CCMinutes - 06/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman commended the staff presentation. She explained that she had requested the work session because of her concern that there was no opportunity for council review of the funding priorities. She noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners acted as the local Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) and made the final decisions on the STIP. She emphasized the complexity of the process and maintained that currently, because of that complexity, there was no way for a citizen to weigh in on those funding priorities except through their own council. Ms. Bettman further noted that although the council voted to prioritize maintenance and preservation projects for any available flexible funds, the STP-U funding was flexible money but the MPC had not directed all of the funding to preservation and maintenance. In part, she said, that was because any single jurisdiction represented at the MPC had veto power over any motion considered by the MPC. That gave other jurisdictions authority over the money to be spent within the Eugene city limits. She further expressed concern about what she believed was the inequity of the MPC's composition, which included two represen- tatives for each jurisdiction in spite of the population differences between Springfield and Eugene, and in spite of the fact the Lane Transit District Board of Directors was appointed and not elected. Mr. Kelly said that the council did not have the opportunity to consider the metropolitan STIP priorities in the same way that the Springfield City Council did. He advocated for such an opportunity for the council to review the staff-generated project list given the dollars that were involved. Mr. Kelly also expressed concern about the complexity of the process and the many acronyms employed and expressed a wish there was a more transparent funding process. He encouraged staff to think about ways to accomplish that. Mr. Pap~ said it appeared from the project list that a considerable amount of money was directed toward preservation. Ms. Bettman said most were bicycle projects. Mr. Pap~ said that better than half the dollars appeared to be going toward preservation. Mr. Corey said that several road preservation projects were not funded. In terms of increasing the efficiency and transparency of the project, Mr. Pap~ suggested the region consider forming an ACT, and asked why that had not been considered. Mayor Torrey deferred that question for a later response. Mr. Meisner asked how Ms. Bettman's concerns about representation could be addressed. Mr. Carlson said it would require a change to the MPC's bylaws and the concurrence of the parties to the agreement to change the committee's representation. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about the makeup of the MPC in terms of transportation funding. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the MPC was already constituted in several different ways with different representation to address different metropolitan planning and transportation functions. Mr. Meisner asked if the parties to the MPC had veto power over bylaw changes. Mr. Carlson said yes. There must be one affirmative vote from each of the three general purpose govern- ments for a motion to change the bylaws to pass. He termed the current structure a delicate balance of power between the three main purpose governments. Mr. Meisner expressed hope the MPC would consider the issue of changes to the representation of the committee for transportation funding decisions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 9, 2004 Page 2 Work Session