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