New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
City/County Road Partnership & Proposed County Capital Project Partnership
COE
>
PW
>
Admin
>
Execs
>
Executive non-confidential
>
Historical
>
City/County Road Partnership & Proposed County Capital Project Partnership
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/5/2009 11:01:05 AM
Creation date
6/1/2009 12:26:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Exec
PW_Division_Exec
Administration
PWA_Project_Area
Transportation
PW_Subject
Roads Partnership
Document_Date
2/28/2001
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1/3/01 am <br />before Public Works could determine the money that would be in the capital <br />partnership pot. He listed those projects. He said they would need <br />at least $3-$4 million. He added if they were in a tight financial <br />situation, they would need another $1 million per month to cover <br />operations until the first payment comes from timber receipts. He <br />said the Board needed to look ahead to see if there would be any <br />government needs that should be funded out of the road fund. He <br />suggested paying down the outstanding PERS obligation with some <br />of the money for Public Works. He noted they might need $5 <br />million to repair the fish culverts to make them fish friendly and that <br />is an obligation they didn't have two years ago. <br />Morrison agreed with the projects. She asked what the graphs <br />would look like if Lane County had 25% and the state had 75%. <br />She said it would give a whole different perspective. <br />Snowden stated they wanted to come back with a priority list with <br />culvert replacement and the priority list would be dependent upon <br />financial disbursement by the Board of Commissioners. <br />Weeldreyer said it was not her intent to bring the local access road <br />into the county system. She suggested aone-time expenditure on a <br />lottery basis and the criteria discussed was a level of local match <br />from the property owners, giving them an opportunity on a regular <br />basis to be able to apply for matching funds for road improvements. <br />.Green reconunended developing a process in accordance with the <br />Roads Advisory Committee, discussing with the cities how the <br />county could be a better partner in identifying some of the major <br />projects. <br />Snowden reiterated he wanted the Board to provide direction to the <br />Roads Advisory Committee and staff to develop criteria used to <br />select the projects and to fit it into the capital improvement program <br />public process. He added that ODOT would be part of this as well. <br />Dwyer suggested a listing of which culverts had the greatest impact <br />on fish in descending order. He said they needed to maximize use <br />of the money. He was not for the access roads into the county <br />system. <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />Sorenson asked Public Works to convene a meeting with the cities' <br />public works departments and ODOT, determining what the cities <br />would need. He also wanted to know what the fund balance would <br />be. <br />Van Vactor said by changing this formula, it allows the County to <br />be strategic with a portion of these funds. He said the greatest <br />unmet need in Lane County is on the state system as opposed to <br />` other systems and there is no local mechanism to deal with it. He <br />said by taking Snowden's suggestion, (being strategic and looking <br />http://www.co.lane.or.us/BCC Info/Meeting_Info/2001%20Minutes/January/O1-1-3am.htm 3/2/01 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.