Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to craft sponsorship policy and options for a long‑term MPO reserve; informal sponsorship target set
Summary
Board gave staff guidance to create a formal sponsorship line and to draft options for building a multi‑year reserve. Board members suggested a modest FY26 sponsorship allocation (staff took $2,500 as a working figure) and asked staff to return with policy options and costed reserve scenarios.
Policy board members directed staff to draft a simplified sponsorship policy and to develop options for creating a multi‑year reserve for the MPO’s FY26 budget.
Tyler (MPO staff) summarized earlier ad hoc sponsorships — for example, the MPO has previously supported events such as a visit by the Dutch Cycling Embassy and other speaker events using leftover materials and services or COVID funds. Tyler asked whether the board wanted a formal sponsorship line and, if so, how much to budget.
Board discussion focused on purpose and scope. Members suggested limiting sponsorships to projects closely tied to transportation outcomes (safety, transportation‑sector greenhouse gas reduction, matching funds for transportation conferences or speaker events) rather than broad city planning programs. Several members asked that any sponsorship policy include equity considerations to prioritize underserved communities.
During discussion Councilor Mendez identified a small pending sponsorship request (about $200–$300). Multiple board members said they preferred starting with a modest annual sponsorship allocation. Staff recorded board guidance to use an initial working amount of $2,500 in FY26 for sponsorships and to develop an accompanying simple policy describing eligible uses, priorities, and how unspent dollars would be treated (unspent amounts could be reallocated within materials and services if not spent). The board did not take a formal vote; rather, staff will return with a formal policy and a proposed budget amount.
Separately, staff opened a broader discussion about long‑term reserves. Tyler and finance staff explained three options for handling unspent funds: (1) keep funds as unallocated program budget (materials and services/consultant line), (2) maintain an annual contingency line (historically budgeted at $100,000), or (3) create a formal reserve that staff would build over multiple years for longer‑term planning and to buffer potential future funding reductions (for example, ODOT match reductions or changes when the federal IIJA expires in 2026).
Board members supported staff doing partner outreach to cost out medium‑term and long‑range planning needs (3–5 years) and asked staff to return with specific reserve‑building options and estimated annual contributions. Several members recommended keeping the reserve target conservative while uncertainty in state and federal funding remains.
