Washington County will lose $1 million in state aid road funds this year.
District Three Supervisor and President of the Board Carl McGee added Harry Lee James, the State Aid Engineer, and Jay Richardson, the Central District Engineer, to the agenda and then brought them before the Washington County Board of Supervisors most recent meeting.
McGee asked James to explain what it is the State Aid Engineer does, and then explain how Washington County measures up to the opportunities available from the State Aid office.
James thanked the board for inviting him, and said he welcomed the opportunity to clarify his role in providing funds to the county.
“The Local System Bridge Program (LSBP) receives a 5% diversion of the state’s use tax revenue, which is phased in over four years,” James said. “Once fully implemented, this diversion ensures a minimum of $1,666,666.67 deposited per month into the LSBP fund, totaling $20 million annually.”
Here is a more comprehensive explanation of the funds
State Aid Road Fund Revenue:
- Allocates $4 million monthly from fuel taxes (23.25% of proceeds).
- Allocates $250,000 monthly from sales tax.
- Limitations: Reliance on fluctuating fuel sales, fixed but potentially insufficient sales tax allocations.
Local System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Fund Revenue:
- Provides 5% of use tax revenue.
- Ensures a monthly minimum guarantee.
- Phases in additional funding over several fiscal years.
- Limitations: Variable use tax revenue, phased funding leading to project delays.
Emergency Road and Bridge Repair Fund (ERBRF) Projects:
- Provides supplemental funding for expenses incurred before the ERBRF grant award.
- Covers costs not included in the ERBRF grant.
- Limitations: Necessity of supplemental funding for pre-grant expenses, financial gaps not covered by ERBRF grants
James said the funds are distributed monthly and require counties to plan and submit projects for approval.
"We provide funding to all the counties through legislation-approved formulas, and this money is allocated over four-year terms," James said. "Counties operate on credit at the beginning of each term, with funds collected and distributed monthly."
James said that Washington County had significant funds available, but the funds weren’t being used.
"At the start of the current board term, we projected $3.1 million in revenue for the state aid program, but a substantial portion of that remains unutilized," he said. "The local assistance grants program has $4.63 million available, with $3.5 million carried over from the previous term."
District One Supervisor and Vice-President of the Board Lee Gordon asked James about the timeline for using allocated funds and if the county was in jeopardy of losing the unused money.
James confirmed that funds not used within two years could be reallocated to other counties.
"There's a statutory requirement that funds must be spent within two years, or they risk being redistributed," James said. "It's crucial for counties to submit and prioritize projects promptly to avoid losing funding."
District Four Supervisor Mala Brooks asked about the efficient use of the use-tax funds and the possibility of losing them if not used on time.
"Use-tax funds are collected monthly, with a portion allocated to the local system bridge program and the state aid program," James said. "Counties must ensure they use these funds effectively to avoid reductions.
“The legislature giveth, and the legislature taketh away.”
Gordon asked if the county was going to lose any money, and James said that this year the county was going to lose $1 million in state aid because it wasn’t spent on time.
“Is there any way we can avoid losing the money?” Goron asked, “Can we reallocate it to another project?”
“Not this year,” James said, “Those funds will be redispersed to another county that spent all of their state aid funds, and still have projects to complete.”
Brooks asked if the county could appeal that decision, and James said there was an appeal process.
“It’s going to be hard to make that claim for those funds,” James said. “Because you haven’t spent any of the other funds still allocated to you.”
Richardson said a bridge in Leland could have been paid for from the LSBP fund but wasn’t.
"Projects on state aid routes, whether within municipalities or not, qualify for funding, provided there is an agreement with the municipality," Richardson said. "However, certain projects like the Bridge in Leland may not meet the criteria if they are not on designated state aid routes, by the county"
Brooks said she was concerned about project delays, and fund management.
"We need to make sure that we don't lose any funding because of delays or mismanagement," Brooks said. “I have too many roads and bridges in my district to lose funds.”
Lorenzo Anderson, the county engineer who had been waiting to add to the conversation, was recognized by Brooks, but McGee insisted he be allowed to conduct his meeting.
As Anderson turned to sit back down McGee said “since you’re already here what do you have to say for yourself?”
Anderson addressed Brooks’ statement about delays and mismanagement by saying it was the board that continuously caused the delays.
“I turned in a list of bridges in April, and the board approved them, but the approval was unsigned, so I had to come back and get signatures,” Anderson said. “Then when I had the state aid forms completed, and ready to submit I noticed the minutes didn’t reflect the approval, so I had to come back again, that was the last board meeting.”
Anderson said instead of approving to let the minutes reflect the approval of the bridge list, the board wanted to review the list.
McGee started to ask Anderson a now very familiar list of questions.
“How long have you been the board’s engineer,” McGee asked. “How many bridges have you built?”
Anderson responded to the questions in an equally familiar way.
“I have been with the board since 2020,” Anderson said. “When I started, the county had 40 closed bridges and right now, today it has 20 bridges closed.”
“No,” McGee said, “how many have you personally overseen and built?”
Before Anderson could answer, McGee said it was the bridge in Leland that should have been paid for by the LSBP funds but wasn’t, and not only were the funds mismanaged, but the bridge itself was too narrow, and off-kilter.
McGee tried to get his assessment of the bridge confirmed by Richardson and James, but they didn’t share his opinion.
Anderson again tried to point out that the board caused the delays, but the statement went unnoticed as McGee moved on to the next agenda item.
At the end of the meeting, the board went into executive session citing contract negotiations as the reason.
At the time of publication, no board members could be reached for comment.
