Laserfiche WebLink
operations. The district’s pressing need to expand its maintenance facility to accommodate the larger transit <br />vehicles was a good fit for that requirement. He hoped that with the other half of the stimulus funds, service <br />reductions could be prevented for a year. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of buses to people who needed to get to work. She encouraged late <br />night bus service to reduce the incidence of drunk driving. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if LTD was requesting to have $1.5 million in STP-U funds held in reserve for the next <br />three fiscal years. He also asked for clarification on how the STP-U funds were currently being used. Mr. <br />Inerfeld replied that transportation options funds were used to support Commuter Solutions work on <br />transportation demand management, planning funds went to Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to <br />provide staff support for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and to jurisdictions to support their <br />involvement in MPO activities. He said the City received $40,000 and LCOG received around $400,000 <br />per year. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked about the impact of holding funds in reserve. Mr. Inerfeld said his understanding was <br />that LTD was not asking for funds to be held in reserve; the proposal was to let the normal process for <br />allocating STP-U funds go forward this year and in future years allow LTD to return with a request for <br />STP-U funds if it was still necessary to avoid service reductions. <br /> <br />Mr. Eyster said LTD had applied for STP-U funds in the past and under the proposal would agree that if <br />those funds had to be allocated to the district, it would forego applying for STP-U funds for some time in the <br />future. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka noted that STP-U funds represented one of the few sources of flexible federal dollars and he <br />was supportive of trading capital funds for City street improvements for maintaining bus service levels. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked if the proposal could include an agreement that if LTD did not need STP-U funds in a <br />particular fiscal year it would release the reserved funds for that year instead of holding the whole amount in <br />reserve for the entire period. Mr. Eyster said the financial picture was constantly changing and LTD would <br />not request the funds if they were not needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz clarified that LTD was not asking the council or MPC to take any action at this point, but there <br />could be a time in future when there would be a request for funding. He said staff would be mindful of that <br />possibility as it worked through the budgeting process. Mr. Inerfeld added that the council approved STP-U <br />applications submitted by the City, but did not take a position on STP-U applications from other jurisdic- <br />tions although guidance could be provided to the council’s MPC representatives. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy underscored how difficult it was for the public to understand the restrictions on use of funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Piercy and said his experience as an MPC member had demonstrated to him <br />how little discretionary money was available. He asked if STP-U funds could be used to help fill the <br />operations and maintenance budget gap in Public Works. Mr. Inerfeld replied that STP-U funds could not <br />be used directly for annual operations and maintenance, but could be used for capital preservation. <br /> <br />Mr. Pangborn said that was why LTD would use STP-U funds for capital projects and use the supplanted <br />capital funds for transit operations. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION <br /> Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />