County engineer seeks $8.53M secondary-roads budget and asks supervisors to allocate $200,000 from infrastructure fund for rock and paving

The Chickasaw County engineer presented the proposed secondary-roads (secondary roads) fiscal year 2026 budget and an infrastructure-fund outlook at the Board meeting.

Why it matters: The roads budget and the county's infrastructure reserve determine how many miles can be rock-surfaced, spot-patched and resurfaced in a given year. The engineer asked supervisors to keep an infrastructure allocation available for road materials and a city-assisted paving project.

Budget totals and reimbursements: The proposed secondary-roads budget totals $8,530,477; the engineer said approximately $599,234 of that is expected to be reimbursable through the state highway-bridge program (local pay-to-start, then submit for DOT reimbursement). Net of those reimbursable bridge costs, the engineer summarized the county's program-level budget as about $7,931,243 (a 5.5% increase over the current year before optional cast-in-place bridge alternatives).

Infrastructure fund request and balance: The engineer requested the Board consider a $200,000 allocation from the infrastructure fund: $100,000 for rock purchases (county/contract rock) and $100,000 toward a Coleridge paving project (the city's locally funded portion is expected to be repaid to the county). The engineer included a conservative projection of infrastructure-fund receipts and obligations and said the fund would still retain a healthy balance if the requests were approved; he recommended keeping carryover in the 20—25% range for emergency contingencies.

Materials and equipment: The engineer described an estimated $2,065,000 in rock needs on contract and noted the county will continue a mix of contract purchases and in-house hauling. He also described potential equipment purchases under consideration: a ton-and-a-half pickup to pull trailers, a used mini-excavator, a used motor grader and potential pup/belly-dump trailers to increase hauling efficiency. The engineer recommended evaluating long-term equipment versus short-term rental costs and noted that purchasing decisions would be brought back for Board review as price quotes and trade-in options are firmed up.

Personnel and wage-compression issue: The engineer proposed a modest market-adjustment approach to maintain pay separation between foremen, the superintendent and union mechanics, and estimated that increasing foremen pay by an amount that preserves a roughly $2-per-hour separation from the superintendent would cost about $5,038 total across three foremen (including fringe/OT estimates). He said HR counsel advised documenting any additional market adjustment as necessary to retain leadership and avoid wage compression.

Bridge projects and alternatives: The engineer reviewed two local bridge projects and explained options for cast-in-place versus precast box culverts for a B-22 site; the two alternatives carry different price and labor implications. He noted the county frequently pays initial bridge costs and later receives reimbursement through the DOT bridge program.

What the Board did: The Board received the presentation and asked clarifying questions. No formal Board vote to adopt the secondary-roads budget or to transfer infrastructure funds was recorded at the meeting; the engineer said he would return with final letting estimates, equipment quotes and any recommended budget amendments if contractors bid earlier than expected.

Ending: The engineer asked the Board to consider the infrastructure allocations and directed staff to follow up with final cost estimates for the proposed projects and equipment purchases.