By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Another meeting is being held with county
commissioners to discuss the jurisdictional transfer of
roads from state stewardship to county control.
Juab County Commissioners, like other members of the
Utah Association of Counties, continues to disapprove the
transfer.
"No, we don't want the transfer of their roads," said
Neil Cook, commission chairman.
Mike Seely, county administrator, agreed to represent
the county at the latest meeting.
"On numerous occasions we have told them that we do
not want their roads," said Robert Steele, commissioner.
At the June 7 meeting of the Highway Jurisdictional
Transfer Task Force, the Utah Association of Counties (UAC)
was charged to return to that body with the counties'
perspective on the jurisdictional transfer of state and
local roads. Specifically, UAC was asked to respond to a
prioritized list of state roads to be considered for
transfer prepared by the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT).
On June 28, 2005, UAC responded to that
assignment.
Currently county government pays for the maintenance
and repair of county roads through a combination of class
"B" road funds and general fund revenues. In 2002, class "B"
road funds made up 54 percent of the money spent by county
government on streets and roads.
According to UDOT's 2004 Annual Statistical Summary,
counties maintain 23,686 miles of roads, over twice as much
as 9,016 miles of city roads, and over four times as much as
the 5,852 miles of state roads.
Despite this fact, counties received 38.3 percent of
the B&C funds in 2004 with cities receiving the
remaining 61.7 percent.
This is due to the B&C road formula that discounts
gravel and dirt roads (of which Utah's counties maintain
18,230 miles) when calculating the distribution of those
funds.
Juab County Commissioners said they all agreed with
the report presented by UAC
"You would have to be stark, staring nuts to take one
of their (the state's) roads," said Steele.
The Utah Association of Counties reported that the
Highway Jurisdictional Transfer Task Force is approaching
the question of transfer prematurely.
Rather than identifying the roads to transfer first,
UAC thought it would be wiser to agree upon some sort of
funding principle. That should be done prior to identifying
roads to transfer.
The current model is akin to agreeing to purchase an
item without knowing the cost.
Understandably, Utah's counties are a little hesitant
to identify any state roads they'd be willing to take.
Additionally, UAC wonders if there might be other,
better solutions to Utah's transportation crisis than the
jurisdictional transfer of state roads to local
government.
There might be solutions that require a state/local
partnership in maintaining state roads that would better
meet the needs of Utah's citizens than a jurisdictional
transfer of those roads.
"With the cost of roads," said Steele, "it would be
difficult to maintain a road on the money proposed. It would
be impossible to replace one."
The Utah Association of Counties believes a change to
the B&C fund is necessary in order to compensate local
government for absorbing transferred state roads before the
transfer is enacted.
The Utah Association of Counties has no desire to
participate in an appropriations battle year after year over
the funding of these roads. UAC opposes any transfer that
does not include a permanent source of funding.
Currently, 25 percent of the net highway user revenue
is deposited into the B&C account with the other 75
percent going to UDOT.
The Utah Association of Counties believes that this
split needs to change proportionately to the change in state
roads. For example, UDOT's prioritized road transfer list
consists of 8.5 percent of the state roads. Eight and a half
percent of 75 percent is 6.4 percent, so the new highway
user revenue distribution formula would be 68.6 percent to
UDOT and 31.4 percent to the B&C account.
A previous hold harmless within the B&C road fund
would also need to be adjusted to ensure that a handful of
jurisdictions would be able to receive the additional
funding necessary to support the additional roads.
The Utah Association of Counties has contacted every
county within the state and addressed specifically which
roads on the UDOT list the counties would be willing to
absorb, if adequate funding was provided. A complete list of
roads is given in the appendix of this report. Further
detail for specific counties that have send correspondences
to UAC is available per request.
"It is being proposed that Juab County take over four
roads," said Steele.
Cooks said that UAC addressed the concerns of the
counties in the report. Several concerns were raised by
counties over the list that UAC thinks needs to be
addressed. A partial list of these concerns is provided
below:
Some jurisdictions lack the equipment, staff, or
maintenance facilities necessary to maintain some of the
roads.
Local government might not be able to maintain some
state roads at the current speed limit.
Several of the roads are access roads for state parks.
Why should county government maintain state access roads
that serve a state function?
Several roads on the list are miles away from any
other county road. It would require a huge round trip (in
one case, 100 miles) to provide service to a small, out of
the way, stretch of road.
The generation of the list came from a top down
approach. In one county, the county commission met with its
local UDOT representatives and agreed upon a list of roads
that made sense to transfer. That list was not represented
in UDOT's list.
Some counties worry about the liability associated
with certain roads.
Some roads on UDOT list include bridges which increase
the cost and liability of a road.
Several of the roads seem to be contained partially or
in whole within the grounds of a state agency's
property.
Many of the roads require major repair such as new
bridges before the counties are willing to accept them.
|
