Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county on gravel roads as commissioners warn MVH fund balance is shrinking
Summary
At the April 6 meeting residents complained about long‑neglected gravel roads on Cedar Road and commissioners said the motor‑vehicle‑highway (MVH) fund balance is declining, with restricted MVH funds of about $1.3 million and routine payroll pressures; commissioners and staff discussed maintenance tradeoffs for buggy traffic and committed to further discussion of options.
Jeff Vonsecker, a long‑time Cedar Road resident, told the board he and neighbors are frustrated that portions of Cedar Road north of 9th Road remain gravel while other sections have been surfaced. "I'm just wondering why my tax dollars go to prepare everybody else's roads, and ours does not," Vonsecker said, describing persistent mud and grime and saying his vehicles are continually dirty.
Commissioners and staff probed usage patterns and maintenance challenges. A commissioner asked about buggy and Amish‑related traffic on Vonsecker’s stretch, noting high usage can quickly damage new surfacing. The commissioner said investing $50,000 a mile on a road that will be heavily used by buggy wheels and livestock traffic risks rapid deterioration. Another commissioner agreed the area looks rough and suggested different surfacing techniques may be appropriate depending on traffic type.
Separately, highway staff reported the MVH fund situation: the restricted MVH balance (funds that cannot be transferred) was reported at about $1,300,000; payroll runs around $63,000 every two weeks (approximately $126,000 per month); and average distributions to the split funds are roughly $207,000. Staff warned that the unrestricted MVH balance is declining and additional funding support will likely be needed.
The board did not commit to an immediate paving plan for Cedar Road, but directed staff to discuss repair and surfacing options, consider traffic type in selection of treatments (e.g., chip seal vs. other surfaces), and return with recommendations. Commissioners acknowledged the political and fiscal tradeoffs of prioritizing roads and emphasized the need for a sustainable maintenance approach.
