Lake County commissioners vote to advertise full 5-cent local gas tax as part of plan to speed road work

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 on Aug. 26 to advertise an ordinance that would impose the full additional 5-cent local option gas tax allowed under state law, part of a wider package of options officials outlined to accelerate a backlog of resurfacing and capacity projects.

County staff told commissioners the measure would raise roughly $7 million a year countywide; after the required split with municipalities, Lake County’s share was estimated at about $4 million annually to be dedicated primarily to resurfacing and pavement-preservation work.

Why it matters: County staff and elected officials said the county faces a large backlog of roads needing repair and widening, rising construction costs and rapid population growth that together threaten driving safety, commuting times and local economic growth. Staff framed the additional gas tax as the most direct, consistent local revenue source that also spreads some of the cost onto nonresidents who purchase fuel locally.

County staff presented three broad approaches for accelerating road work: implementing the additional 5¢ local option gas tax; creating a countywide municipal services taxing unit (MSTU) for transportation that would require municipalities to opt in; and using financing (borrowing) to “put money on the table” now to speed a small set of high‑priority capacity projects. Jordan Salinger, public works operations director, told the board: “Our goal is to accelerate the the road infrastructure project so we can meet the needs of our residents.”

Key figures and trade-offs
- Additional revenue: Staff estimated the full 5¢ could produce about $7 million countywide and roughly $4 million net to the county after the statutory municipal split. That incremental funding could raise the county’s resurfacing program from about $8 million a year to roughly $12 million if other funding remained steady.
- System size and backlog: Lake County has about 1,293 paved centerline miles. Staff said about 25% of those miles are in a “critical” condition and roughly 25% more are in a “yellow” or danger band where rapid deterioration accelerates without preservation work. Resurfacing capacity varies widely by year; staff said even $93 million could not realistically be contracted in a single year because of delivery capacity.
- Construction inflation: Public works data showed highway construction costs have outpaced CPI since 2020, with roughly a 70% rise in the construction cost index between 2020 and 2025.

Capacity projects and potential financing
Engineering director Jeff Earhart summarized major capacity projects and rough cost ranges that staff used in the discussion: State Road 44 widening estimates in the tens of millions (roughly $42–43 million for a full phased project), US 441 widening segments in the high tens of millions, and county corridors with multi‑hundred million price tags for full widenings. Earhart said the set of projects discussed could total “about $1,000,000,000 in cost” when design, right‑of‑way and construction are combined.

To accelerate a few “choke points,” staff proposed a financing strategy (county debt backed by pledged revenues) to provide immediate funding now and repay over time; Allison Tesley, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the county’s financial adviser would model options but noted current market rates staff had seen around 4–4.75% depending on term. Tesley also raised a county tool: a countywide MSTU for transportation, which the board could create but only if municipalities opt in; she estimated a half‑mill MSTU could generate roughly $20 million annually at current property values (countywide, with municipal opt‑ins affecting structure).

State commitments and timing
State Representative Nan Cobb attended and told the board she had discussed State Road 44B with FDOT leadership and that FDOT’s current statewide schedule would not fund major construction until 2032. Cobb said the road was a top priority and asked the board to pursue an appropriation; she told the board, “The funding is not available till 2032. You all know that we cannot sustain that till 2032 … I would ask for 5,000,000 in appropriations.” Staff said DOT had indicated a $5 million appropriation targeted at the 44/44B intersection could be a stand‑alone appropriation and suggested the county could use local borrowing as a “match” to accelerate timing.

Public comment and arguments for/against
Hundreds of residents attended or called in for the meeting; several business and home‑building industry representatives urged passage, saying delayed roads harm commerce and that developers often build roads under impact‑fee credit arrangements. Opponents and some commissioners raised concerns about the burden on lower‑income residents and the county’s practice of committing general fund dollars to roads; others asked for guarantees that ad valorem transfers to roads would not be reduced in the event the gas tax passed.

Board action and next steps
After extended discussion and a public hearing, a motion to advertise the ordinance for the full additional 5¢ passed 3–2. Advertising is the procedural step that allows the county to schedule the required public hearing and ordinance adoption; staff said the county must adopt the tax before Oct. 1 to make a Jan. 1 effective date possible. County staff committed to provide additional data requested by commissioners and to prepare the draft ordinance and the interlocal allocation mechanics required by statute.

Discussion vs. decision
- Discussion: The board debated a package of funding options (gas tax, MSTU, financing, sales tax restructuring, impact fee use and private‑developer arrangements) and heard dozens of residents, developer representatives and industry groups. Commissioners pressed staff for more revenue breakdowns and asked staff to return with comparisons showing who pays for fuel vs. who buys fuel here (resident vs. visitor split), and the distributional impacts of the tax.
- Direction: The board directed staff to advertise an ordinance for the full 5¢ local option gas tax and to return with detailed revenue and impact analyses, interlocal allocation language, and bond/financing scenarios if the board chose to pursue borrowing.
- Formal action: Advertising of the 5¢ ordinance (vote to advertise passed 3–2). No ordinance adoption or tax levy effective date was finalized at this meeting.

What remains unresolved
Whether the county will adopt the tax by supermajority before Oct. 1, or instead put it to voters by referendum; the exact split between county and municipalities per interlocal arrangement; and whether the board will pursue debt financing and, if so, what projects are included in an initial bond package. Staff will return with more detail on distributions, a possible sunset period (some commissioners asked about a 10‑year sunset), and the distributional analysis showing the share of the tax paid by visitors vs. residents.

Ending
The board’s vote to advertise starts a formal public process that will include at least one more public hearing and, depending on the board’s later choice, either an adoption vote by the board or a voter referendum. Commissioners and staff emphasized that the advertising step is not the final levy but does make the county eligible to adopt the tax in time for a January 1 effective date if they choose to proceed.