Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Lmig topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meriwether County to apply $830,548 LMIG award; commissioners to pick resurfacing projects by Jan. 28
Summary
The county was awarded $830,548.14 in FY25 Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant funds that require a 30% match. Staff proposed candidate roads and the board tabled final selection to the Jan. 28 meeting so commissioners can review scenarios, match sources and timelines.
Meriwether County commissioners on Jan. 8 were notified that the county received a FY25 Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant (LMIG) award of $830,548.14 and must provide a 30% local match. Staff presented a list of candidate roads and asked the board to decide which projects to enter in the state electronic application before the Jan. 31 deadline.
The LMIG award, combined with the required match, will produce roughly $1.0 million in funding for resurfacing and related roadway work from the first-year award; staff also noted about $350,000 in LRA/Cane Creek funds could be applied to increase the total project pool. Staff said they used a condition rating threshold (roads rated 29 or higher) to identify candidate segments and supplied cost estimates for specific roads, including a 1.7-mile segment identified as Veil/Lehi Harris Road with an estimated cost in the packet of about $876,000.
Why this matters: LMIG is a state-local program that requires the county to nominate specific road projects and to commit the 30% match at the time of application. The board must name projects by road and estimated cost to secure the award. Commissioners discussed options including (a) submitting projects now and spending funds across years, (b) holding awarded funds up to three years to combine with later awards for larger-scale work that could yield contractor discounts, and (c) ensuring geographic fairness so each commission district receives consideration.
County staff reiterated application logistics: the application is electronic and requires road names and estimated costs for each nominated project. Staff said the application can be changed later, but each year’s award is tied to the project names submitted for that year. Commissioners asked about timing, contractor interest for relatively small single-year projects, and whether holding funds for a larger multi-year project could produce savings. Staff noted prior practice of holding LMIG funds for up to three years and reminded the board that changes require resubmission to the state.
Action taken: After discussion, the board voted to table final project selection until its Jan. 28 meeting so commissioners could review alternative scenarios and staff could prepare cost details and proposals by district. The Jan. 31 application deadline remains, and staff said they would prepare the electronic submission and seek the chairman’s signature once the board finalizes choices.
Additional context: Staff said the Cane Creek Bridge RFP will be advertised Jan. 25 and identified that some previously budgeted amounts were estimated from prior year experience. Commissioners asked staff to solicit engineering bids and to seek price comparisons from local firms to test the packet estimates.
Ending: The board’s direction gave staff instructions to prepare multiple funding scenarios, coordinate with district commissioners on priority roads, and return Jan. 28 with a packet the board can vote on before the application window closes.
