{"id":272,"date":"2012-12-11T10:16:04","date_gmt":"2012-12-11T15:16:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/12\/no-t-splost-means-30-match-for-lmig-and-what-else-lcc-2012-12-10.html"},"modified":"2012-12-11T10:16:04","modified_gmt":"2012-12-11T15:16:04","slug":"no-t-splost-means-30-match-for-lmig-and-what-else-lcc-2012-12-10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/12\/no-t-splost-means-30-match-for-lmig-and-what-else-lcc-2012-12-10.html","title":{"rendered":"No T-SPLOST means 30% match for LMIG, and what else? @ LCC 2012-12-10"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\n<\/a>\nTo pave or not to pave?\nThat is the question that was danced around by County Engineer\nMike Fletcher and County Manager Joe Pritchard, with interest,\nat\n\nyesterday morning’s Lowndes County Commission Work Session,<\/a>\non agenda item\n\n8.d. Georgia Department of Transportation Local Maintenance & Improvement Grant<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\nCounty Engineer Mike Fletcher said\nLowndes County was receiving from GDOT a Local Maintenance\nand Improvement Grant (LMIG) of $746,984.75 for FY “two thirteen”.\nBecause T-SPLOST didn’t pass, the county has to come up with a\n30% match, which is $224,095.43.\nHe said there was a work sheet and project list in the board\npacket (which the rest of us don’t get to see).\n<\/p>\n

\nCounty Manager Joe Pritchard said with change from LARP\n(Local Assistance Road Projects, primarily for resurfacing) to LMIG\nthe county could now use these funds for any purpose,\nand had planned to use LMIG for\n\n\nconstruction and paving.\nPritchard said some of the Commissioners had expressed concern about using these LMIG\nfunds for resurfacing instead of paving, although it wasn’t clear from what he said\nwhich way they were concerned about it.\nAs part of the match he intends to use in-kind services,\napparently crews and equipment for construction work,\nby which he seemed to mean construction and paving.\nHe’s also looked into borrowing the matching funds,\nbut that would involve “significant interest rates”.\n<\/p>\n

\nFinance Director Stephanie Black\nsaid they did check on borrowing the money,\nbut she said they didn’t check on the interest rates,\nso it wasn’t clear why they couldn’t borrow the money.\n<\/p>\n

\nPritchard said the board had approved a tax anticipation note,\nand “the financial institution” had approved it,\nbut they had not “utilized” that.\nIt’s not clear how that was related, either.\n<\/p>\n

\nFletcher said the county has to submit a project list,\nand GDOT recommends putting on more lists than you can fund\nso you can cut some off the end.\nHe didn’t mean that an overlong project list means\nless oversight of Engineering by the Commission,\nbecause the County Engineer can pick and choose from that list.\n<\/p>\n

\nIs your road on that project list?\nYou can file an open records request and wait two years or more\nfor the county to maybe get around to letting you know.\n<\/p>\n

\nAcceptance or handling of grant money continues to be a mystery\nto viewers.\nNone of the commissioners commented on the acceptance\nof this state funding when previously some have expressed opposition to\nfederal funds.\n<\/p>\n

\nAnyway, it sounds like the county wants to use paving roads\nas their matching in-kind services for LMIG.\nBut what they want to do was made very unclear by County\nManager Pritchard.\nPerhaps Commissioners (or someone)\ncould ask him to explain what he meant.\n<\/p>\n

\nHere’s\n\nthe video.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n