Error
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 62
Thursday, 15 February 2007 01:48

Could The Tri-County’s Be Receiving An Extra 10 Million For Road Projects?

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)
slide2Is it true that an accounting error has lead to the discovery of nearly 10 million dollars in state transportation funds by the project director of the Tri County’s projects? Yes, but is more complicated than that according to Amador County Transportation Commission Executive Director Charles Field. Field explains that project manager Scott Maas had reported 13.9 million dollars in project deficits, due to cost overruns on both the Sutter Creek project and massive overruns on the Angel’s project. Maas now reports that Prop 1b funds have come to the rescue and although the larger deficit showed on previous reports, now the deficit is just 3.5 million dollars. The subject of these overruns has been an ongoing issue in the Tri County Alliance which includes Amador, Alpine and Calaveras Counties.

slide5 The idea between the three counties, when the alliance was formed, was to better the chances of each county to receive funds for their individual projects by pooling transportation funds and appealing to the California Transportation Commission’s ideals that encourage such alliances. The plan worked and the first project funded was the Sutter Creek Bypass. Currently, with the Sutter Creek project nearing completion, the Angel’s Camp project is set to move forward- only one problem cost overruns which have pushed the originally 28 million dollar project to the 60 million dollar mark. The 13.5 million dollar deficit was the final straw for partner Amador and Alpine County who began to ask Caltrans officials why the cost increases were escalating so dramatically, particularly on the Angel’s project.

slide8 Unsatisfied with the answers, the coalition began to wage a campaign of words with Calaveras County Officials lashing out at the partners worried they would loose their project in Angel’s Camp. The issue amongst the partners was concern over the amount of future funding that each partner would be giving up for state funding allocations expected after 2012. The state was looking at the 13.9 million dollars as a loan to the tri county alliance, a loan that would be paid back to the state with future allocations being reduced or eliminated. The alliance had recently met and Caltrans proposed a funding plan which includes the usage of the Prop 1B funds also called the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account. Cal Trans proposal was a cost sharing approach which includes 3.2 million dollars from the Cal Trans Discretionary STIP, or State Transportation Improvement Program funds, 5.2 million from the Tri-County STIP Augmentation, and finally a 4.4 million dollar funding request from the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account.

slide10 Field explains that “In proposition 1B the voters approved additional funding for the State Transportation Improvement Program. Our share of that amount would be about 10 million under normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances because the law was written such that the State doesn’t have to consider this money subject to the share formulas—so instead we have to compete for it, and we are doing that.”  To only complicate things further Field explains, “This money is only available pending the sale of bonds and the state can only sell so many bonds each year so we don’t know for sure when this money, if its awarded to us, will actually be available.”  Field also noted that the number in question is not 10 million dollars because the Tri-County’s owe 3 to 4 million dollars of their shares for the Angels Camp Bypass cost increases.

Last night the Calaveras Council of Governments received a report from Project Manager Scott Maas that the $13.9 million figure he had been reporting to them "is incorrect. The Tri-Counties have borrowed only $3.4million of future State Transportation Improvement Project funds." The California Transportation Commission will vote on the Caltrans/Tri-County Proposal for the resolution of the issue on February 28th.

Read 1006 times Last modified on Friday, 28 August 2009 02:08