The Ashland County Highway Committee on Wednesday discussed a proposed county bridge-aid policy that would split eligible culvert and small-bridge costs with towns, asked towns to weigh in by early next year, and proposed a $100,000 annual cap on program spending.

Committee members said the proposal is intended to help rural towns afford replacement of larger culverts and small bridges before they fail. Matt, the highway commissioner, summarized eligibility and process details and said the committee does not plan to implement the program for 2026; instead towns should review the proposal and return recommendations in January or February so the county committees can consider it for the 2027 budget cycle.

The proposed policy would make culverts 36 inches or larger eligible (the transcript notes that statute uses 36 inches as the threshold), with each town and the county paying 50% of eligible costs. Approach work up to 100 feet could be included. Towns would apply in August for projects to be completed the following year; completed reimbursement requests would need to be submitted by Oct. 1 and the county would reimburse by Dec. 31. Villages would have the option to opt into the program; towns would be included in the levy by default if the county board adopts the policy.

Committee members discussed funding mechanics and prioritization. The highway commissioner proposed capping annual program levies at $100,000 to limit taxpayer burden and maintaining a running spreadsheet (similar to the county’s LRIP accounting) so towns that have not recently used funds would accumulate priority. The spreadsheet would use equalized value to apportion the levy and establish each town’s share; the commissioner gave an example that a town’s share could increase taxes by roughly $0.09 per $1,000 of assessed value (noted in the meeting as 9¢ per $1,000). He also suggested a non‑lapsing fund to carry forward unspent dollars and the possibility of a second emergency fund (another $100,000) to cover failures that arise midyear.

Towns and town representatives at the meeting expressed cautious support but wanted time to consult their boards. Several town representatives said they would likely be in favor but noted some towns have few qualifying culverts or bridges. Committee members emphasized towns cannot opt out of the county levy once the county begins bridge aid (the commissioner said the statute reads that once the county starts bridge aid, it continues), although the policy itself could later be adjusted to reduce funding levels.

The committee asked towns to return formal positions by January or February. If towns show broad support, the highway committee would make a determination and forward the policy to finance and the county board for final approval. The committee did not adopt the policy at the meeting.

Votes and formal actions recorded in the meeting were limited to routine minutes approval and adjournment; the bridge-aid policy discussion resulted in direction to solicit town responses, not a final vote.

The county will publish the draft petition and application form for towns, and the highway committee signaled it will accept amendments to program design (caps, prioritization rules) before sending a final recommendation to the county board.