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

Home Browse Search

as opposed to the City Manager. Ms. Bettman disagreed, saying it was a policy issue. It would require the City Manager and City staff on the TPC as well as the City's MPC representatives to make the change. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible that other preservation projects for other jurisdictions would compete for the money before Eugene. City Manager Taylor said yes, but pointed out that Eugene had many such preservation projects while some of the other jurisdictions did not. He said the issue the MPC would consider was whether it was a good regional policy to put a greater percentage of STP-U funds into pavement preservation. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the complexity of the issues involved. She did not think the councilors could "all come up to speed" on the MPC process at one work session. Mr. Pryor interpreted the motion to mean the City was asking rather than telling the MPC to modify its allocation process in order to achieve some of Eugene's policy goals. He said that it was possible the MPC would say no, or it could say yes, but the City might not see a dollar more of the money. The money could go instead to regional preservation projects. Ms. Taylor believed that Eugene should be able to fund its preservation priorities and would be able to do so better if Ms. Bettman's motion passed. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the word ~maintenance" be removed from the motion since maintenance projects were not eligible for the STP-U funding. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman shared the application used by jurisdictions for projects competing for the funds, noting that the formula used weighed the components of the projects for evaluation. She thought it was merely a matter of changing the weighting system to allow Eugene to compete successfully for preservation projects. She questioned staff's assertions that operations could not be funded by the federal dollars available, as it was her opinion that allocations for planning were for operations. Mr. Schwetz said the MPC set targets for modernization, preservation, planning, and TDM. To accomplish what Ms. Bettman desired, the City would have to work with the MPC to change the percentage allocation for the funding targets so that more money was spent on preservation in the future. Mr. Schoening interpreted the motion as asking the MPC to mix all the available funding so that Springfield's moderniza- tion projects could compete against Eugene's preservation project using a weighted scoring system. City Attorney Glenn Klein interpreted the motion as directing the manager and the City's MPC representa- tives to determine how Eugene could obtain more federal funds for preservation, and to go to the MPC and advocate for that. Ms. Solomon asked if the passage of the motion would be at the expense of modernization and TDM. Ms. Bettman believed the answer to that question depended on one's perception. She believed the motion merely allowed the City to achieve its stated priorities. City Manger Taylor clarified that if the motion passed and the City was successful in getting the change, a greater proportion of STP-U funds would be available for preservation projects. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 13 Work Session