Fixing it: Infrastructure and the Economy

Fixing it: Infrastructure and the Economy

Executive Summary The National Association of Counties, which represents the interests of county governments across the nation, recently commissioned a survey of 1,300 county engineers on America s road and bridge infrastructure and the economy. The county engineers in the sample group are all members of NACo s affiliate, the National Association of County Engineers. National Research, LLC, conducted the survey by telephone and received 400 completed responses from counties in 31 states, all of which have road and bridge responsibilities. Thirty nine responding counties were large urban counties with populations from 400,000 to nearly 4 million and 70 responses were from small rural counties with populations below 10,000. The survey asked about the current conditions of county roads and bridges and how the recent economic slowdown has affected construction and maintenance funding. It also asks how much funding each county would need to upgrade all of its roads and bridges to good condition and whether the availability of this additional funding would create jobs in the community. Highlights of the survey report include the following: 81 percent report that they have deferred maintenance since the beginning of the economic slowdown 98 percent report that some of their roads are in poor and/or fair condition. 86 percent report having bridges in poor condition 91 percent say that the receipt of infrastructure funding would help create jobs 11 percent report that more than $50 million in additional funding would be needed to put all county roads in good condition 52 percent of large urban counties report that more than half of their roads are not in good condition. 86 percent of large urban counties report that some of their roads are in poor condition 51 percent report that they experienced funding cuts of between 10 to 25 percent of funding levels since 2008 1

2

Introduction Nearly half of the nation s highways and bridges are under the financial control of local governments in this country. Although classified as local, this means that many roads and bridges are under county control. A breakdown of highway mileage by ownership produced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) shows that 1.8 million miles of nearly 4 million miles of highways are under county control. This number represents close to 50 percent of the total highway miles in the United States. Similarly, county governments are responsible for maintaining more than 228,000 bridges compared to 284,000 state maintained bridges. As the economy contracted during the last few years, counties found themselves in a difficult situation when it came to their roads and bridges maintenance and new projects. And that difficulty had to do with financing major infrastructure repairs. Historically the Surface Transportation Act has provided federal funds to state and counties for road construction and maintenance. Established in 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act and the Highway Revenue Act, passed that same year were the first attempts by the federal government to target significant funding of the nation s highway infrastructure. The Highway Trust Fund was established through this legislation as a means of collecting revenue to fund an accelerated highway program. The increased funding authorizations from this program were funded through taxes, largely fuel taxes, and required periodic reauthorizations. The taxes imposed through the Highway Trust Fund, the authority to establish these taxes and the authority to expend revenue once it went into the Highway Trust Fund all have expiration dates written into the law and require congressional action to be extended or updated. Throughout the years from inception in 1956, periodic reexamination and updates were made to this legislation, increasing the tax per gallon, so as to maintain its pay-as-you-go structure. These reauthorizations were generally for a period of 5 or 6 years. However, while the most recent multiyear surface transportation reauthorization legislation expired in September 2009, Congress has yet to pass a new multi-year reauthorization. Instead, it has been providing funding through continuations of the expired program through a series of short term extensions, ranging from 16 days to 9 1/2 month. These extensions have been passed without addressing an increase in funding even though it is widely believed that the fuel tax funds targeted for the Highway Trust Fund are insufficient to meet the growing need for highway and bridge projects and infrastructure maintenance. The last time the federal gasoline tax was increased was 1993 and currently 18.3 cents per gallon goes into the Highway Trust Fund. The National Association of Counties represents county governments across the nation and provides legislative representation as well as technical assistance to help counties run themselves more efficiently and more effectively. In recent years, since the economy has slowed down, counties have been faced with deteriorating road and bridge infrastructure and a loss of jobs in 3

their communities. NACo has witnessed Congress extend the current surface transportation authorization eight times since it expired on September 30, 2009. The current extension expires March 31, 2012. These extensions allow counties and states to continue working on highway transit projects but hamstring them due to the abbreviated length of the extensions. Typically these extensions have been for less than a year and make it difficult for counties to plan and execute infrastructure projects. At the same time that the Congress has made funding decisions more difficult, states and counties themselves have decreased the availability of funding for infrastructure maintenance. Budget shortfalls at both the state and local level have caused counties to defer badly needed maintenance on transportation infrastructure. As many counties have examined ways to save money and balance budgets, some have furloughed or laid off county employees. During the summer months of 2011, the monthly total of laid off state and local workers exceeded 23,000. Jobs that could be created by counties in the construction industry are not available because there is no secure funding stream for these infrastructure programs. In this environment, the National Association of Counties commissioned a survey of 1,300 county engineers on American s Infrastructure and the Economy. The county engineers in the sample are all members of NACo s affiliate, the National Association of County Engineers. National Research, LLC conducted the survey by telephone and received 400 responses from 31 states, all of which have road and bridge responsibilities. The survey responses show that county roads and bridges need maintenance. Ninety percent of responding counties report that some of their roads are in poor condition and 85 percent report that at least some of their bridges are in poor condition. Eighty one percent of the responding counties report that they have deferred maintenance on their infrastructure since the beginning of the economic slowdown in 2008. In addition 51 percent of the responding counties report that they experienced funding cuts of between 10 to 25 percent of previous funding levels. Ninety one percent said that the receipt of additional infrastructure funding by their counties would help create jobs. Condition of County Roads Counties evaluate their roads using various rating systems. One commonly used system is called the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating System (PASER). This evaluation system was developed by the University of Wisconsin Transportation Information Center to provide consistency in evaluating road conditions. Ratings of 8-10 are Good and require little or no maintenance; Ratings of 5-7 are Fair, and need capital preventative maintenance cost effective treatments to protect the pavement structure, to slow the rate of deterioration and to correct pavement surface distress, before the structural integrity of the pavement has been severely impacted.; Ratings of 1-4 are Poor meaning that some type of repair such as major rehabilitation or reconstruction is needed to improve the structural integrity of the pavement. 4

County engineers were asked about the condition of their county roads. They were asked to classify them as good, fair or poor and provide the percentage of roads in each of the three categories. Six percent of the responding counties said that more than 50 percent of their roads were in poor condition and 20 percent of those same counties reported that more than 75 percent were in poor condition. Ninety eight percent of responding counties report that some of their roads are in poor and/or fair condition, and 55 percent said that between 1 percent and 24 percent of their roads were in poor condition. Twenty nine percent report that between 26 percent and 50 percent of their roads were in poor condition. Of the responding large urban counties, 81 percent report that some of their roads are in poor condition. Conversely, only 1 percent of the responding counties said that 75 percent of their roads were in fair condition while 35 percent reported that 26 to 50 percent of their roads were in fair condition. A similar number said that between 1 and 25 percent were in fair condition. Only five of the responding counties, or less than 1 percent, report that 100 percent of their roads are in good condition, while 71 percent reported that 50 percent of less of their roads are in good condition. One percent of the responding county engineers say that none of their county roads are in good condition. Condition of County Bridges Eighty six percent of counties have bridges in poor condition and 96 percent have bridges in fair condition. Seven percent report that more than 50 percent of their bridges are in poor condition. Fifty two percent say that between 1 percent and 24 percent of their bridges are in poor condition. Only one percent of responding counties say that all of their bridges are in good condition and none of these were counties with populations above 400,000. Fifty three percent report that 50 percent or less of their bridges were in good condition and 1 percent report that none of the bridges in their counties are in good condition. Maintenance Deferred Seventy-eight counties, or 19 percent, said that they had not deferred maintenance or they did not know whether maintenance had been deferred. But 81 percent report that since 2008, they had deferred maintenance on their county roads and bridges infrastructure. 5

Funding Cutbacks Of the 322 counties (81%) that had deferred maintenance, 79 percent report that they had cutbacks in local funding appropriations for infrastructure projects and maintenance. During the same time period, 75 percent of the counties say that they also had cutbacks in state funding and 61 percent said that they also experienced cutbacks in federal funding. In the federal funding question a much higher percentage (9%) responded that they did not know whether they had experienced cuts in federal funding. When asked what percentage of their infrastructure budget was reduced by these cutbacks, the majority (51%) said the cutbacks equaled between 10 and 25 percent of their budgets. Twenty five percent said that the cutbacks were equal to up to 10 percent. Only one percent of responding counties reported cutbacks that equaled 75 percent or more of their budgets. Would Additional Funding Help Create Jobs? When asked if additional funding would help create jobs in their counties, 91 percent of responding county engineers said yes. Only 9 percent replied that funding would not help or that they did not know. FHWA estimates indicate that for every $1 billion of funding that is invested in road and bridge construction 27,823 jobs are created. More than 13,800 jobs are generally direct jobs for on-site construction and direct and indirect suppliers. More than 13,900 jobs are induced positions, which are those created by the expenditures of the new full time workers. How Much? County respondents were asked to estimate how much additional funding it would take to move all of their county roads to a good condition. The responses were as follows: Roads Amount Percentage Responding Less than $1 million 3% $1 million to $5 million 23% $5 million to $10 million 24% $10 million to $25 million 25% $25 million to $50 million 10% More than $50 million 11% *Only 8 counties (2%) did not respond or did not know Counties were asked a similar question about the amount of funding that would be necessary to bring all of their county bridges into good condition. The responses were as follows: 6

Bridges Amount Percentage Responding Less than $1 million 5% $1 million to $5 million 24% $5 million to $10 million 22% $10 million to $25 million 27% $25 million to $50 million 10% More than $50 million 5% *Only 12 counties (3%) did not respond or did not know Finally, respondents were asked if they thought that potential funding from the passage of the Surface Transportation Act would help them improve the condition of the roads and bridges in their counties. Ninety percent said yes. Four percent said they did not know and the same percentage said no. 7

Number of Responding Counties by State AL 22 AZ 3 CA 21 CO 7 FL 5 IA 40 ID 5 IL 45 IN 4 KS 15 KY 2 LA 5 MD 4 MI 19 MN 40 MO 3 MS 9 ND 15 NE 10 NJ 7 NY 17 OH 30 OK 3 OR 14 SC 1 SD 21 TN 1 TX 4 WA 9 WI 18 WY 1 400 8

Responding Counties by State STATE COUNTY POP AL Jefferson 657229 AL Mobile 401427 AL Madison 298192 AL Montgomery 221619 AL Morgan 113740 AL Cullman 79886 AL Limestone 70469 AL Colbert 54660 AL Autauga 48612 AL Marion 30154 AL Barbour 28414 AL Clarke 27269 AL Geneva 25735 AL Winston 24498 AL Monroe 23733 AL Hale 18316 AL Washington 17773 AL Henry 16610 AL Sumter 13819 AL Crenshaw 13727 AL Bullock 11055 AL Greene 9661 AZ Maricopa 3635528 AZ Yavapai 198701 AZ Yuma 181277 CA Orange 2988072 CA San Diego 2933462 CA San Bernardino 1963535 CA Riverside 1946419 CA Sacramento 1363482 CA Contra Costa 1017787 CA Ventura 796106 CA San Joaquin 664116 CA Sonoma 466477 CA Solano 411593 CA Tulare 410874 CA Santa Barbara 400762 CA Placer 317028 CA San Luis Obispo 255478 CA Merced 241706 CA Butte 214185 CA Shasta 179904 CA Tehama 61197 CA Del Norte 28705 CA Colusa 21095 CA Modoc 9524 CO Larimer 271927 CO Eagle 47530 CO Morgan 27995 CO Grand 13211 CO Saguache 7031 CO Lincoln 5618 CO Washington 4633 FL Palm Beach 1268548 FL Volusia 490055 FL Collier 307242 FL Flagler 76410 FL Sumter 64182 IA Linn 198903 IA Johnson 117067 IA Woodbury 102605 IA Pottawattamie 89738 IA Dallas 51762 IA Cerro Gordo 44645 IA Marshall 39418 IA Lee 36705 IA Wapello 35965 IA Marion 32984 IA Sioux 32277 IA Boone 26602 IA Plymouth 24958 IA Bremer 23677 IA Carroll 21034 IA Buchanan 21019 IA Jones 20509 IA Buena Vista 20151 IA Clayton 18337 IA Clay 16897 IA Iowa 16055 IA Madison 15158 IA Butler 15072 IA O'Brien 14414 IA Grundy 12329 IA Cherokee 12237 IA Louisa 11842 IA Hancock 11786 IA Lyon 11750 9

IA Winnebago 11351 IA Keokuk 11157 IA Franklin 10732 IA Humboldt 9973 IA Howard 9700 IA Palo Alto 9697 IA Davis 8659 IA Decatur 8605 IA Fremont 7759 IA Osceola 6694 IA Ringgold 5273 ID Ada 344727 ID Bingham 43739 ID Owyhee 11073 ID Lemhi 7909 ID Lincoln 4545 IL Winnebago 288695 IL Madison 264309 IL Champaign 184905 IL McLean 159013 IL Rock Island 147808 IL Kankakee 107972 IL Kendall 79514 IL Adams 67040 IL Ogle 54290 IL Knox 53309 IL Coles 51065 IL Henry 50591 IL Clinton 36095 IL Lee 35669 IL Christian 35176 IL Randolph 33122 IL Monroe 31040 IL Iroquois 30677 IL Logan 30603 IL Montgomery 30396 IL Perry 22815 IL Jo Daviess 22580 IL Jersey 22456 IL Shelby 22322 IL Fayette 21713 IL Douglas 19950 IL Hancock 19153 IL Warren 17558 IL Mercer 16912 IL Wayne 16796 IL De Witt 16617 IL Carroll 16086 IL Lawrence 15930 IL Richland 15798 IL White 15284 IL Greene 14581 IL Ford 14157 IL Cass 13898 IL Marshall 13217 IL Menard 12738 IL Jasper 10020 IL Hamilton 8301 IL Schuyler 7073 IL Brown 6835 IL Calhoun 5163 IN Tippecanoe 153875 IN Henry 47244 IN Dubois 40858 IN Rush 17823 KS Sedgwick 466061 KS Leavenworth 73113 KS Butler 62354 KS Finney 38988 KS Lyon 35609 KS Miami 30496 KS Franklin 26247 KS Seward 23274 KS Coffey 8683 KS Kingman 8165 KS Thomas 7639 KS Ottawa 6123 KS Rawlins 2672 KS Stanton 2245 KS Greeley 1349 KY Fayette 268080 KY Greenup 37184 LA East Baton Rouge 411417 LA Rapides 128462 LA St. Landry 89937 LA St. Mary 51416 LA De Soto 26383 MD Montgomery 927583 MD Anne Arundel 510878 MD Allegany 73639 MD Talbot 35683 MI Kent 596666 10

MI Genesee 443883 MI Kalamazoo 240536 MI Jackson 163629 MI Berrien 162611 MI Midland 84064 MI Shiawassee 72945 MI Ionia 64608 MI St. Joseph 62984 MI Hillsdale 47066 MI Branch 46460 MI Gratiot 42345 MI Huron 34640 MI Wexford 31876 MI Cheboygan 27463 MI Menominee 24996 MI Osceola 23750 MI Alcona 11653 MI Ontonagon 7363 MN Hennepin 1119364 MN Anoka 323996 MN Stearns 142654 MN Scott 119825 MN Wright 110730 MN Rice 60949 MN Otter Tail 57658 MN Clay 53838 MN Winona 49276 MN Goodhue 45585 MN Beltrami 42871 MN Mower 38799 MN Freeborn 31946 MN Becker 31868 MN Polk 31133 MN Nicollet 30848 MN Cass 28910 MN Le Sueur 27490 MN Brown 26534 MN Mille Lacs 25680 MN Lyon 24472 MN Meeker 23371 MN Wabasha 22200 MN Martin 21002 MN Renville 16764 MN Kanabec 16215 MN Redwood 16022 MN Faribault 15506 MN Cottonwood 11834 MN Swift 11324 MN Pope 11252 MN Watonwan 11234 MN Lake 11156 MN Marshall 9965 MN Pipestone 9421 MN Clearwater 8476 MN Lac qui Parle 7604 MN Big Stone 5481 MN Cook 5367 MN Mahnomen 5113 MO Greene 250784 MO Boone 143326 MO Cole 72757 MS DeSoto 137004 MS Rankin 131841 MS Lauderdale 77218 MS Washington 59220 MS Hancock 46711 MS Bolivar 38641 MS Attala 19552 MS Stone 14862 MS Franklin 8411 ND Morton 25528 ND Stark 22073 ND Stutsman 20835 ND Ramsey 11429 ND McLean 8604 ND Dickey 5487 ND Sargent 4150 ND Foster 3580 ND Nelson 3424 ND Bowman 3048 ND McIntosh 3013 ND Griggs 2497 ND Kidder 2481 ND Oliver 1813 ND Golden Valley 1739 NE Douglas 486929 NE Lancaster 264814 NE Sarpy 139371 NE Buffalo 43572 NE Adams 33070 NE Seward 16739 NE Saline 14195 11

NE Box Butte 11374 NE Keith 8330 NE Deuel 2004 NJ Middlesex 789516 NJ Hudson 603521 NJ Union 531457 NJ Sussex 153130 NJ Warren 110376 NJ Cape May 99286 NJ Salem 66346 NY Suffolk 1474927 NY Onondaga 458053 NY Rockland 292916 NY Saratoga 214859 NY Rensselaer 155251 NY Chautauqua 136409 NY Madison 70337 NY Genesee 59257 NY Chenango 51755 NY Allegany 50602 NY Greene 49682 NY Montgomery 48968 NY Delaware 47534 NY Wyoming 42693 NY Schoharie 32277 NY Lewis 26571 NY Yates 24756 OH Hamilton 806652 OH Montgomery 547435 OH Mahoning 254274 OH Greene 151996 OH Richland 127949 OH Wood 123929 OH Miami 101619 OH Tuscarawas 91944 OH Erie 78665 OH Hancock 73503 OH Jefferson 70599 OH Belmont 69228 OH Sandusky 61676 OH Huron 60385 OH Ashland 54123 OH Darke 52983 OH Clinton 42570 OH Preble 42527 OH Madison 41295 OH Mercer 41202 OH Guernsey 41123 OH Defiance 39112 OH Coshocton 36945 OH Putnam 34928 OH Gallia 31362 OH Van Wert 29154 OH Hocking 29009 OH Pike 28146 OH Wyandot 22813 OH Morgan 14958 OK Oklahoma 684543 OK Tulsa 572059 OK Coal 5743 OR Multnomah 672906 OR Washington 499794 OR Clackamas 368470 OR Lane 335180 OR Marion 305265 OR Jackson 195322 OR Linn 108914 OR Yamhill 92196 OR Klamath 66192 OR Lincoln 45994 OR Crook 22067 OR Baker 16287 OR Grant 7297 OR Wallowa 7014 SC Charleston 330368 SD Minnehaha 160087 SD Pennington 93580 SD Lawrence 22395 SD Davison 18777 SD Hutchinson 7581 SD Bon Homme 7087 SD Moody 6637 SD McCook 5930 SD Day 5757 SD Hamlin 5707 SD Walworth 5494 SD Corson 4366 SD Clark 3799 SD Bennett 3585 SD Hand 3307 SD McPherson 2617 SD Miner 2584 12

SD Faulk 2386 SD Potter 2351 SD Hyde 1614 SD Sully 1430 TN Bradley 92092 TX Tarrant 1620479 TX Bexar 1518370 TX Randall 110053 TX Limestone 22763 WA King 1793583 WA Kitsap 240661 WA Thurston 228867 WA Island 79252 WA Grays Harbor 70900 WA Okanogan 39782 WA Asotin 21178 WA Adams 16803 WA Wahkiakum 3849 WI Waukesha 378971 WI Rock 157538 WI Manitowoc 81949 WI Portage 67585 WI Grant 49671 WI Barron 45834 WI Polk 44329 WI Monroe 42644 WI Oconto 37666 WI Clark 34098 WI Vilas 22330 WI Jackson 19758 WI Crawford 17134 WI Sawyer 16975 WI Lafayette 16310 WI Buffalo 13968 WI Florence 4974 WI Menominee 4580 WY Laramie 85163 13

Responding Counties by Population STATE COUNTY POP AZ Maricopa 3635528 CA Orange 2988072 CA San Diego 2933462 CA San Bernardino 1963535 CA Riverside 1946419 WA King 1793583 TX Tarrant 1620479 TX Bexar 1518370 NY Suffolk 1474927 CA Sacramento 1363482 FL Palm Beach 1268548 MN Hennepin 1119364 CA Contra Costa 1017787 MD Montgomery 927583 OH Hamilton 806652 CA Ventura 796106 NJ Middlesex 789516 OK Oklahoma 684543 OR Multnomah 672906 CA San Joaquin 664116 AL Jefferson 657229 NJ Hudson 603521 MI Kent 596666 OK Tulsa 572059 OH Montgomery 547435 NJ Union 531457 MD Anne Arundel 510878 OR Washington 499794 FL Volusia 490055 NE Douglas 486929 CA Sonoma 466477 KS Sedgwick 466061 NY Onondaga 458053 MI Genesee 443883 CA Solano 411593 LA East Baton Rouge 411417 CA Tulare 410874 AL Mobile 401427 CA Santa Barbara 400762 WI Waukesha 378971 OR Clackamas 368470 ID Ada 344727 OR Lane 335180 SC Charleston 330368 MN Anoka 323996 CA Placer 317028 FL Collier 307242 OR Marion 305265 AL Madison 298192 NY Rockland 292916 IL Winnebago 288695 CO Larimer 271927 KY Fayette 268080 NE Lancaster 264814 IL Madison 264309 CA San Luis Obispo 255478 OH Mahoning 254274 MO Greene 250784 CA Merced 241706 WA Kitsap 240661 MI Kalamazoo 240536 WA Thurston 228867 AL Montgomery 221619 NY Saratoga 214859 CA Butte 214185 IA Linn 198903 AZ Yavapai 198701 OR Jackson 195322 IL Champaign 184905 AZ Yuma 181277 CA Shasta 179904 MI Jackson 163629 MI Berrien 162611 SD Minnehaha 160087 IL McLean 159013 WI Rock 157538 NY Rensselaer 155251 14

IN Tippecanoe 153875 NJ Sussex 153130 OH Greene 151996 IL Rock Island 147808 MO Boone 143326 MN Stearns 142654 NE Sarpy 139371 MS DeSoto 137004 NY Chautauqua 136409 MS Rankin 131841 LA Rapides 128462 OH Richland 127949 OH Wood 123929 MN Scott 119825 IA Johnson 117067 AL Morgan 113740 MN Wright 110730 NJ Warren 110376 TX Randall 110053 OR Linn 108914 IL Kankakee 107972 IA Woodbury 102605 OH Miami 101619 NJ Cape May 99286 SD Pennington 93580 OR Yamhill 92196 TN Bradley 92092 OH Tuscarawas 91944 LA St. Landry 89937 IA Pottawattamie 89738 WY Laramie 85163 MI Midland 84064 WI Manitowoc 81949 AL Cullman 79886 IL Kendall 79514 WA Island 79252 OH Erie 78665 MS Lauderdale 77218 FL Flagler 76410 MD Allegany 73639 OH Hancock 73503 KS Leavenworth 73113 MI Shiawassee 72945 MO Cole 72757 WA Grays Harbor 70900 OH Jefferson 70599 AL Limestone 70469 NY Madison 70337 OH Belmont 69228 WI Portage 67585 IL Adams 67040 NJ Salem 66346 OR Klamath 66192 MI Ionia 64608 FL Sumter 64182 MI St. Joseph 62984 KS Butler 62354 OH Sandusky 61676 CA Tehama 61197 MN Rice 60949 OH Huron 60385 NY Genesee 59257 MS Washington 59220 MN Otter Tail 57658 AL Colbert 54660 IL Ogle 54290 OH Ashland 54123 MN Clay 53838 IL Knox 53309 OH Darke 52983 IA Dallas 51762 NY Chenango 51755 LA St. Mary 51416 IL Coles 51065 NY Allegany 50602 IL Henry 50591 NY Greene 49682 WI Grant 49671 MN Winona 49276 NY Montgomery 48968 AL Autauga 48612 NY Delaware 47534 CO Eagle 47530 IN Henry 47244 MI Hillsdale 47066 MS Hancock 46711 MI Branch 46460 OR Lincoln 45994 WI Barron 45834 MN Goodhue 45585 IA Cerro Gordo 44645 WI Polk 44329 15

ID Bingham 43739 NE Buffalo 43572 MN Beltrami 42871 NY Wyoming 42693 WI Monroe 42644 OH Clinton 42570 OH Preble 42527 MI Gratiot 42345 OH Madison 41295 OH Mercer 41202 OH Guernsey 41123 IN Dubois 40858 WA Okanogan 39782 IA Marshall 39418 OH Defiance 39112 KS Finney 38988 MN Mower 38799 MS Bolivar 38641 WI Oconto 37666 KY Greenup 37184 OH Coshocton 36945 IA Lee 36705 IL Clinton 36095 IA Wapello 35965 MD Talbot 35683 IL Lee 35669 KS Lyon 35609 IL Christian 35176 OH Putnam 34928 MI Huron 34640 WI Clark 34098 IL Randolph 33122 NE Adams 33070 IA Marion 32984 IA Sioux 32277 NY Schoharie 32277 MN Freeborn 31946 MI Wexford 31876 MN Becker 31868 OH Gallia 31362 MN Polk 31133 IL Monroe 31040 MN Nicollet 30848 IL Iroquois 30677 IL Logan 30603 KS Miami 30496 IL Montgomery 30396 AL Marion 30154 OH Van Wert 29154 OH Hocking 29009 MN Cass 28910 CA Del Norte 28705 AL Barbour 28414 OH Pike 28146 CO Morgan 27995 MN Le Sueur 27490 MI Cheboygan 27463 AL Clarke 27269 IA Boone 26602 NY Lewis 26571 MN Brown 26534 LA De Soto 26383 KS Franklin 26247 AL Geneva 25735 MN Mille Lacs 25680 ND Morton 25528 MI Menominee 24996 IA Plymouth 24958 NY Yates 24756 AL Winston 24498 MN Lyon 24472 MI Osceola 23750 AL Monroe 23733 IA Bremer 23677 MN Meeker 23371 KS Seward 23274 IL Perry 22815 OH Wyandot 22813 TX Limestone 22763 IL Jo Daviess 22580 IL Jersey 22456 SD Lawrence 22395 WI Vilas 22330 IL Shelby 22322 MN Wabasha 22200 ND Stark 22073 OR Crook 22067 IL Fayette 21713 WA Asotin 21178 CA Colusa 21095 IA Carroll 21034 IA Buchanan 21019 16

MN Martin 21002 ND Stutsman 20835 IA Jones 20509 IA Buena Vista 20151 IL Douglas 19950 WI Jackson 19758 MS Attala 19552 IL Hancock 19153 SD Davison 18777 IA Clayton 18337 AL Hale 18316 IN Rush 17823 AL Washington 17773 IL Warren 17558 WI Crawford 17134 WI Sawyer 16975 IL Mercer 16912 IA Clay 16897 WA Adams 16803 IL Wayne 16796 MN Renville 16764 NE Seward 16739 IL De Witt 16617 AL Henry 16610 WI Lafayette 16310 OR Baker 16287 MN Kanabec 16215 IL Carroll 16086 IA Iowa 16055 MN Redwood 16022 IL Lawrence 15930 IL Richland 15798 MN Faribault 15506 IL White 15284 IA Madison 15158 IA Butler 15072 OH Morgan 14958 MS Stone 14862 IL Greene 14581 IA O'Brien 14414 NE Saline 14195 IL Ford 14157 WI Buffalo 13968 IL Cass 13898 AL Sumter 13819 AL Crenshaw 13727 IL Marshall 13217 CO Grand 13211 IL Menard 12738 IA Grundy 12329 IA Cherokee 12237 IA Louisa 11842 MN Cottonwood 11834 IA Hancock 11786 IA Lyon 11750 MI Alcona 11653 ND Ramsey 11429 NE Box Butte 11374 IA Winnebago 11351 MN Swift 11324 MN Pope 11252 MN Watonwan 11234 IA Keokuk 11157 MN Lake 11156 ID Owyhee 11073 AL Bullock 11055 IA Franklin 10732 IL Jasper 10020 IA Humboldt 9973 MN Marshall 9965 IA Howard 9700 IA Palo Alto 9697 AL Greene 9661 CA Modoc 9524 MN Pipestone 9421 KS Coffey 8683 IA Davis 8659 IA Decatur 8605 ND McLean 8604 MN Clearwater 8476 MS Franklin 8411 NE Keith 8330 IL Hamilton 8301 KS Kingman 8165 ID Lemhi 7909 IA Fremont 7759 KS Thomas 7639 MN Lac qui Parle 7604 SD Hutchinson 7581 MI Ontonagon 7363 OR Grant 7297 SD Bon Homme 7087 17

IL Schuyler 7073 CO Saguache 7031 OR Wallowa 7014 IL Brown 6835 IA Osceola 6694 SD Moody 6637 KS Ottawa 6123 SD McCook 5930 SD Day 5757 OK Coal 5743 SD Hamlin 5707 CO Lincoln 5618 SD Walworth 5494 ND Dickey 5487 MN Big Stone 5481 MN Cook 5367 IA Ringgold 5273 IL Calhoun 5163 MN Mahnomen 5113 WI Florence 4974 CO Washington 4633 WI Menominee 4580 ID Lincoln 4545 SD Corson 4366 ND Sargent 4150 WA Wahkiakum 3849 SD Clark 3799 SD Bennett 3585 ND Foster 3580 ND Nelson 3424 SD Hand 3307 ND Bowman 3048 ND McIntosh 3013 KS Rawlins 2672 SD McPherson 2617 SD Miner 2584 ND Griggs 2497 ND Kidder 2481 SD Faulk 2386 SD Potter 2351 KS Stanton 2245 NE Deuel 2004 ND Oliver 1813 ND Golden Valley 1739 SD Hyde 1614 SD Sully 1430 KS Greeley 1349 18

America s Infrastructure and the Economy Questionnaire Hello, this is (first and last name) calling on behalf of the National Association of Counties from National Research. NACo - the National Association of Counties is conducting a survey on the state of county transportation infrastructure in order to provide support for the multi-year passage of the Surface Transportation Act. As many of us know, not only will full funding of this bill help improve America s infrastructure but it will also create jobs. The information and data gathered from this survey will be used as part of a report that will be released to the media and to the Administration to show how counties could leverage these funds, not only to repair and update roads and bridges but also to help jumpstart the economy. The survey is short and NACo would greatly appreciate your input. (Thank you in advance for your cooperation.) 1. What percentage of the road infrastructure in your county falls into the following categories? Good condition % Fair condition % Poor condition % Other (describe) Don t know 2. What percentage of the bridge infrastructure in your county falls into the following categories Good condition % Fair condition % Poor condition % Other (describe) Don t know 3. Since the economic slowdown starting in 2008, has your county deferred maintenance on and construction of transportation infrastructure because of cutbacks in funding? Yes No (skip to Q. 6) Don t know (skip to Q. 6) 19 4a. Were those cutbacks in local funding? Yes No Don t know 4b. (Were those cutbacks in) state funding? Yes

No Don t know 4c. (Were those cutbacks in) federal funding? Yes No Don t know 5. What percentage of your transportation infrastructure budget was reduced by the cutbacks? Up to 10% 10 to 25% 26 to 50% 50 to 75% Above 75% Don t know 6. If your county were able to get additional new funding to build and repair your road and bridge infrastructure, would it create jobs in your county? Yes No Don t Know (CHECK Q.1, ASK IF Good does not equal 100%) 7. What amount of funding would enable you to upgrade your county s roads infrastructure to the good level? Less than $1million $1 million to $5 million $5 million to $10 million $10 million to $25 Million $25 to $50 Million Greater than $50 million Don t know 20

(CHECK Q.2, ASK IF Good does not equal 100%) 8. What amount of funding would enable you to upgrade your county s bridges infrastructure to the good level? Less than $1million $1 million to $5 million $5 million to $10 million $10 million to $25 Million $25 to $50 Million Greater than $50 million Don t know 9. Would potential funding from passage of the Surface Transportation Act help you improve the condition of roads and bridges in your county? Yes No Don t Know 21