Laserfiche WebLink
Council consideration. Ms. Bettman agreed that the purpose was to provide direction to staff to <br />propose uses for TMA funds that were capital preservation, operations, and maintenance activities. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said his concern about restricting the use of TMA funds to the narrow category of <br />capital preservation was addressed by Mr. Kelly's amendment. He said without advance notice of <br />the motion and a staff analysis, he did not have enough information about the consequences or <br />implications. He asked if staff had any idea about the impact of the motion. Mr. Corey replied he <br />did not know the consequences and recommended the motion be held in abeyance because there <br />was a process in place under which the allocation of funds came to the MPC. He said the staff was <br />in tune with the issues represented in the budget flowchart and the motion could have unintended <br />consequences by restricting flexibility. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Corey said the TMA funds were all federal dollars <br />that were allocated through the MPC. Mr. Taylor explained that the staff report was intended to <br />ask for recommendations from the council about assumptions that needed to be built into a budget <br />for the transportation system funds for FY05. He said the motion was a worthy idea and a <br />component of the larger discussion, but the effects of the motion, if adopted, were unclear without <br />further review. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he agreed with the intent of the motion, but was concerned with the lack of <br />background information and impact analysis and could not support the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion to restrict use of TMA funds would have a negative impact on <br />other federal funding such as the enhanced capacity special grants. Mr. Corey replied that it <br />should not have an impact as those funding decisions were not connected. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that he could not support the motion in the case of a tie. He needed more <br />information on the impact of the motion if the proposal went to MPC and on the limitations on the <br />use of TMA funds. He said it was a legitimate subject for discussion at the MPC, with staff <br />analysis, but the motion had come before the council too quickly. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was inclined to support the motion based on comments from other councilors <br />and staff. He said the council needed to decide whether to give priority to operations, <br />preservation, and maintenance and, if it did, the ability of staff to be creative was not restricted, <br />except in the use of funds for new capital projects. He expressed concern that allocations were <br />reviewed at the MPC level, but not by the council, and without the direction of the motion, the <br />discussion would not come back to the council. He said if unintended consequences occurred, the <br />motion could always be overturned by subsequent City Council action and urged that strong <br />direction be given to staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that either operating, maintaining, and preserving the existing transportation <br />system was the council's highest priority, or it was not. She said the TMA funds were an <br />additional source of funding that could be dedicated to that and take care of a part of the problem, <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />