Richland County highway officials say road rebuilding will stop without roughly $1.5 million more per year

Richland County Highway Department staff told the Highway Committee during the meeting that the department can cover mandated services next year but cannot fund road construction or sustain its road‑replacement schedule without roughly $1.5 million in additional annual funding.

The department reported it is fully staffed, has completed equipment purchases for 2024, and paid the final invoice for a recently completed campus bridge that cost $654,002.69. Monthly bills for the department were reported at $690,315.05, and the department’s current fund balance is $74,009.23, figures highway staff presented to the committee.

Why it matters: committee members and staff said the county’s current tax levy and other revenues meet daily maintenance needs (mowing, patching, snowplowing) but do not support a multi‑year road‑construction program. Highway staff said that, under a version of the department’s model, the county would need to raise road funding to about $6.3 million by 2029 to sustain a planned replacement rotation; absent new revenue, staff said they expect only essential services to continue and that significant road projects would cease.

At the center of the discussion is County Road 00, a project with an estimated total cost of $7,620,000. Staff said the state and federal funding identified for that project is $6,100,000, leaving a county responsibility of about $1,500,000. Highway staff said the county could afford to pay $216,000 of that obligation next year but that the remainder will typically be paid over several years as reimbursements and invoices come from the state (the project uses STP rule funding; staff also discussed LRAP grants for other roads).

Committee members asked for more detail on how to find savings within the Highway Department’s budget. Staff presented steps already taken: reducing the county fleet and surplus equipment, cutting from two dozers to one, from three graders to one, and from two loaders to one; and reusing rental agreements for seasonal, limited‑use equipment. Members asked for a detailed equipment inventory and for annual hours‑of‑use figures so the committee could weigh rental vs. ownership costs.

Committee members also discussed the Capital Improvement Plan. The draft CIP currently identifies about $500,000 for highway equipment replacement; committee members asked whether road construction should instead be folded into borrowing/borrowing plans or a different CIP line and suggested the county board will need to decide what services are “essential.” Several members noted the county received a one‑time state payment the prior year that inflated last year’s apparent fiscal flexibility and is not a recurring revenue source.

Staff said three additional road projects the department applied for under LRAP (County Road N, County Road 00, and County Road F) have funding that expires in 2029; if the county declines those projects, it would not face a direct financial penalty but could lose competitive ranking for future state funding. Staff recommended that the committee develop a five‑year plan showing priorities and costs before seeking borrowing or other county‑level decisions.

County Road 00 construction update: highway staff described wet weather, poor base material requiring undercutting, and a protracted delay caused by Frontier Communications’ subcontractor failing to relocate utilities. Staff said the county threatened an administrative order to vacate Frontier’s use of the right of way and then engaged new contractors; the contractor has moved work phases to work around utilities, and staff reported the contractor expects to open the road to gravel traffic on October 2 and to complete the project (including final paving) by October 31 if no further utility delays occur. Staff said they will pursue an order to vacate and court enforcement if Frontier does not complete relocations, and noted that such enforcement could allow the county to remove utilities and bill Frontier for the work but would require additional legal steps and time.

What the committee directed next: members asked highway staff to produce (1) an equipment inventory with hours‑of‑use and recommended items to divest or rent, (2) a prioritized list of county roads with ratings (the department already maintains biennial road ratings), and (3) a five‑year project plan to present to the county board for funding decisions or borrowing. Staff said they will return with the requested materials at a future meeting.

Ending: Committee members said the highway budget shortfall is not unique to Richland County and urged the county board to consider whether to increase the levy, reallocate CIP funds, or use bonding to preserve construction funding. The committee will revisit the five‑year plan, equipment inventory, and County Road 00 status at upcoming meetings so the county board can decide which services it will fund.