Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HRC study: Delhi Township neighborhood roads largely rated ‘poor’; reconstruction scenarios would require double-digit millage
Summary
Hubbell, Roth & Clark presented a neighborhood road study showing about 68.77 miles of local roads rated mostly in poor condition; reconstruction scenarios range from $11 million to $17.1 million annually, implying millage rates of roughly 9.40 to 14.62 mills and large homeowner impacts, according to staff memos and the consultant presentation.
Hubbell, Roth & Clark presented the results of a neighborhood street study to the Delhi Charter Township Board on March 17, 2026, showing most neighborhood/local roads rated in the “poor” range under the PASER system and quantifying the capital cost to reconstruct and sustain higher condition ratings.
Todd Sneathen of Hubbell, Roth & Clark explained that the Ingham County Road Department’s PASER ratings (a 1–10 visual scale) place many township neighborhood roads in the 1–4 “poor” range and that reconstructing the full complement of neighborhood/local streets (about 68.77 miles) would require substantial investment. Using Roadsoft modeling, the consultant presented three reconstruction-only funding scenarios that aim to move average PASER ratings into the high-“fair” to “good” range:
- A 10-year reconstruction program would require roughly $17.1 million per year (estimated millage about 14.62 mills). - A 12-year program would require about $13.9 million per year (approx. 11.88 mills). - A 15-year program would require about $11 million per year (approx. 9.40 mills).
The Manager’s memorandum and consultant materials note that one mill currently generates about $1.17 million for the Township, and the staff analysis warned that millages of the size required to fund full neighborhood reconstruction would likely be unaffordable for many households and appear unlikely to pass. The manager’s memo framed the study as a quantification exercise to inform future discussions with county and state representatives.
Board members had the opportunity to ask questions after the presentation and took no formal vote on funding; the Board received the study for information and general agreement that it provides valuable data for policy discussion.
Next steps: the study will serve as the basis for future conversations about funding alternatives, priorities, and potential engagement with county partners; no millage proposal was on the March 17 agenda.
