Commissioners debate interlocal road-repair agreement with Canton amid concerns over use of county road tax

The commissioners held a lengthy workshop on a proposed interlocal agreement with the city of Canton to coordinate road repairs and maintenance. Several commissioners warned that the county's 10¢ road-and-bridge tax was approved by voters for county roads and bridges, and that using those funds for municipal streets would conflict with the ballot language and public expectations.

One commissioner said the county should not "open the door" to using the road tax inside city limits and expressed concern about "cross contamination" of precinct budgets if municipal work becomes routine. Another commissioner advocated a practical framework: an interlocal that establishes project-specific work orders to define scope, cost-sharing and a not-to-exceed amount before any county funds are committed.

County staff and legal counsel described the draft interlocal as a framework that would require written work orders for any actual projects and would not itself obligate money without additional approval. The draft requires written project authorization agreed to by both parties, identifying location, scope, schedule, cost-share and budget confirmation.

A strongly voiced point in the discussion centered on whether the original ballot language for the 10¢ tax authorized spending "for county roads and bridges" (commissioner's reading) versus "roads and bridges within the county" (a broader reading). Commissioners asked staff to review the ballot language and to ensure transparency to voters about any funds used for city projects.

The court left the item as a workshop for further consideration and said any project undertaken under an interlocal would require a specific work order approved by both entities before any county labor, materials or funding would be committed.