New Search
SPRINGFIELD <br />PUBLIC WORKS <br />PUBLIC WORKS <br />CITY OF SPRINGFIELD <br />225 A STREET <br />SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477 <br />(541) 726-3753 <br />(541) 736-1021 <br />MEMO <br />To: Ollie Snowden, Lane County Public Works <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br />858 PEARL STREET <br />EUGENE, OREGON 97401 <br />(541) 682-5291 <br />(541) 682-5032 FAX <br />From: Dan Brown, City of Springfield; Les Lyle and Jeff Lankston, City of Eugene <br />Subject: Criteria for Capital Project Partnership <br />Date: February 7, 2001 <br />Staff from Springfield and Eugene have had an opportunity to review the draft criteria for Lane <br />County's proposed Capital Project Partnership, and we think they include some excellent <br />proposals for further discussion.. We share Lane County's desire for efficient use of road funds. <br />Frankly, we and the other cities in Lane County believe that operations, maintenance, and <br />preservation are among the most efficient and cost-effective uses of limited road funds, and we <br />continue to encourage elected and appointed officials and staff at Lane County to consider <br />restoring existing County/City Road Partnership funding to the 1996 level. <br />We also recognize that Lane County has considerable interest in creating a Capital Project <br />~' - Partnership. We support that effort as a supplement to the existing County/City Road <br />Partnership. We believe that through the oversight of county staff and the Roads Advisory <br />Committee~~ both partnerships can be accommodated within the resources available. We would <br />like to provide some feedback (shown in italics) on the draft criteria for the Capital Project <br />Partnership as presented on January 24, 2001. We hope you're able to share our thoughts <br />with the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee by including this memo in the packet being <br />prepared for the February 15 RAC meeting. <br />CRITERIA <br />1.) Public Road -Projects must be on a public road, with priority given to improvements on <br />the arterial/collector system within the county. <br />We fully support criteria that give priority to projects focused on the arterial/collector <br />system in the county. <br />2.) Funding -Sharing of costs and/or leveraging of other funds should be a criterion. <br />Again, we think this makes good sense. We'd like to add right-of-way purchased or <br />donated for the project as an example of matching funds. At some point, it may be <br />important to define the level of matching support and how much a role it would play in <br />selecting projects. <br />3.) Control of work -Control of work to be conducted by the County. <br />The cities support the efficient use of staff and resources to engineer and construct <br /> <br />