Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Reclassification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jefferson County board declines to reclassify Tamarack Avenue amid cost and maintenance concerns
Summary
After a public hearing on May 12, the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors voted to not reclassify Tamarack Avenue from Level B to Level A, citing erosion risk, steep grade and significant upfront and ongoing costs; the board said the decision can be revisited if circumstances change.
Speaker 1 opened a public hearing May 12 on a proposal to reclassify Tamarack Avenue from a Level B county road to Level A and invited staff and contractors to describe the work required.
County staff and road contractors described steep grades, soil erosion and the scope of work needed to bring the road to Level A standard. The county engineer and road foremen said the project would require heavy equipment, ditch and erosion control work and significant rock placement. As Speaker 5 summarized, "It's awful tough to keep that stuff in place" and wetter, heavier rain events have increased erosion and maintenance needs.
Board members focused on who would pay and on long-term maintenance. Speaker 5 noted the county ordinance permits upgrades from Level B to Level A but said that the county typically covers much of the initial improvement cost and that a landowner provides rock only for the first application. Estimates discussed during the hearing included six-figure orders of magnitude when additional structures or bridge work are involved; staff cited past bridge work costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as context.
Speaker 1 moved that the board not reclassify Tamarack Avenue from Level B to Level A at this time, citing uncertainty about the landowner's plans and the county's near-term budget priorities. The motion passed on a voice vote; the transcript records the board voting to not reclassify, and individual member tallies were not specified in the meeting record.
The board left the door open to revisit the question if the landowner demonstrates a compelling need or if development changes the circumstances. Speaker 1 said the decision was not meant to permanently foreclose future consideration: the board "can't say ever" but declined to proceed with the upgrade in this instance.
What happens next: staff noted that if the landowner pursues private improvement (for example, providing approved quarry rock and completing erosion controls), the county could consider cost-sharing for future requests; otherwise, no county-funded upgrade will occur this year absent new information from the property owner.
