Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears staff caution on rushing SS4A federal safety grant application
Summary
City staff told East Ridge council the U.S. DOT Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant requires crash data, technical studies, a 20% local match and heavy reporting; with a May 26 deadline staff recommended planning for a future cycle rather than rushing an application.
City staff briefed the East Ridge City Council on April 23 about the U.S. Department of Transportation's Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant program and advised caution about pursuing the current application cycle.
Transportation and planning staff explained the program has two tracks: planning grants for standalone safety-action plans and implementation grants that fund construction but require an existing safety-action plan. Eastridge is included in a regional comprehensive safety action plan, but staff said the city lacks the detailed crash statistics, traffic-control data and supporting technical documentation a competitive application requires. Mr. Mallister told the council the program also requires substantial post-award reporting and a local match (staff cited a 20% match requirement for awards).
"This program would require a 20% match of the awarded funds, which goes along with staffing capacity or an outside consultant group to help us manage both the application and the compliance process... the deadline to submit this program application is May 26th, 2026," Mr. Mallister said, urging that consultant support or internal capacity be identified if the city were to apply this cycle.
Staff supplied council with three local-project pages drawn from the regional Transportation Improvement Program and noted examples of local match obligations: a grouped resurfacing project (local share cited at $314,438), Scrubs Road reconstruction (city match example $104,000) and that funding for John Ross Road remains in process. Mallister and the council discussed eligibility limits (routine paving and maintenance are not eligible), the data requirements for a competitive submission and procurement rules that would require the city to issue an RFP for consultant support.
Council members expressed interest in pursuing safety improvements but agreed not to rush the current application cycle. Several members suggested budgeting match funds and drafting a city safety-action plan over the coming months so the city could compete in a future round. Staff noted constraints, including departmental workload, an upcoming staff leave period and the short May 26 timeline.
Next steps: council asked staff to evaluate preparing an action plan and potential consultant options for a future application and to include match planning in the next budget cycle rather than attempting to meet the May 26 deadline.
