State-local highway consultation and cooperation : the perspective of state legislators Page: 45
vii, 46 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
palities that is received from sales tax on cars to be used for streets, highway,
etc. In fact we send about 3.7 percent of our state revenues back to local government,
school districts, etc.
70. South Dakota is a large state with a small population. We do our state share,
but it is not enough. The local governments have placed much pressure on the
state for larger shares of funds.
71. Highway funds do not come from GF monies which is very good. Sometimes
communications break down, which is bad.
72. All roads are state; there is no county road system. Municipal streets are responsibility
of municipal governments.
73. State and local people work together with private sector. Federal minimum
allocation funds really help us. Turnback would mean drastic cuts in program
or massive tax increases.
74. I live in the largest city in Idaho. Our legislative delegation meets regularly
with local (city, county) highway director as well as state officials to discuss
highway matters.
75. Most entities agree that additional monies are needed. Most believe their own
problem is more important and therefore should receive a larger share of the
RUTF monies.
76. Legislature and transportation committee work very closely with local governments
to address local highway needs.
77. As far as I am concerned, we're putting too much money into mass transit at
the expense of highway programs. This is primarily a conflict between the priorities
of rural and urban legislators.
78. New York consolidated highway improvement plan (CHIPS) wherein the
state contributes to the locals, dollars for local use off the state system has
worked extremely well.
79. Very strong support from Chamber of Commerce working with district highway
engineers.
80. Strong citizen group involvement. Lack of executive support. Disagreement
as to control of the department.
81. Cooperation produces consensus. Conflict is over whether the proceeds should
be shared 68:20:12 (state:county:city) or 50:30:20. Our revenue is mostly
68:20:12 but some is 50:30:20.
82. District offices work well with local governments-calming frustrations, understanding
demands. State DOT is sometimes unrealistic about monetary
demands. State DOT spends too much time in between steps analyzing plans.
A stop light can take more than a year to get ok'd and another year to install.
83. Aggressiveness of joint highway committee.
84. Our DOT is considered one of the best in the country and does an excellent job
in this area.
85. Local governments feel short-changed on the percentage of state gas taxes
which they received. As a percentage, local governments have received less following
the most recent (1983) state gas tax increase.
86. Strong points: movement toward more cooperative relationship; responsiveness
of Maine DOT to needs of local areas in planning; technical assistance
from state to local. Weak points: historic noncommunication of two levels of
government; turnback of roads to locals without funding.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. State-local highway consultation and cooperation : the perspective of state legislators, book, May 1988; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1061/m1/55/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.