Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schoening said of the projects prioritized for preservation, the projects mentioned by Ms. Bettman had scored below other projects not funded. If a straight order was followed, the first project under the cut line was a City of Springfield project. Referring to the motion, Mr. Schoening clarified that there was no "Eugene allocation" for projects. Allocations were made on a project-by-project basis. The funding was not specific to a jurisdiction. City Manager Taylor said if the motion was adopted, the change it called for would not be within his purview to accomplish. When the region became a TMA, it moved from an allocation system to one based on regional priorities, and those regional priorities were determined by the MPC. The City's representatives, Mr. Kelly and Mayor Piercy, could allocate for a change in the formula based on jurisdiction population, but that element is not in place now. He reiterated that the City's previous attempts to secure the change had been unsuccessful. Mr. Pap6 likened the federal allocation process to the ODOT allocation process, which was directed regionally. He determined from Mr. Schoening that if the City dropped the projects now being funded, the dollars could go to a project in Springfield or Coburg. Speaking to the comments of City Manager Taylor, Mr. Thompson clarified that the allocation process cannot be based on sub-allocations based on population or other proportionate means to jurisdictions. Federal regulations made it clear the allocations must be based on criteria to specific projects with specific allocations of funds. The money was not sub-allocated to jurisdictions to do with what they wished. Ms. Solomon said she appreciated what Ms. Bettman was attempting to do with regard to addressing the backlog of City preservation projects, but the motion felt like "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." She did not want to give up the money for projects outside Eugene's jurisdiction. Mr. Poling indicated his questions were answered by staff. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that he did not want to see the money returned to the MPC for reallocation to non-Eugene projects. He said that the council could pursue some of the concepts in Ms. Bettman's motion for future MTIPs, but at this point he thought the City was too far along in the process to give up the money allocated to Eugene projects. Mr. Kelly said Ms. Bettman's motion merely spoke to the need for a change in the funding formula for the future. It did not change anything in the current MTIP. It merely asked staff to work with the MPC to change the funding formula. If the council wanted to achieve its street preservation goals in the long-mn, it should support the motion. Mr. Kelly said he did not know all the federal regulations intimately, but he was unconvinced that the federal allocation formula was as precise as had been stated to the council by staff. He wanted to see "chapter and verse" of the regulations. He believed other qualitative factors should not be ignored. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC established the percentages for the four categories, and it could change those percentage targets and, if it wished, place 100 percent toward preservation or modernization. However, the MPC could not develop a process that resulted in the suballocation of funds to a jurisdiction for its subsequent decision and use. Mr. Kelly said the motion, if it passed, was forward-looking and would not take away money from Eugene MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 11 Work Session