New Search
provide engineering required for projects, ODOT and all cities to be included with the emphasis <br />on projects of regional significance that improve transportation for motorists. <br />Redmon referred to the handout from Eugene on breakdown of costs and asked if they are cost- <br />effective. Snowden replied that we haven't done a comparison with the cities based on bid <br />prices; however, we are getting excellent bid prices. Each project has a different political <br />environment that surrounds it, i.e. Lorane Highway. He feels we are competitive with private <br />engineering costs. <br />Chamard stated that he's been involved with Forest roads since 1974 when he worked at the <br />Forest Service and knows how the Forest Fund started and was to support the timber to market <br />system. The basic concept was for atimber-oriented system in lieu of taxes on private land. We <br />need to think of that concept when considering this criteria. <br />Commissioner Dwyer stated that this money is reauthorization of federal timber dollars given <br />under two titles -Title 2: projects on Federal lands not timber inclusive, and Title 3: gives more <br />flexibility, but accounting for dollars will be very strict and has designated uses. The County has <br />1430 miles of roads; some are within the urban growth boundary that the cities will eventually get. <br />The County has many unmet needs. We need to understand that we're trying to develop a <br />system that meets everyone's needs the best. He suggested giving points to a criteria if there are <br />matching funds, and perhaps more points if there is more involvement among other agencies. <br />Stapleton commented that because we have this extra money doesn't mean that we should <br />spend it all. How do we know what's going to happen six years from now. <br />Commissioner Dwyer stated that in TransPlan there are about $220 million of unfunded projects. <br />Engelman commented that we have existing criteria for evaluating CIP projects and asked if the <br />same criteria could be used as a basis for evaluating projects under this new fund. <br />Redmon asked if the breakdown of where forest product industry has dollars tied to forests how <br />does that balance and if recreation is to be economic, should roads be related to that? <br />Radabaugh commented on the urban transition done long ago and thought a new urban transition <br />agreement might be the way to go. He's heard the common complaint from the cities on <br />maintenance deficit. <br />Engelman asked when we will know the amount of funds we're going to receive. Snowden stated <br />that we know the amount now if the formula stays the same - 75% for roads and 25% for <br />schools. At this point, we don't know if the Legislature is going to make any changes; we haven't <br />heard anything yet. <br />Commissioner Dwyer stated that he heard the Governor tell AOC that he would veto a 2¢ gas tax <br />increase. <br />Snowden stated that the Board would like the Committee to develop criteria and the Board will <br />decide how many dollars to set aside for these projects. <br />Wirtz suggested looking at the criteria established for the CIP. All of the money in the CIP is for <br />capital projects. There are criteria for Economic Development, which we developed last year. Do <br />we want to look at this and John's suggested criteria. <br />Radabaugh indicated that based on past Committee minutes and agenda he compiled and <br />distributed his list of criteria to consider. <br />Commissioner Dwyer commented that the vision is to get the best bang for the buck. He doesn't <br />care whose project it is if we can use project dollars to jump-start a project. <br />Roads Advisory Committee -February 15, 2001 <br />Page 4 or 6 <br />