CCP 10-28-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 LE-28. Turnbacks of County and State Roads (AF) 2 3 Issue: As road funding becomes increasingly inadequate, more roads are being "turned 4 back" to cities from counties and the state. 5 6 Response: Turnbacks should not occur without direct funding or transfer of a 7 funding source. A process of negotiation and mediation should govern the timing, funding, 8 and condition of turned-back roads. City taxpayers should receive the same treatment as 9 township taxpayers. The requirement for a public hearing, standards about the conditions 10 of turnbacks, and temporary maintenance funding should also apply to county turnbacks 11 to cities. At a minimum, roads that are proposed to be turned back to a city government 12 should be brought up to the standards of the receiving government or that city should be 13 compensated with a direct payment. Direct funding should be provided for smaller cities 14 that are not provided with turnback [mancing through the municipal state aid system. 15 16 LE-29. Road Funding for Cities Under 5,000 (AF) 17 18 Issue: Cities under 5,000 population do not receive any nonproperty tax funds for their 19 collector and arterial streets. 20 21 Response: Cities under 5,000 population that are not eligible for Municipal State 22 Aid (MSA) should be able to use county municipal accounts and the 5 percent account of 23 the highway user distribution fund. 24 25 Uses of county municipal accounts should be statutorily modified so counties can 26 dedicate these funds for local arterials and collector streets within cities under 5,000 27 population. In addition, the 5 percent set-aside account in the highway user distribution 28 fund should be used to meet this funding gap. 29 30 LE-30. Railroad-Related Projects (AF) 31 32 Issue: Cities are being presented with far-reaching and long-term effects when railroad 33 expansion and related projects enter their communities. Along with the concerns related to 34 safety, environmental effects, and noise impacts on the communities, several issues have greater 35 reaching effects. They are; 36 37 . The cost-share ratio related to roadway crossing improvements will be borne by the public 38 sector to a substantial degree, some estimates are 80 percent public to 20 percent private 39 funding. 40 . The fmancial burden faced by the public sector to deal with mitigation improvements, a cost 41 that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) is not requiring the private sector to pay. 42 . The issues associated with the length of trains moving through communities. 43 · Liability associated with whistle-blowing ordinances. 44 . Pre-emption of local authority to regulate railroad activities. . . . 20