Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Bridges topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee outlines multi-year plan for bridge replacements; Eagle Road targeted for ARIP application

November 18, 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

County staff said an engineer is preparing a replacement estimate for the Eagle Road crossing ahead of an ARIP application (due Dec. 15), and outlined a 2027–2030 design-to-replacement timeline for several timber bridges requiring replacement or reconditioning.

Speaker 1 raised concerns about the Eagle Road bridge and asked whether a culvert is possible. Speaker 2 said a culvert is “very unlikely” because DNR permits and span/abutment excavation would push the structure over 20 feet, making it a bridge replacement candidate. Speaker 2 said they met with an engineer to get a rough estimate needed for an ARIP funding application and expects the estimate in time for the application deadline.

Speaker 2 also reported that four county structures are reduced or closed due to condition: one closed in McCann’s area, two posted at five tons in Newton, and one posted at 20 tons at Crystal Lake. Speaker 2 said closed structures will be assigned priority 1 for ARIP replacement consideration and that the local bridge application submitted to DOT this cycle should be competitive because of timber deterioration.

On timing, Speaker 2 described inspection cadence and a projected schedule: design work potentially in 2027 with replacement possible in 2030, and warned that permitting (DNR, Army Corps) and wetland crossings could extend timelines by years. Speaker 2 said they had sent DNR an email seeking a site review and that DNR had not yet replied in the meeting record.

No formal commitment of funding beyond application submission was recorded; staff framed the discussion as planning and prioritization for ARIP and DOT bridge programs. The committee did not take a formal vote on bridge-specific actions during this meeting.