Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
COG members decline policy change for rural chip‑and‑seal funding; keep 30% design standard and revisit if patterns of abuse emerge
Summary
At the Jan. 27 Cache COG meeting, members discussed whether to restrict chip‑and‑seal maintenance projects in the rural set‑aside and whether to reintroduce engineering‑only awards. The group broadly favored leaving the policy as written, retaining a 30% design threshold and asking staff to return with any needed formal edits.
Members of the Cache County Council of Governments debated changes to the COG’s transportation policy on Jan. 27, focusing on two issues: whether the rural set‑aside should fund routine chip‑and‑seal maintenance and whether the COG should offer engineering‑only awards.
COG staff summarized that recent calls for projects had produced applications ranging from simple maintenance chip‑and‑seal work to full‑depth reconstructions with shoulder widening and intersection improvements. Staff asked the group whether the rural set‑aside should continue to allow chip‑and‑seal projects or whether the COG should limit funds to larger capacity or reconstruction projects.
Many mayors and municipal representatives said maintenance chip‑and‑seal work is sometimes the only affordable option for small towns and that eliminating it could leave local roads deteriorating. Others said the COG’s limited funds should prioritize projects that increase traffic flow or create new capacity rather than recurring maintenance. After discussion, members expressed general support for keeping the rural set‑aside but for being cautious about repeatedly funding the same maintenance projects year after year; members said exceptions for reconstruction or capacity improvements would remain appropriate.
On engineering‑only funding, the group said the COG moved previously from a 90% design requirement to a 30% design threshold to reduce the barrier for smaller jurisdictions. Staff confirmed that when projects are awarded, the COG will reimburse eligible engineering costs to reach that design level but that there is no separate, standalone engineering‑only grant program currently encoded in the policy. Participants broadly favored retaining the 30% threshold rather than returning to a 90% requirement and agreed to leave the engineering‑only question open unless future demand suggested a problem.
COG staff said they will prepare a redlined version of the policy manual reflecting any agreed clarifications and will present a final approval at the next COG meeting. No formal policy amendment was adopted at the Jan. 27 meeting.
