Smoother Roads Ahead: The Practical Payoff of Interlocal Road Agreements

Smooth roads don’t just happen; they’re built on collaboration. Across the country, counties and cities are discovering that the smartest way to stretch limited budgets isn’t by going it alone, but by teaming up. Through interlocal agreements, local governments can share crews, equipment, and expertise to keep their roads in top shape without doubling costs.

Imagine a small county lending its road grader to a neighboring city that trades asphalt patching crews in return. Both finish their work faster, cheaper, and with fewer idle machines. Beyond simple cost savings, these partnerships create stronger regional networks, more nimble emergency responses, and better-trained workforces. In an era where infrastructure demands are growing and budgets are shrinking, interlocal cooperation could be the lane change American road maintenance desperately needs.

Interlocal agreements allow local governments to optimize their use of personnel, equipment, and funds by pooling resources with neighboring jurisdictions. For example, a county with a grader but limited asphalt patching equipment can enter into an agreement with a nearby city that has a full asphalt crew but lacks grading machinery. This type of arrangement ensures that both parties can maintain their respective road systems without duplicating costly capital investments. By reducing redundancy, local governments can allocate their limited budgets more effectively to cover a wider scope of maintenance activities.

Another operational benefit involves scheduling and geographic efficiency. When road crews are dispatched based on proximity rather than jurisdictional boundaries, travel time and fuel costs are significantly reduced. For instance, if a county road needing repair is closer to a city’s maintenance yard than the county's own, the city can perform the work more quickly and at lower cost. This model also promotes faster emergency response times during weather events or infrastructure failures, where delays can lead to further road degradation or even safety concerns for the traveling public.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Interlocal agreements are governed by state statutes that establish the authority and procedures for local governments to collaborate. Most states' laws outline requirements for documentation, mutual consent, and oversight, often mandating that agreements be reviewed by legal counsel and approved by elected governing bodies such as county commissions or city councils. In Texas, for instance, Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code provides the legal basis for interlocal cooperation among political subdivisions, including cities, counties, and special districts¹.

Administrative coordination is essential to the success of these agreements. Parties should designate points of contact, establish standard operating procedures, and create performance benchmarks within the agreement. Regular reviews and updates ensure that the terms remain relevant to changing conditions such as equipment availability, staffing levels, or road conditions. Clear documentation and consistent communication reduce the risk of misunderstandings and provide a foundation for long-term collaboration.

Financial Efficiency and Budget Optimization

From a financial standpoint, interlocal agreements offer significant cost-saving opportunities. By sharing large, capital-intensive equipment such as milling machines, pavers, or snowplows, jurisdictions avoid making duplicate purchases that tie up limited funds. According to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), interlocal cooperation can lower operating costs by reducing overhead and maximizing asset utilization².

Additionally, these agreements allow for better long-term financial planning. Shared service agreements can be structured with cost-sharing formulas based on usage or population served, ensuring that each party contributes its fair share. This financial predictability supports more accurate budgeting and may also make local governments more competitive when applying for state or federal grants, as cooperative efforts are often viewed favorably by funding agencies³.

Workforce Development and Skill Sharing

Interlocal agreements also facilitate the cross-training of personnel. When crews from different jurisdictions work together, they gain exposure to different techniques, equipment, and materials. This knowledge transfer enhances the skill sets of public works employees and helps standardize best practices across jurisdictions. For example, a rural county crew might benefit from a city’s experience with thermoplastic striping or advanced pavement preservation methods, while the city might learn more efficient gravel road maintenance from the county team.

Sharing workforce resources also addresses labor shortages, which are common in smaller jurisdictions with limited staff. During peak maintenance seasons or after severe weather events, one agency can loan its crew to another, ensuring that urgent repairs are completed in a timely manner. This flexibility is particularly valuable in rural areas where recruitment and retention of qualified public works personnel can be challenging⁴.

Case Examples and Performance Outcomes

Several jurisdictions have reported measurable improvements in service delivery after implementing interlocal agreements. In Minnesota, the Association of Minnesota Counties documented a partnership between Lyon County and the City of Marshall that resulted in faster snow removal and improved road grading, with both entities reporting reduced fuel consumption and increased equipment uptime⁵. These types of outcomes highlight the practical benefits of collaborative approaches.

Another example comes from Washington State, where King County’s Road Services Division has formal agreements with 30 cities to provide road maintenance services. Performance audits showed that these agreements led to a higher percentage of roads meeting pavement condition targets, while also reducing administrative overhead by consolidating procurement and reporting functions⁶. These successes demonstrate how structured collaboration can yield real operational improvements.

Implementation Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Despite their advantages, interlocal agreements are not without challenges. Differences in organizational culture, priorities, and service standards can create friction between partners. For example, one jurisdiction may prioritize pothole patching while another focuses on vegetation control or drainage. To address this, agreements should include clear scope definitions, timelines, and performance expectations to ensure alignment of goals and responsibilities.

Another common challenge involves liability and insurance. When one jurisdiction performs work in another’s territory, questions can arise about who is responsible for damages or injuries. To mitigate this risk, agreements should include detailed indemnification clauses and ensure that all parties carry appropriate insurance coverage. Legal counsel should be involved in drafting these provisions to ensure compliance with state laws and protection for all entities involved⁷.

Strategic Planning and Long-Term Impact

Integrating interlocal agreements into a broader strategic plan can yield compounding benefits over time. For example, jurisdictions can coordinate pavement management schedules to ensure that adjacent roads are maintained simultaneously, improving travel continuity and reducing mobilization costs. They can also share data systems such as asset management software to monitor road conditions and prioritize investments based on need rather than jurisdictional boundaries.

Over the long term, these agreements contribute to more resilient infrastructure management. As communities face increasing fiscal pressures and extreme weather events, the ability to respond flexibly and collaboratively becomes essential. Interlocal agreements enable local governments to adapt and scale their operations without significantly expanding budgets or staff. This strategic capacity-building supports not just road maintenance, but a broader vision of sustainable infrastructure stewardship.

Bibliography

Texas Government Code, Chapter 791 - Interlocal Cooperation Contracts. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.791.htm
Government Finance Officers Association. 2019. “Shared Services: A Guide to Collaborative Solutions for Local Government.” https://www.gfoa.org/materials/shared-services
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2020. “Federal-Aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials
National Association of Counties. 2021. “The Road Ahead: County Transportation Funding and Financing.” https://www.naco.org/resources/road-ahead-county-transportation-funding-and-financing
Association of Minnesota Counties. 2018. “County-City Cooperation Case Studies.” https://www.mncounties.org
King County Road Services Division. 2020. “Interlocal Agreements Annual Report.” https://kingcounty.gov/depts/local-services/roads/interlocal-agreements.aspx
International City/County Management Association. 2017. “Managing Interlocal Agreements: Best Practices and Pitfalls.” https://icma.org