City/County Road Partnership & Proposed County Capital Project Partnership

New Search

JONES Eroc R From: JONES Eric R sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:14 PM LYLE Les A; LANKSTON Jeff; HILL Larry K; BROWN Dan; STEIN Eileen ' ...abject: LC RAC meeting, 2/20/01 The Lane County Roads Advisory Committee in a series of rapid-fire votes on February 20 accepted a set of core criteria for the Capital Project Partnership Program. The criteria approved by the committee do not include operations, maintenance, or preservation. In setting the stage for the straw votes on several dozen potential criteria, the committee agreed that the allocations of an estimated $20 million in road funds received through the federal Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 will occur mainly through a political process. Therefore, the committee rejected the concept of applications or point- value criteria. Instead, they endorsed a series of policy recommendations. !n terms of specific criteria, the LC RAC considered the following (comments in parentheses): FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION/LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE • Improvement of key links in Lane County • Available only for projects on the arterial/collector system within the county. Preference given to urban arterial streets and rural major collector or arterial projects. (opposed by Jack Radabaugh JURISDICTION • City, county, and ODOT facilities are eligible. • Local road authorities give consent, including accepting jurisdiction upon completion (requiring a letter of authorization or something similar could satisfy this). TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS TARGETED • Modernization or safety projects (the committee specifically rejected OM&P criteria and also opposed using the $$ for EAs, studies, etc. Safety was defined as "addresses known safety issue, roadway or roadside hazard elimination, accident rate.") HER CHARACTERISTICS '' Demonstrated need (Ollie later suggested that approved TransPlan/TSP/TIP/CIP listings would address this area) • Project deliverable within 5-year program life. Readiness to proceed. • Leverages other funding sources. Includes in-kind services and materials, right-of-way donations (opposed by Tom Poage and Sky Chamard. Committee also approved the concept of "cost/benefit to community" and rejected "cost/benefit to youth, satisfies Lane County Super Goal") • Should not displace ODOT or local funding already committed. • Greatest public return on use of County funds (committee specifically rejected a criterion of "equitable distribution in Lane County" by commissioner districts) • Project "moves people" in all modes of travel (Rex Redmon appeared to carry a yes vote that includes bike and ped facilities within road right of way, but the committee was moving pretty fast and may not support this criterion in later iterations.) • County contract is the norm (Rex and Sky dissented. The committee also approved similar language "County to control work -- includes engineering, contract administration and inspection but scratched a specific line that "payments go directly to contractors"). • Supports the regional economy of Lane County (The committee rejected specific criteria around economic development and job creation, but accepted a proposal by Rex that "Project supports alternative use of National Forest land in Lane County") • Under "project accountability," the committee approved "proposal provides agreeable level of accountability" (after another round of Eugene bashing) but rejected "provides high visibility results to residents of accomplishments achieved through use of County funds" (this was characterized as the "Sorenson idea" and was rejected despite staffs reminder that signage and other communication tools are called for in the County Strategic Plan) • Under "environmental goals," the committee accepted "fuel conservation" and "priority of culvert replacements" (however, committee members also said that, since the Board of Commissioners has directed that 20% of the. National Forest payment go to Title 2 and Title 3 projects, perhaps enough of the road rund has been spent on environmental projects) • The committee rejected a proposal by Ollie that "Project facilitates transfer of ODOT local interest highways (Ollie said there are about 60 miles of ODOT local interest highway in Lane County, including Highway 99 from Eugene to Cottage Grove). -~~ECIFIC PROJECTS ''re was considerable discussion about specific projects that might qualify under the policies. Staff suggested a number o~ projects, most involving the state highway system: Lingo Lane (off Highway 99 East in the Junction City area), phase 3 Beltline (Roosevelt to West 11th), West 11th (Terry to Green Hill Road), rail overcrossing on Jasper Road, South 42nd 1