CC Minutes - 01/24/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 projects. He suggested Ms. Bettman revise the motion to read "so that Eugene could better compete for maintenance and preservation projects..." Ms. Bettman declined to accept the amendment because she took the text directly from the MTIP, which spoke of allocations throughout the document. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the source of the motion's text and if it discussed allocations to specific jurisdictions, Mr. Thompson said that the STP-U funds allocated by the MPO could be allocated to projects, but not to jurisdictions. Thus, the use of the word ;;allocation" was correct, but the issue was allocating funds to specific projects or programs rather than to jurisdictions to use as they wish. Ms. Bettman indicated willingness to modify the motion to read ;;Eugene's project allocation would be dedicated..." Ms. Bettman believed that each jurisdiction should have the ability to compete for money to fund their priorities. That was why she asked the MPC to change the criteria. That would have given all jurisdictions the opportunity to do what Eugene wanted to do, but did not force them to do so. Her motions were voted down. She interpreted that as meaning that Springfield and Lane County were telling Eugene what it could spend money on. As the funding decisions were made at the MPC, if the next project on the list was a Springfield project, it was up to the MPC to create equity, or the City could negotiate with the MPC to fund the next preservation project on the list instead of a new capacity project. She believed the MPC could do so. She said that MPC made the rules, and could change them. Ms. Bettman said that Eugene's population represented two-thirds of the metropolitan area, and while she was not arguing for two-thirds of the funding available, she wanted what was available for maintenance and preservation in Eugene. Mr. Pap6 asked if passage of the motion would have an impact on the FY05-06 allocations. Mr. Schoening said no, not if he understood Ms. Bettman's intent as interpreted by Mr. Kelly. It would have an impact on the next federal fund allocation. Mr. Pap6 said he continued to be confused about what regulations were imposed on the region by the federal government and what MPC rules could be changed to facilitate Ms. Bettman's intent. Mr. Thompson said the MPC could change its funding targets across four categories. Within those guidelines the MPC developed, funds must be allocated to projects rather than to jurisdictions. Projects must meet other guidelines; for example, the federal government precluded the use of the funds for local streets, and they could be used for preservation, not maintenance. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Thompson confirmed that the category target percentages, if changed, would be changed for all jurisdictions. Mr. Pap6 asked if Eugene could seek a higher percentage for preservation projects with the understanding that the funding was mostly for Eugene projects. Mr. Thompson said that could be accomplished if the MPC members chose to do so. Mr. Pap6 suggested it would be more appropriate to ask the City's MPC representatives to seek the change, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 12 Work Session