Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners decline immediate approval of ITD FTA 5310 grant after questioning whether funds are needed
Summary
Kootenai County commissioners declined to approve an Idaho Transportation Department FTA 5310 ARP small urban funding agreement after questioning whether the award was a necessary operational need or merely an available opportunity; staff were asked to meet with commissioners and KMPO before bringing the item back.
The Kootenai County Board of Commissioners on June 30 did not approve a proposed funding agreement from the Idaho Transportation Department for FTA 5310 ARP small urban funds, after commissioners pressed transit staff for clearer justification of need.
Chad Engel, representing the county transit department, asked the board to accept an ITD funding agreement for FTA 5310 ARP small urban funds. Engel said the funding requires no local match and "will extend our operations about two and a half months" if the county’s separate KMPO grant approval is delayed. "We can always utilize the funding," Engel said when pressed about operational necessity.
Commissioner Duncan repeatedly asked whether the transit department had contacted KMPO to confirm whether the KMPO grant would be approved and whether this ITD award was essential rather than opportunistic. "Do you need this money to continue your operations?" Duncan asked. Engel replied that while additional funds are always helpful, the board should decide whether to accept it.
A motion to approve the grant was made but failed for lack of a second. Commissioners asked staff to meet to provide clearer documentation about operational need, coordination with KMPO, and how the ITD funding would be used before returning the item to the board.
The amount for the ITD award in the meeting transcript is partially garbled and was not read clearly into the record; the county indicated the award is FTA 5310 ARP small urban funds with no local match required. Commissioners emphasized that accepting no‑match funds can be useful but that the board needs clearer information about whether acceptance is necessary to maintain operations or merely an opportunistic increase in available funds.
No vote on acceptance occurred; the item was left for staff follow-up.
