October 20, 2008

Engineer lists 13 options for county’s rural roads


By Mary Zielinski
Stating he wanted “no action today,”
Washington County Engineer Dave Patterson

“No one policy change will rectify the challenges facing the gravel roads in Washington County. There is no magic bullet,”

Tuesday detailed 13 options for the supervisors for dealing with the deteriorating rural road system. It was the final of three reports on the rural road problem to the board.
But no matter what gets done, the county is looking at maintenance costs that exceed resources by more than $1 million annually.
“No one policy change will rectify the challenges facing the gravel roads in Washington County. There is no magic bullet,” said Patterson.
In fact, bringing the unpaved roads (some 661 miles of them) to a sustainable condition not only will take about $9.8 million in repair costs now but also need more than $1 million per year to keep them in that condition.
Patterson noted that half of that $1 million is because of rising fuel and material costs.
He added that many of the county residents do not realize the “magnitude” of the problem.
His list of options started with four that would cost the county virtually nothing: vacating and downgrading road classifications; embargoing roads specifically to keep heavy vehicles from damaging the roadway; creating designated truck routes, mainly for farm-to-market roads, and preventing construction on dirt roadways.
Patterson noted that in the last ten years, there have been more than a dozen homes, many confinement facilities and even a subdivision built on dirt roadways.
“In every case, not in most, but every case, difficulties arose after they were built,” he told the board.
The fifth option, also a policy one, would be enacting county zoning. Emphasizing “This document was not prepared in an effort to advocate for zoning,” Patterson stressed that “the service needs of new rural houses outweight the increase in tax revenue they generate.”
However, the report states, that “..zoning would help to control the rising traffic volumes (and maintenance costs) generated by new rural houses.”
Options 6 through 12 deal entirely with ways and means to obtain funds for the roads:

  • increase maximum levy available to secondary roads. Right now, the property tax levy rate is the same it has been for decades and provides $1.5 million for secondary roads. A 20 percent increase in the levy would raise an additional $300,000, but raise property taxes by just one percent;
  • lobby the state for an increase in road use tax funds, which would mean an increase in the gas tax. The last increase came in 1987, said Patterson, “when gas was under $1 a gallon.” The gas tax is based on gallons sold, not the price of fuel;
  • use LOST revenues for secondary roads which could raise upwards of $800,000 more per year for secondary roads;
  • create secondary road assessment districts (like water or sewer districts) with taxpayers assessed in a specific area for improvements done to their road;
  • bond for future road projects by issuing roadway improvements bonds (similar to General Obligation bonds) and placed on the debt service (not affected by TIF districts) to be repaid over several years;
  • pursue additional taxation on truck generating facilities, in essence, a surtax on agricultural and industrial ones that generate additional (and heavy) traffic. Patterson noted, though, that under Iowa Code this may not be currently possible, though “It is probably the most equitable method for raising funds for gravel roads”;
  • capture future tax revenue from wind farms with each windmill estimated to generate about $13,000 in taxes and $1,350 for secondary roads (over five years) . However, 250 new windmills would bring the county $3.4 million and
  • deal with rural resident expectations, especially if “it will not be possible to meet current expectations.”
    Regarding the 13th option, Patterson stressed that the board will have to inform and educate the residents as well as stand behind its existing policies. He added it would undoubtedly led to more “frustrated phone calls” to his department and to the supervisors.
    He asked that the board review his report, adding, though “If action is not taken, the overall condition of the gravel roads will continue to get worse.”
    He recommended that the board “increase departmental revenues and consider policies that will help manage vehicle weights.” If that cannot happen, then he said the board needs to help county citizens have realistic expectations about the future condition of those roads.
    Board Chairman Jim Miksch said, “Everybody needs to get on board” in requesting more funds from the state, that, “we need more from road use tax.” But he also cautioned, “We may have to go with less than you would like to have.”
    Supervisor Larry DeLong suggested finding a way to do it “without the taxpayers picking up the bill” (or all of it).
    However, Supervisors Randy Payne said, “It’s all taxes,” regardless of if it is local, state or federal.
    Patterson told the board there should be input obtained from the county’s residents.
    County Auditor Bill Fredrick said classification of road use could be done “soon and without a lot of pain.”
    The board, after a brief recess, held a work session that involved going out to selected gravel roads to view the problems firsthand.

    • Print This Article Print This Article
      Riverside Sports Ticker
      Community Briefs