Citizen Portal
Sign In

Road Commission brief: $100,000 township program used for chip seal, overlays; county may receive $4–5 million in state road funding

5936179 · October 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Montcalm County’s road commission reported how a recent $100,000 township contribution was spent and summarized preliminary estimates that the county could receive $4–5 million from the state road funding formula in coming years.

Rob Putnam, managing director of the Montcalm County Road Commission, updated the board Monday on how a one-time $100,000 county contribution to townships was allocated and on preliminary projections for state road funding changes.

Putnam told commissioners the township funds were distributed according to township needs: some townships used money for chip seal, some for overlays, crushing and gravel work. He provided per-mile cost estimates cited during the meeting: chip seal about $19,000 per mile, slag about $25,000 per mile, gravel about $20,000 per mile, and limestone overlays about $60,000 per mile. Putnam said the county-level contribution helped townships that otherwise could not afford certain crushing and chip-seal projects and extended pavement life by an estimated five to seven years.

Putnam also discussed incoming state transportation funding. He said the final statewide package landed around $1.8 billion and, depending on the formula used, Montcalm County could expect roughly $4 million to $5 million distributed to local systems. He cautioned that some elements of the package — notably a marijuana tax component — face legal challenge and that distribution details were expected in an informational Zoom on Nov. 1. Putnam said any new money would likely be directed back into local road matches and that the commission has discussed setting an approximate $100,000 match expectation per township to assist planning.

Commissioners asked about specific projects, including Mount Hope Road, and about how variability in asphalt supply had affected scheduling; Putnam explained production issues at a supplier’s plant caused delays earlier in the season.

No formal action was required; the item was informational.