Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Works Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public Works lists 2026 projects, flags Mahoning River dam removal and possible eminent domain

Youngstown City Committee of the Whole · February 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public Works presented a list of 2026 engineering and infrastructure projects (design, inspection, paving, bridges) and warned property issues could force eminent‑domain steps on a dam removal project; staff outlined federal/state match mechanisms and estimated $4.8M in resurfacing expenditures with about $2.4M expected in reimbursements.

Charles Sasso, Public Works, outlined professional‑services and infrastructure work planned for 2026, describing engineering, testing, inspection and construction management needs across downtown and neighborhood projects.

Sasso listed projects including Marshall Street paving, Madison Avenue service‑road painting, South Avenue bridge inspection, new projects on Wood/McGuffey/North Sheridan and design work required for the West Avenue bridge removal and resubmission to ODOT. He said some purchase orders and contracts are encumbered from 2025 and must be honored in 2026.

On the Mahoning River dam removal, Sasso said property issues are the critical path: "For some reason, when people find out the city needs the property, they can get a little bit unreasonable," he said, and negotiations with the owner (Two Bridges/Two Rivers referenced in testimony) appear unlikely to succeed. Staff said options include negotiating an environmental covenant with EPA, acquiring the property or, if necessary, taking eminent‑domain action to advance the dam removal and related environmental work.

Sasso also explained funding mechanics. Many transportation projects use federal dollars routed through Eastgate (the MPO) and then ODOT; grant programs vary but commonly operate on an 80/20 split, and the city frequently layers OPWC/state match dollars so the city’s net contribution is reduced. He cited a $572,000 local match approval tied to the Urban Paving Program required by state rules.

On resurfacing, Sasso gave a rough fiscal picture: about $4.8 million in local expenditures for resurfacing efforts with approximately $2.4 million expected to be reimbursed from federal/state/CDBG and other sources, leaving a net local cost. He cautioned that reimbursements depend on project completion and timing, so actual net costs can shift and some projects get carried forward to future budget years.

Council members asked about schedule and legal timing; Public Works said RFQs and RFPs for design‑build teams are underway and that if negotiations stall the city has contingency options including partial removal or deferred work.

The Committee was provided the project list and funding explanation to inform upcoming appropriations and project scheduling.