Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Project Highway Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee commits highway reserve accounting and approves phase‑one design spending for new highway facility
Summary
The committee approved two related resolutions: committing $30 million in highway reserve accounting toward a potential new highway facility and authorizing phase‑one schematic design and county costs (including a $29,500 schematic fee). Both measures were forwarded unanimously to the County Board.
The Marathon County Infrastructure Committee on Sept. 4 unanimously approved two linked actions to advance planning for a potential new highway facility: (1) a resolution to commit $30 million in highway reserve funds as an accounting commitment toward the project, and (2) a resolution authorizing expenditure of funds for phase‑one schematic design and county costs, including a $29,500 fee proposed by the selected design firm.
Staff clarified that “committing” reserve funds is accounting language that creates a designated funding pool but does not authorize immediate spending; funds may be uncommitted later if priorities change. County staff, finance and highway leadership said they arrived at the $30 million figure after reviewing reserve categories so other highway reserve needs (equipment, working capital) would remain intact.
On the phase‑one resolution, Troy Torgerson, the county’s lead project planner on facilities, described the schematic design scope that will be procured through an RFP. The schematic design is intended to generate more accurate cost estimates and site plans to support site plan approval. Torgerson said the selected firm’s schematic fee was $29,500; additional county side costs covered in the authorization could include soil borings, asbestos testing and similar pre‑design work.
Staff also explained plans to procure a construction manager at risk (CMAR) early in the process to provide real‑world cost guidance and reduce future change orders. The committee heard that other firms’ proposals ranged substantially higher (some in six figures) for initial design phases; the chosen firm’s price was described as comparatively modest.
Committee members called the steps iterative: schematic design, design development and construction documents, then a guaranteed maximum price brought back for County Board consideration. Both resolutions were moved and seconded and will be forwarded to the County Board for final action.
Committee members emphasized the fiscal approach of using reserve funds to reduce borrowing and noted further detailed cost and timeline information will come back after schematic design and CMAR input.
