Laserfiche WebLink
or they could continue to be spent on new projects. She said the motion would give direction to <br />staff when requesting an allocation, and provide herself and the Mayor an opportunity to advocate <br />to the MPC for that priority for the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said the direction to staff before going to MPC was a good idea. She said the need for <br />additional funding for operation, preservation, and maintenance activities was obvious and <br />providing direction to the City's representatives on the MPC was appropriate. She suggested that <br />MPC activities should be a standing item on the council's agenda. She supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked when the additional TMA funds would become available and how soon the <br />council's proposal could be presented to the MPC. Mr. Corey said he thought additional funds <br />were projected in the current fiscal year, but was not certain of the exact timing. Mayor Torrey <br />said it could be addressed at the next MPC meeting. <br />Mr. Poling asked if staff was given the direction to sustain road fund operations at current levels <br />and bring alternative funding source proposal back to the council, the subject of the motion would <br />be included anyway. Mr. Corey said the TMA funds would be considered as part of the budget <br />problem-solving process as it was an existing revenue source and use for operation, maintenance, <br />and preservation would be recommended as a matter of course. He said his request for direction <br />on new or alternative revenue sources was focused on things such as street light maintenance <br />districts or some other revenue source not currently available. Mr. Poling suggested that rather <br />than passing the motion, the council could give direction to include use of the additional funds and <br />request that the budget come back the council before the additional money became available. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ stated his concern that the MPC process circumvented the council's budget process. <br />Mayor Torrey clarified that the funds did not belong to the City and the MPC allocated TMA <br />dollars on behalf of participating jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said some of the worst road conditions existed on streets received from the county <br />that needed to be upgraded to urban standards. She asked the council to think creatively about the <br />formula both for the TMA funds and transportation funding generally during discussions with the <br />county. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he did not see the urgency of passing the motion immediately and felt the issue <br />could be considered at a later date when more information was available. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly reiterated that the purpose of the motion was to direct staff and MPC representatives to <br />advocate at the MPC that the City's share of the TMA funds be used for operation, maintenance, <br />and preservation. He did not think there were that many unanswered questions about the impact, <br />and the action could always be reversed if it was necessary to change course. He asked Mr. Corey <br />to explain how the motion would restrict staff creativity, when Mr. Corey had stated the use for <br />operation, maintenance, and preservation would be recommended as a matter of course. Mr. <br />Corey replied that his comment on creativity meant he was not certain of the benefit of <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2003 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />