Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Marshall County names high‑priority bridges for replacement, seeks funding

Marshall County Board of Commissioners · May 1, 2026
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

The Marshall County Board adopted Resolution 05‑05‑02 listing multiple bridges it calls high priority for replacement or major rehabilitation over the next five years, with estimated project costs and proposed local and federal funding shares and requests to seek financial assistance for eligible approach grading and engineering costs.

Marshall County commissioners on May 5 adopted Resolution 05‑05‑02 identifying a list of bridges the county considers high priorities for replacement, major rehabilitation or removal and authorizing the county to seek state and federal funding assistance.

The resolution lists specific crossings with estimated total project costs and proposed local or federal funding shares. Among the projects are a $2.5 million replacement on 460th Avenue (Main CD 45) with $2,480,000 listed as federal or state funds and $20,000 in local funds proposed for 2028; a $500,000 project on C.R. 129 (C.D. 20) showing $350,000 in federal/state funds and $150,000 local in 2028; and a $400,000 project on 5th St. (Snake River) with $350,000 in federal/state funds and $50,000 local proposed for 2029. Other listed projects include work estimated at $300,000, $200,000 and $600,000 with proposed construction years between 2027 and 2030.

County Engineer Lon Aune presented the data supporting the list and the board voted to request authorization to pursue replacement, rehabilitation or removal when funds become available and to request financial assistance for eligible approach grading and engineering costs on township bridges, as provided by law. The motion carried on a recorded staff motion (M/S/C – Nybladh, Kiesow).

Why it matters: identifying high‑priority bridges creates an actionable list the county can use to pursue outside funding and schedule construction. The resolution frames projects by estimated cost and proposed funding mix but does not itself commit county funds for construction; commissioners said projects would proceed “as soon as possible when funds are available.”

Next steps: county staff will pursue grant and aid opportunities and return with project programming and funding options as they become available.