Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Road maintenance director proposes $5 fee increase to generate $1.5M and reduce fund‑balance reliance
Summary
Director Maloney proposed increasing the county road maintenance fee from $20 to $25 (a 25% rise) to bring an estimated $1.5 million in additional annual revenue, support a larger maintenance program and lower reliance on fund balance; council asked for projections and further detail.
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland County’s road and drainage director outlined a proposed adjustment to the road maintenance fee during the May 7 budget work session, seeking a $5 increase that would raise the current $20 charge to $25.
Director Maloney described the road‑maintenance operation (about 68 full‑time positions, roughly 650 miles of paved roads and about 220 unimproved roads), recent investments in in‑house asphalt paving and a new CDL training program for equipment operators. He said the department is implementing an asset‑management program to track material and labor costs more precisely and improve preventive maintenance.
To reduce reliance on fund balance, Maloney proposed a $5 fee increase (25% higher than the current fee) and estimated the change would yield about $1,500,000 in additional annual revenue. “We are asking this year to increase the road tax fee from $20 to 25, a $5 change, which is an increase of 25%,” he said, later confirming the increase would produce an estimated $1.5 million in revenue.
Council members asked whether the fee increase would eliminate the department’s reliance on fund balance or only reduce it. Maloney said the increase would make a significant difference and, combined with better planning and increased in‑house work, could materially reduce the need to draw from reserves. He cautioned, however, that removing reliance entirely would take sustained improvements from multiple initiatives.
The proposal was presented for information; staff said the detailed revenue projections and estimated impacts on fund balance would be included in budget documents and available during later sessions.
No final vote was taken at the May 7 work session; any change to the fee would require formal action later in the budget process.

