New Search
Stapleton commented that the biggest goal we strive for is traffic safety. <br />Poage commented that we don't have a guarantee on the money. There are environmental <br />impacts, such as the salmon issue, that we need to look at since they are more forest related. <br />Other issues we should look at are safety, traffic movement, set some technical guidelines that <br />we can address. He doesn't want to see us rat hole a large pot of money; feels we need to <br />disburse some of the money- <br />, Commissioner Dwyer stated that we need to look at Title 2 money because it's specific to <br />environmental and will deal with salmon so it may be eligible for a different pot of money vs. the <br />general Road Fund. Title 3 is not restricted for federal lands but can be used on other things. <br />Redmon commented that there are a lot of culverts that are not on Federal lands. Regarding <br />maintenance, he suggested perhaps aone-time lump sum improvement fix on a project to off set <br />in order to salvage a project. <br />Engelman stated that the salmon issue would go beyond culverts and include riparian vegetation <br />and resloping. <br />Snowden stated that at the end of five years, there could be $20 million available for a capital <br />project partnership program. If you increase the City/County Road Partnership from $2.5 million <br />to $5 million, then there would only be about $8.5 million left. <br />Poage commented that we need to have an accounting of the funds. It's important and critical <br />that the cities provide an accounting to us. In the past, we've tried to maintain an accounting, but <br />it hasn't happened by all the cities. He suggested not giving the money to the cities and the <br />County do the engineering work or if the city does the engineering work, then the County does a <br />portion of the costs. <br />Chamard stated that we don't know where the money went that was given to the larger cities; the <br />smaller cities we know. When we ask what was the total expenditure for maintenance, we don't <br />know. <br />Radabaugh stated that this Committee came up with the criteria for maintenance vs. <br />modernization . What percentage goes to each between modernization vs. maintenance. <br />Stapleton asked if we should be responsible for maintenance of city streets. <br />Radabaugh added that he knows some of the cities want the money for maintenance. <br />Stapleton stated that is where the $2.5 million is going to maintenance for the cities. <br />Chamard stated that even when we gave them the "pot", they were still coming to the Road Fund <br />for modernization. <br />Stapleton suggested that if the cities don't respond with the proper report, they don't get the <br />money in the next year. <br />Radabaugh suggested making accountability an important item. <br />Stapleton stated we need to develop criteria for allocating the $5 million. <br />Commissioner Dwyer stated he has confidence in this Committee that they are the most astute <br />and hard-working committee. <br />Chamard commented that whatever criteria is developed, there will be room for political influence. <br />Roads Advisory Committee -February 15, 2001 <br />Page 5 or 6 <br />