City/County Road Partnership & Proposed County Capital Project Partnership

New Search

$1.57 that we get goes to the Sheriff and District Attorney and the Court and all these State mandated services that they expect the County to provide for all your residents. Ms. Mulder said we're not talking about your general fund; we're talking about the road fund. Stapleton closed public comment. Goodson responded to comments from the City of Eugene representatives. He stated that the program we're considering affects all 12 cities within Lane County. The Roads Advisory Committee reviewed the video of the City of Eugene City Council & Budget Committee work session on roads held last February 2000. to that presentation there was an emphasis on a crisis the City of Eugene was having on their arterial road system where all of a sudden it was a crisis because these need to be reconstructed if something wasn't done immediately. Part of the rationale for the program when it was initially set up was funding was provided so the City could do periodic overlays. There was about a 100 miles of arterial roads and given a 15-year average life, there is a certain amount of money to overlay it. For our roads it's usually about $50,000 per mile; for city roads with some different circumstances it might be $100,000 or more. When we look at the amount of County funds going to the cities, it was hard for us to understand why all of a sudden is it a crisis and why these roads hadn't been taken care of on a periodic basis. Lane County staff met with Eugene Public Works staff several years ago to find out where the money was going and why some of these needs weren't being taken care of and we weren't getting very good responses. When we look at how the roads in the other cities are being maintained they seem to be doing a better job. Those are some of the concerns that our staff and our committee has had about use of city funds and the fact that they haven't been very forthcoming on reports that have been requested. 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Radabaugh asked to correct the minutes of January 24, 2001, on page 2, item V. second paragraph that the sentence end following the word 'Committee'. Motion: Radabaugh moved to approve the Minutes of January 24; 2001, as corrected. Chamard seconded. All present voted in favor and motion carried. III. EXISTING FUNDING POLICIES Goodson reiterated that there are restrictions on use of the Road Fund when the County adopted the Road Fund Plan. The Plan was to use gas tax for maintenance and preservation of existing system, and Federal Forest Receipts for modernization projects putting emphasis on existing system as first priority. IV. PAST USE OF COUNTY-CITY ROAD PARTNERSHIP FUNDS BY CITIES Goodson reported that the Board met with all the cities last February and reminded the cities that they are to report by January 1 of each year on how they have spent those funds as specified in the intergovernmental agreement. Several of the cities have not met this requirement. Goodson distributed a copy of the Board discussion on January 3, 2001. V. DESIRED OUTCOMES OR CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF COUNTY FUNDS Goodson indicated that the main reason for tonight's meeting is to determine how these funds could be utilized. He highlighted some suggested criteria for consideration: greatest public return on use of County funds, high visibility of results to residents of accomplishments achieved through use of County funds, leveraging of other funds when possible, high priority for projects that improve safety and capacity, high priority for projects that reduce delay and conserve fuel, eliminate diversion of funds for overhead by making payments directly to contractors, County to Roads Advisory Committee -February 15, 2001 Page 3 or 6