex officio. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, commended the Planning Commission for conducting due diligence on community design issues. He cautioned the Planning Commission from rubber stamping the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. II. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF DECEMBER 12, 2006 Mr. Huberd provided the staff report. He said the City updated its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) every two years. The purpose of the work session was to provide an opportunity to review the Draft CIP and asked questions of staff prior to the scheduled public hearing on December 12, 2006 and action on December 18, 2006. The Planning Commission would forward its recommendation, along with comments and suggested changes to the Draft to the Budget Committee and City Council. The CIP for fiscal years (FY) 2008-2013 (08-13) had been updated in accordance with the Budget Committee recommendations on reformatting the document. The Executive Summary represented an overview of the CIP. The Reader’s Guide detailed the document structure, changes to the document, and outlined the CIP process and public input opportunities. The Financial Summary section had been added to provide a view of the funding. The Airport through Wastewater sections contained individual project pages providing detailed narrative and funding information. Mr. Huberd distributed two documents: Replacement Transportation section index and map of Transportation projects, pages 185 and 186; Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Planning Process diagram. Mr. Huberd explained the CIP had been reviewed by the Neighborhood Leaders’ Council (NLC), and neighborhood specific articles had been provided to each of the neighborhood newsletter editors for publication in early 2007. He stated most of the proposed projects had been through other review processes. He added staff were available to attend neighborhood meetings to discuss the CIP. Attachment A (cont.) Mr. Huberd stated in response to two recommendations from the Planning Commission to the Budget Committee two years ago, citizen involvement efforts had been expanded and traffic calming, neighborhood tree stocking, and street lighting projects were included in both the FY06-11 and FY08-13 CIP as funded projects. In response to Mr. Carroll, Mr. Nystrom said the history of Mixed Use Centers (MUCs) was not extensive. However, the Royal Node was an integral part of the master plan efforts for the CIP. In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Huberd confirmed that all projects in the transportation section were included in Transplan. Mr. Huberd added that the Delta Ponds overpass project was funded primarily with federal monies. In response to Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Huberd stated historically there had not been a very high level of citizen involvement in the CIP process. During the current process, staff had met with the NLC, and suggested that projects be included by neighborhoods. Additionally, the CIP and projects by neighborhood were included on the City of Eugene webpages. Responding to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Huberd stated the reformat process for the CIP had not included maps identifying city-funded and other-funded projects as suggested by the Planning Commission two years ago. Mr. Hledik encouraged staff to include a diagram that identified city, county, state and Lane Transit District funded projects. Mr. Carroll said the CIP document was very readable document. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Huberd said smaller, generic projects that had not yet been identified, were grouped together for funding. Mr. Nystrom reminded the Planning Commission the CIP public hearing was scheduled for December 12, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sloat Room. The Commission would deliberate on December 12, and a second meeting was scheduled for December 18, if needed. He said it was appropriate to submit comments, suggestions and questions with the CIP recommendation to the Budget Committee and City Council. Attachment B Excerpt from December 12, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes – CIP Public Hearing M I N U T E S (DRAFT) Public Hearing Eugene Planning Commission th Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10 Avenue December 12, 2006 PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCown, John Lawless, members; Steven Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Mark Schoening, Public Works Department; Glen Svendsen, John Huberd, Central Services. ABSENT: Jon Belcher, member; Mike Sullivan, ex officio member. PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mr. Duncan called the meeting to order and determined there was consensus to waive a formal presentation and proceed to a discussion of the Draft FY08-FY12 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and a public hearing. Mr. Huberd asked for guidance from the commission on the proposed CIP projects to assure they were consistent with the City’s goals and policies. Mr. Hledik said he was unable to find improvements to Old Coburg Road in the transportation section of the CIP. Mr. Schoening said that was identified as the Chad Drive project. Ms. Kneeland asked if any of the work regarding connectivity of the Ridgeline Trail was reflected in the CIP as part of acquisitions or included in other documents. Mr. Schoening said that was part of the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan and recently passed parks and open space bond measure. Mr. Nystrom added that strategies for those connections were embedded in other documents such as the Comprehensive Plan and while the bond measure dedicated funds for acquisition there were no specific sites identified. Mr. Duncan opened the public hearing. He noted there was no one from the public present to speak and called for comments and questions from the commission. Mr. Carroll noted that there were references to funding from the Downtown Urban Renewal District but not the Riverfront Urban Renewal District in the section on public buildings and facilities courthouse district. He asked why the Riverfront funding was not identified. Mr. Svendsen said that the Riverfront district was not generating sufficient revenue at this point and there were no plans for other sources of funding. Mr. Carroll asked why it was not a placeholder. Mr. Nystrom said that the project was still emerging and planning was in its infancy. Mr. Huberd explained that placeholder was the lowest level of certainty and the project was important and would be retained in the CIP even though a funding strategy had not yet been identified. Attachment B (cont.) Mr. Duncan remarked that the City had just begun discussions about acquiring land in Golden Gardens but funds were already budgeted. He noted that both land owners had filed Measure 37 claims. Mr. Carroll asked about the impetus for the Elmira Road and Jeppesen Avenue transportation projections. Mr. Schoening replied that both projects were identified in TransPlan to bring unimproved neighborhood collectors up to urban standards. He said the Fire Department was interested in the Elmira Road project because of the fire station on Berntzen Road and the Jeppesen Avenue project was prompted by the condition of the road. He indicated that a process to engage neighbors in the planning process for the Elmira Road project had been initiated. In response to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Nystrom confirmed that there were a number of single family homes with driveway access along Elmira Road and recent development activity in the area had increased use of the street. Mr. Lawless asked if transportation upgrades and capacity enhancements were intended to be an interim reserve to meet the demands of future growth and development that would eventually provide the funding for those projects. Mr. Schoening agreed that the category represented new transportation projects that might be driven by new development and the reserve represented the City’s share of funding. In response to a question from Mr. Duncan, Mr. Schoening said there were over 500 miles of streets and roads in Eugene, 50 of which were unimproved. There being no other comments Mr. Duncan closed the public hearing. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the FY08-FY12 Capital Improvement Program. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 6:20 p.m. Attachment C Public Testimony Received on the Capital Improvement Program 12/11/07 Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, testified at the Planning Commission work session and commended the Planning Commission for conducting due diligence on community design issues. He cautioned the Planning Commission from rubber stamping the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. 1/22/07 Via Email - Carol and Duane Hildebrand, 2123 Jeppesen Acres Rd., 97401 We see in our neighborhood newsletter that the CIP for next year proposes to upgrade Jeppesen Acres Rd. As residents who live on Jeppesen Acres near Gilham, we are thrilled to hear about this proposal and hope it goes forward soon. It has been needed for years! 1/23/07 Telephone Contact –Joann Jones, Cal Young Neighborhood read the CIP article in her neighborhood newsletter and called asking for more information on the Delta Ponds Overpass project. Public Works staff responded to her inquiry. 1/23/07 Letter Received - Mrs. K. Cooper (no address given) request pedestrian overpass be constructed over Coburg Road near Albertsons market. 1/24/07 Telephone Contact –Majeska Seese-Green related that the Skatepark in City Center project siting location has not yet been determined. She also commented that the Railroad Quiet Zone is mainly located in the Whiteaker neighborhood. 1/29/07 Finance Front Desk Contact – Anonymous – Requested the Jeppesen Acres Road project include traffic calming to reduce the incidence of speeding motorist. 2/07/07 Budget Committee Meeting Public Testimony Mike James, Lisa Warrens, and Robert Olsen expressed concerns about the Dillard Road project. Those concerns included the underlying geologic stability of the area, the impact on the environment, and the City’s process in reviewing this project. Arnold Hultberg commented on the Jeppesen Acers Road project and urged that traffic calming improvements be added to the project. He submitted a petition signed by 54 residents who reside along Jeppesen Acres Road supporting traffic calming efforts Rob Handy requested that the Committee provide more funding for traffic calming and street trees projects. He also suggested more work needs to be done on the River Road annexation process. David Hinkley commended the budget committee on its past efforts on traffic calming and street trees. He asked that the City stop developing new roads until a solution can be found for the current transportation maintenance backlog. Page 1of 1 HUBERD John C From: Carodane@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:34 PM To: HUBERD John C Subject: Upgrades to Jeppesen Acres Rd Hello John, We see in our neighborhood newsletter that the CIP for next year proposes to upgrade Jeppesen Acres Rd. As residents who live on Jeppesen Acres near Gilham, we are thrilled to hear about this proposal and hope it goes forward soon. It has been needed for years! Thanks, Carol and Duane Hildebrand 2123 Jeppesen Acres Rd., 97401 2/1/2007 Attachment D New Projects in the 2008-2013 CIP This is a list of new projects that were not in prior CIP documents. New Projects with Funding Secured or Identified Airport ARFF Station Automated Car Wash Facility Baggage Screening Area Hollis Taxilane Extension Improvements Subject to Master Plan Update Terminal Ramp Rehab Terminal Seating Replacement Parks and Open Space Ferndale Park Development Golden Gardens Acquisition and Development Natural Area Park Acquisition Neighborhood and Community Park Acquisition Parks Donation Projects Royal/Danebo Park Development (Grasshopper Meadow) Skatepark in City Center Synthetic Surface Sportsfields West Eugene Wetland Education Center Stormwater 43rd Av. Storm Water Capacity Upgrade, Fox Hollow to Amazon Creek Amazon Creek Bank Stabilization - Chambers to Garfield Harlow Neighborhood Basin Drywell Decommissioning Mill Alley Storm Drain (canceled due to Whole Foods not going forward) River Avenue to Beltline Storm Drain Willamette River Bank Stabilization Study Willamette River Basin Water Quality Facilities Transportation 8th Avenue, High to Lincoln Two-Way Conversion (canceled due to Whole Foods not going forward) Accessible Pedestrian Signals Delta Ponds Overpass, Goodpasture to Robin Hood Lane Dillard Road (Amazon Drive - UGB) Willamette Street, 18th to 20th Two-Way Conversion New Projects with Funding Not Identified Parks and Open Space Priority 1 Neighborhood Park Renovations Priority 1 Park Lighting Renovations Priority 1 Play Area Renovations Priority 1 Tennis Court Renovations Priority 2 Unfunded Projects Spencer Butte Trail Enhancement Public Buildings & Facilities Courthouse District Plan Implementation and Related Projects Willow Creek/Churchill Aquatic and Community Center Transportation Dillard Road (Amazon Drive - UGB) Attachment E Public Works Engineering City of Eugene M 858 Pearl Street EMORANDUM Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 682-5291 (541) 682-5032 FAX Date: February 1, 2006 To: Chair Demboski and Budget Committee From: Mark Schoening, 682-5243 City Engineer, Public Works Engineering Subject: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD This memo is in response to Council direction to the City Manager from the December 13, 2006 Council work session. The Council passed a motion directing the City Manager to: Bring an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan for project development for the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard to the City Council as it considers the Capital Improvement Plan and to bring information regarding the impact the project would have on wetlands at that time. The extension of Roosevelt Boulevard would begin at the current terminus of Roosevelt Boulevard at Terry Street and extend northwesterly through the Royal mixed-use center and end at the intersection of Legacy Street and Avalon Street (see Attachment 1). The portion of the project within the Royal Avenue mixed-use center is included in the . The entire project is included as Royal Site Specific Plan two separate projects – Future Collector H (north of Royal Avenue) and Future Collector F (south of Royal Avenue) in the Regional Transportation Plan and Transplan. The total length of the project is 7,200 feet. The right of way width would vary from 65 feet to 75 feet. The typical cross section proposed as part of the is shown as Attachment 2. Royal Site Specific Plan The total area of right of way for the project is approximately 11.5 acres. Approximately 9.54 acres of the total 11.5 acres are wetlands. The following wetland information is illustrated on Attachment 1: West Eugene Wetlands Hydric soils (one characteristic of wetlands) identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetlands qualitatively identified as part of the Local Wetland Inventory Wetlands quantitatively identified as part of the Legacy Interceptor Extension Project (same alignment as the Roosevelt Boulevard extension) Wetlands quantitatively identified as part of a proposed residential development immediately south of Avalon Street. The estimated cost of project development for the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard is $551,000. Page 1 of 2 Project development would be funded with transportation system development charges (SDCs). The transportation projects funded primarily with transportation SDCs proposed in FY08 and FY09 in the draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP) all have public processes and engineering design significantly underway. Amending the draft CIP to include funds for the project development for the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard would not affect projects currently underway if added in FY10 or later. The transportation projects proposed for FY10 through FY13 that have not been initiated include Bertelsen Road, Jeppesen Acres Road and Dillard Road. Attachments: Exhibit A – Map of the Project Area Exhibit B – Typical Street Cross Section Page 2 of 2 Proposed Typical Section Exhibit B from the Royal Specific Plan CIP Attachment F (*updated February 7, 2007) Staff Recommended Changes Staff has compiled a list of recommended changes to the Draft FY08-FY13 CIP. These changes are a result of updated information or errors and omissions. Section/Project Title PageDraft FY08- FY13 CIP Eugene Depot Phase 3 new This placeholder project has been added per staff request. Roosevelt Boulevard Project new Per Council direction: Bring an amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan for project development for the extension of Roosevelt Boulevard. Reader’s Guide - Summary of p. 16 Council Priority Issue – Corrected last update date from Prior Planning Processes and February 2005 to February 2006. Reports *Reader’s Guide - Projected p. 29 Text updated to reflect passage of the Parks and Open Debt Burden Space bond and the impact on debt capacity for future bond issues including the City Hall Complex. Health, Safety & Welfare and p. 134 General Fund allocations between the two preservation Primary Building Systems p. 139 and maintenance projects have been updated to reflect Projectsroofing work needed. The allocation adjustment resulted in no net change to the General Fund. *Parking Structure Siting Design p. 161 These three projects have been removed from the CIP. & Construction Project;These projects were dependant upon Whole Foods Mill Alley Storm Drain Project; p. 175 development which has been canceled by the developer. 8th Avenue, High to Lincoln Two-Way Conversion Project; p. 191 Transportation Section Table of p. 185 Replaced page due to pagination error. Contents Accessible Pedestrian Signals p. 192 Change annual funding amounts from $60,000 to $65,000 per prior Budget Committee direction. Elmira Road & Maple Street p. 204 These two projects have been combined into a single Projectsp. 207 project. The combined project is named Elmira Road/Maple Street. No changes to funding amounts, funding sources, or scope of work. Multi-Year Financial Plan Changes to the Draft CIP The following changes were made to CIP projects that are also listed in the Multi-Year Financial Plan. Section/Project Title PageChange (CIP/MYFP) st Natural Area Park Acquisition p. 101/57 Revision of 1 paragraph of description to reflect passage of P&OS Bond in Nov. 2007 election. Synthetic Surface Sportsfields p. 107/61 Revision of last sentence of description to reflect passage of P&OS Bond in Nov. 2007 election. Hult Center Roofing p. 152/26 Added sentence: “The scope of the project is limited Replacementto membrane roof area.” Courthouse District Plan p. 156/48 Deleted pre-construction aerial photo and inserted Implementation and Related artist’s rendition of Courthouse at request of Execs. Projects City Hall Renovation or p. 158/66 Added sentences: “Cost estimates are placeholders; Replacementactual costs are yet to be determined. $25 million has been reserved for this project.” CIP Attachment F (cont.) (*updated February 7, 2007) Bike Path/West Bank Trail – p. 211/71 Deleted incorrect map and inserted photo of bike path Wastewater Treatment Plant to and river, at request of Execs. Formac Ave. nd Pavement Preservation p. 219/35 Deleted 2 paragraph in the project description with Program – Funding for Project outdated information. Backlog Placeholder Public Buildings and Facilities Placeholder New Capital Facilities Eugene Depot Phase 3 Project Description: Completion of the Eugene Depot Master Plan would include acquisition of property for a rail layover facility and expanded passenger platform, extension of Oak Street to the Depot to improve circulation and access, expansion of the Depot and the construction of a pedestrian bridge to parking areas north of the Depot. This placeholder project includes elements that could be implemented as individual projects as funding is identified. Projects would be included in the budget process for direction and approval. Project Status: Not Started Phase 3 of a multi-phase master plan for improvements at the Eugene Depot. Phase 1 acquistion and restoration completed. Phase 2 passenger improvements in preliminary design. Capital Costs ($ in thousands) Capital cost by year not yet determined for this placeholder project. Neighborhood: Downtown Ward: Ward 1 Master Plan Diagram City of Eugene 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Program Attachment G Excerpt from the Budget Committee Responses to CIP Questions Memo dated February 1, 2007 7. Barofsky CIP: How does public input work? Can there be additions to the CS-Finance document and how? The CIP development and review process is outlined on pages 8 and 9 of the FY08-13 Draft CIP. Citizen input opportunities are available throughout the process. For the most part the CIP is a compilation of prior planning processes. These prior processes offer the first opportunity for citizen input. For example, the FY07 Budget Committee meetings received public testimony from citizens expressing a need to upgrade and improve the safety of Golden Gardens Park. This input led to the inclusion of the Golden Gardens Acquisition and Development project in the FY08-13 CIP. Other citizen input opportunities include: November 2006 Budget Subcommittee review of the CIP December 2006 Planning Commission work session on the CIP Planning Commission CIP public hearing February 2007 Budget Committee review of the CIP City Council public hearing on the CIP Staff efforts aimed at increasing citizen involvement in the FY08-13 CIP include posting the Draft CIP on the City’s webpage and sending neighborhood specific CIP articles to neighborhood newsletter editors. Both the webpage and newsletter articles provide information on how citizens can give input into the CIP process. 9. Barofsky CIP: What are the concrete steps being taken to close the gap PW between Park acquisition and development and operations and maintenance? Providing on-going funding for the maintenance of developed park facilities is a significant challenge. Given the limitations on General Fund resources, Public Works pursues a number of strategies to close the gap. We have been successful in receiving grants for such items as natural area restoration, trail restoration, and tree inventory. We have developed partnerships with other organizations (Ex. Oregon Track Club for performing maintenance on trails; REI for sponsoring riverbank clean-up events; the Friends of Hendricks Park for clean-up and invasive species removals, Friends of Golden Gardens for clean-up and trail work). We have volunteer programs like Stream Team, NeighborWoods, and Volunteer in Parks. We coordinate resources with other agencies such as School District 4J and BLM for maintenance on abutting properties. While we are working to leverage our resources wherever an opportunity presents itself, we recognize that providing for on-going park maintenance funding will continue to be a challenge. Bettman For simplicity, ongoing tracking, and cross referencing of projects CS-Finance 10.there should have an assigned and consistent reference number so a citizen can find the same project under every category and track that project form year to year. I thought the CIP subcommittee of the budget committee asked for this. If not then let me officially ask if staff can provide this, if so then same question? The Budget Subcommittee recommendations listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Draft CIP do not specify adding a unique project tracking reference. Currently, CIP and Multi-year Financial Plan projects do not have tracking numbers. Once a project is put in the capital budget, it receives a capital project number. Adding a tracking reference can be done with the realization that projects in the out years of the CIP may change or be combined as plans are refined and CIP and MYFP tracking numbers may not have the same numbers as the budgeted capital project. Attachment G 11. Bettman Under “Project status” I expected to see a category of new project, or CS-Finance newly funded if moved forward from a different category. The Project Status field on the project page shows “Not Started” for projects that have not yet began. For projects that have been in prior a CIP and are not yet started, the CIP does include text which describes which prior CIP the project was in. If no such citation occurs, then the project is new. When the Draft CIP was distributed last November, the cover memo attached to the Draft CIP included a list of projects that are new to th the FY08-13 CIP. This list was also included in the meeting packet for the January 17 Budget Committee meeting as Attachment B to the CIP memo. The list has been included again in this packet. 12. Bettman Many projects are listed as “not started” where they were slated to CS-Finance begin in 06 or a specific year. What happens to the money appropriated and approved via the capital budget when a project is delayed – sometimes by a number of years? Is there a mechanism to recapture the appropriation (i.e. does it end up in the Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance as money appropriated but not spent in the FY it was supposed to be spent? Is capital money treated identically to other unappropriated ending Fund balance monies? Most importantly is THAT year’s appropriation reallocated to other projects or expenditures in a supp budget or carried over as beginning balance? Prior year unused capital project appropriations are rolled over into the current year during the first supplemental budget. With few exceptions the capital appropriation stays with the project until the project is completed. Exceptions occur when a project’s status changes. For example, the FY06 budget contained approximately $11.9 million appropriated for the revenue backed Patterson Street Underpass project related to downtown hospital siting. Since the hospital siting did not occur downtown, the project did not go forward and the outside revenues were not received. The project was canceled and no appropriation was rolled forward; it was completely eliminated as both the revenue and the expenditure were not occurring. In the event a project is completed and there are unused capital appropriations, the supplement budget reallocates the appropriation to other projects or into the fund’s balance available. These transactions are noted as Capital Project Carryover Adjustments in the supplemental budget transaction summary. 13. Bettman In our FY06-11 CIP, for example, on page 77 there is the Funded CS-Facilities Public Building and Facilities M&P project called “Hult Garage Stair & Glass repair” for a total of 30K secured funding in FY06. In the FY08-13 CIP, page 135, there is the same project listed as not started with a zero allocation in FY08 and 100K for FY09. Is the FY06 money carried forward and dedicated to this project? How did this budget increase by 70K in such a short time frame? The parking enterprise fund pays for all capital improvements made to city-owned parking facilities in the core area. Any unspent parking capital funding falls to the fund's balance available and future use of those funds would require budget approval. The cost of the project is a very rough estimate at this time and is intended as a placeholder item. The scope of project has grown since the FY06-11 CIP, when the focus of the project was to evaluate and repair glass blocks that have settled. The pitch of the roof covering the stairways needs to be modified so that water does not run off into the structure’s electrical systems and additional stair crack patching and spalling repair is required. Project scope and cost will not be fully determined until an engineering assessment is completed later this year for all the structures. Attachment G 14. Bettman On page 138 there is $590K secured for Parking Garage Elevator CS-Facilities upgrades to the Over Park and Hult (not broken out separately.) I remember the Overpark elevator being rebuilt and it wasn’t that long ago. Why should it need such expensive “upgrade” so soon? The $590,000 elevator project is for the Overpark, Hult, and Parcade garages. In addition to the newer elevator and stair tower at the Overpark, there are six other elevators in these three facilities. The average age of these facilities is over 25 years and repair/replacement parts are becoming more difficult to acquire. These upgrades are recommended by the Elevator Modernization Report in an effort to anticipate and avoid breakdowns. 15. Bettman Many project categories have increased by hundreds of thousands, CS-Facilities like Primary Building Systems by 356 K, Secondary Building Systems by 69K, etc. Where is the increase in the capital budget coming from? Is it an increase in the Capital (transfer) contribution? Yes, the overall increase in these projects reflects the annual $100,000 increase in the General Fund Capital Budget, as described on page 126 of the CIP. This annual increase is allocated among the General Fund CIP projects, including the Site Renovations and Rehabilitation project listed in the Parks and Open Space section of the CIP. 16. Bettman There are many millions grouped in capital project categories and sub CS-Facilities categories, i.e. General Site and Facility Improvements 1.7, Health Safety and Welfare 3.9, Primary Building Systems 5.9, Secondary Bldg systems 1.2, Building Service Systems4.2. These are in addition to the many upgrades, maintenance and preservation projects specifically listed. Is there a list of planned projects for this money that we can look at? Is this a rolling fund? These amounts represent the Public Building and Facilities General Fund Capital Improvement Program for these types of building preservation projects. These funds are dedicated to repairing and preserving the City's 111 General Fund-supported buildings, while the other named projects fund preservation of non-General Fund buildings. The General Funds in each of these "Preservation and Maintenance" and "Site and Facility Improvements" sub-categories are tracked separately and allocated to specific projects during the fiscal year, based on the Facility Condition Report (FCR) and on emerging deficiencies that need more immediate attention. The 2004 FCR documented $16.2 million in existing deficiencies, and $12.7 million in deficiencies emerging within 5 years. This $28.9 million in expected needs compares with a total of $19.9 million in General Fund resources included in the draft CIP. The next update of the Facility Condition Report will be done in FY08. The Executive Summary of the 2004 Facility Condition Report can be read at the Facility Management Division's web site, and the full report with detailed information on the specific deficiencies of each building is available at the Library, City Manager's Office or the Facility Management Division office. 17. Bettman There is 3 million allocated to Services for New Development. Will CS-Facilities that money be spent on projects that enhance capacity that are identified in the CIP? Is the SDC money shifted to pay for infrastructure associated with a development project not identified as a community priority? Attachment G The Services for New Development project category provides an opportunity to add capacity to serve new development at the time of development. In this scenario the City funds the improvement from the funds set aside under Services for New Development and then assesses the developer for the assessable portion of the improvement. The developer does not receive any SDC credit and pays the full SDC to the City. While the projects may not represent the priorities established in the CIP, the projects leverage private funds, implement the arterial and collector street improvements identified in Transplan and the Regional Transportation Plan, are less contentious than assessment projects, and are constructed in developing areas with less impact to the residents and businesses that eventually reside in the areas once developed. th 18. Bettman Page 191 has 8, High to Lincoln 2 way conversion. It states it will PW only go forward with Whole foods locating. It includes $200k road fund which is counter to transportation funding policy unless that is for M or P of the existing road bed. Either way this should be deleted from the plan. Do we need a motion to do so? The project description states – “This project is dependent on executing a development agreement with Whole Foods and $200,000 for vacation of alley right-of-way.” With the decision by Whole Foods not to execute a development agreement staff is recommending that this project be deleted from the draft CIP. 19. Bettman Page 205 Is this project outside the UGB? Why has the cost increased PW more than 200K? Is it legal to spend SDC money outside the city limits when the money is collected for capacity in the city, and Lane Co. has no SDC? This project is located entirely within the Urban Growth Boundary. The project is included in both the Regional Transportation Plan and Transplan. The use of transportation SDCs to fund a portion of this project is legal and consistent with past practices of funding improvements of arterial and collector streets to urban standards. The project cost has increased due to the rapidly increasing cost of construction in the metropolitan area. 20. Bettman Is this the first official categorization of Friendly, Crest, and Storey PW projects as “Capacity Enhancing” (page 220 – 222?) It seems to me staff have consistently referred to those projects as “upgrades” for safety. Enhancing capacity for the purpose of a transportation project means more lanes, additional ROW. Is this a change and what are the implications? The three projects, Crest Drive, Friendly Street, and Storey Boulevard are included in the “Placeholder Projects” section of the Transportation Chapter of the draft 2008 – 2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)under the subcategory “Upgrades and Capacity Enhancement”. This project subcategory was created with the 1998 – 2003 CIP when the “Upgrade to City Standards” subcategory was combined with the “Capacity Enhancement” subcategory. The three projects are best characterized as “Upgrades” as described in their project descriptions Attachment G Reconstruct Crest Drive (Friendly Street, Storey Boulevard) pursuant to the Context Sensitive Solutions process started in 2006. After the Context Sensitive Solution process has been completed, the street design and funding options will be presented to the City Council. The Placeholder Project section is new to the CIP and includes projects with a placeholder funding status. Placeholder projects are significant projects that are still in the decision process and may be subject to additional review before being included in a future CIP or annual budget. 21. Bettman Where is the Monroe/Friendly Bikeway? It was 250 k of money from PW STP-U that is supposed to be for “ready to build” projects and the projects are supposed to be completed within 3 years. Where can the project or the money be found in this document? Has the STP-U money gone away (if so where?) since the project is not ready or complete within the time frame stipulated? The construction contracts for projects with federal STP-U funds are managed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). ODOT bids and awards the construction contracts, enters into contracts with private contractors and makes all progress and final payments. Therefore, the federal STP-U funds are not included in the City’s capital budget. The design of the Monroe/Friendly Bikeway is complete and under final review by ODOT. ODOT will bid the project in April and construction will begin in late Spring. Construction is anticipated to be complete by early Fall. The STP-U money has not gone away. The funding has been carried forward through amendments to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Attachment G (cont.) Central Services Financial Services Budget Office City of Eugene th 100 W. 10 Avenue, Suite 400 M Eugene, Oregon 97401 EMORANDUM (541) 682-5021 (541) 682-5802 FAX www.ci.eugene.or.us Date: February 7, 2007 To: Budget Committee Members From: Kitty Murdoch, Budget Manager, 682-5860 Subject: Additional Responses to questions asked during your January 17, 2007 meeting The remaining responses to the questions asked in your last meeting are attached. I have also attached an updated question master list as two questions were left off the list distributed last week. 2. Bettman Isn’t the Whole Foods Garage project dead? Wasn’t there CS-Finance some Library or General funds used that should be returned? PDD-Parking E-mail: On page 159, $8 million for the Parking Structure Siting Design and Construction which should be deleted from the plan now that the development project is void. If we need a motion to remove; please provide the language. How will the remainder of the garage funding package be reallocated? Funding for the garage project came from the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, the Facility Reserve, the Library Debt Service Reserve and Stormwater funds. After taking into account all of the expenses incurred to date on this project, the funds that originally came from the Riverfront Urban Renewal District will be returned to the district and put into balance available to be used for other projects in the future. As a reminder, Riverfront Urban Renewal District funds may only be used for projects contained in the urban renewal plan, and for projects within the district boundaries. The Facility Reserve funds will be returned to the Facility Reserve to be used for the City Hall Complex project. The Library Debt Service Reserve money will be returned to the General Fund, which is the original source of those monies, and will become part of the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall. As part of the return of these monies, all funds will be allocated a pro-rata share of interest earnings that accrued while they were in the parking funds awaiting this garage project. All of these transactions will occur in the FY08 budget. Attachment G (cont.) In addition to the actual funds on hand allocated to this project, the garage budget included issuance of $4 million of urban renewal revenue bonds. Because the project is not going forward, and because the property tax revenues from the grocery store that would have paid a portion of the debt service on those bonds will not be available, the Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds will not be issued. As a result, that funding source is not available for other projects. The draft 2008-2013 CIP includes three projects related to the garage:the Parking Structure Siting Design and Construction on page 159; the 8th Avenue, High to Lincoln, Two-Way Conversion on page 185; and the Mill Alley Storm Drain on page 175. With the decision by Whole Foods to not enter into a development agreement, these three projects do not need to go forward as planned. The staff recommendation on the CIP will include the following amendments: -Remove the Parking Structure Siting Design and Construction on page 159 -Remove the 8th Avenue, High to Lincoln, Two-Way Conversion on page 191 -Remove the Mill Alley Storm Drain on page 175 and reallocate the funding to General Stormwater Rehabilitation on page 173 as follows: $100,000 in FY09, $100,000 in FY10 and $90,000 in FY11. The only action required at this time is to approve the CIP staff amendments related to this project. The City Manager’s FY08 Proposed Budget will be proposed incorporating the changes described above. (See Next Page) Attachment G (cont.) 8. Bettman CIP: Where is the information the CIP Subcommittee CS-Finance requested on the status of past projects? These are projects that were listed as being funded in the FY06-13 CIP or added to the CIP through the FY06 and FY07 annual or supplemental budget processes. This list includes projects that had funding for FY06 and/or FY07 that are not yet completed. Attachment G (cont.) 22. Bettman On page 143 is the budget for the Downtown Urban Renewal PDD district amounting to 2.4 million, please provide a list of all the projects regardless of cost. I know council need not approve projects under one quarter million, but we have the right to see what the committee is spending the money on. The $400,000/year is a placeholder for capital projects to support downtown development. th Examples of possible projects/sites include: 10 & Charnelton; West Broadway RFP, Park Blocks improvements. The Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) will make the allocation recommendations in a public process and projects over $250,000 will be presented to Council for approval. Councilors, and all interested parties, will receive information on the allocations. 23. Bettman Please provide us with a list of the specific projects in the PDD Riverfront district, Courthouse District Plan and Related Projects page 156, totaling 2.1 million as well. The $350,000/year is a placeholder for capital projects to support development in the courthouse area. Examples of possible projects include: pending RFP for city-owned site east of the new courthouse; infrastructure improvements. The Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) will make the allocation recommendations in a public process and projects over $250,000 will be presented to Council for approval. Councilors, and all interested parties, will receive information on the allocations.