KRTA reviews 10-year bridge plan and funding paths, flags possible millage
Loading...
Summary
The Kiwanis Regional Trail Authority reviewed a detailed 10-year bridge maintenance plan calling for roughly $224,000 in year‑one work and an annual target near $250,000; members discussed grant matches, fundraising and whether a millage or intermunicipal commitments are needed for long‑term stability.
The Kiwanis Regional Trail Authority on Monday heard a detailed 10‑year plan for bridge maintenance and prioritized three years of work it called the highest priority.
The plan presenter said the first‑year package is priced at $224,000, which includes a design fee (about 10 percent) and construction engineering inspection and oversight. He told the board the program was modeled on an earlier structure report and assumes a 5 percent annual escalation in construction costs.
Board members pressed on how the plan was built and how it would be paid for. One member cited the $1.18 million figure used previously for a multiyear package but noted that estimate did not include design and oversight costs; with those added, total program costs rise. Another member proposed bundling the first three years and seeking roughly $650,000 in grants or fundraising to cover immediate priorities.
Speakers emphasized the limited internal capacity to commit large matches. "With any of these grants, they're going to ask for a match of some percentage," one board member said, adding typical matches run "20 to 50 percent." The presenter said the authority had targeted roughly $250,000 per year as a sustainable threshold.
Board members discussed a millage as a longer‑term solution to bundle work and enable bonding: "With the millage, even if it's a quarter or a half, you can bond, and we can take care of these bridges all at once," a member said. Others cautioned that a millage would require careful messaging and buy‑in from the four municipalities that share the trail.
The authority took no binding financing decision at the meeting; members asked staff and trustees to pursue follow‑up conversations with township supervisors and potential grant sources and to return with options.
The presentation and subsequent budgeting questions took place amid a broader history of past fundraising and a DNR grant that required a local match. The board noted prior campaigns, COVID‑era cost escalation and the county's former role as the grant applicant when earlier projects were advanced.
