Dunn County Highway Committee revisits $8.8M–$18M shop and storage options; committee asks for financial scenarios

Highway staff presented an updated capital improvement plan for a proposed highway storage addition and truck wash bay during the March 11 Dunn County Highway Committee meeting, offering multiple size and construction‑type options and asking the committee whether to proceed to the full county board.

What was proposed: staff presented three major options — a 54,000 sq ft steel building with an attached automated wash bay (estimated cost roughly $8.7M–$8.8M, design and construction combined), a standalone automated wash bay (approx. $1.8M), and a larger 72,000 sq ft option that would allow the county to consolidate storage currently in an offsite ‘White House’ facility. A precast concrete option and the larger 72,000 sq ft configuration were identified as substantially more expensive; a rough example figure discussed for a precast 72,000 sq ft build was in the low‑teens of millions, and including a future remodel could push combined program costs toward the high‑teens.

Fiscal context and concerns: staff warned the committee that a large combined borrow could push annual county debt service above the county’s $5.2M debt‑service guideline and would have levy implications. Brief modeling discussed in the meeting suggested an increase that would translate into roughly cents per $1,000 of property valuation (committee discussion used county equalized value figures as a backdrop). Committee members stressed that the next county board (with several newly elected members) would be presented this question in May and asked for municipal advisor scenarios showing per‑$1,000 levy impacts, annual debt‑service amounts and multi‑year timing options.

Committee input and next steps: members were split on timing and scale: some favored building larger and future‑proofing to avoid higher future costs, while others urged caution and requested more precise financial modeling so newer board members can weigh tax impacts. Several members signaled support for proceeding with design options in 2027 and construction in 2028 if financial modeling is acceptable. Staff committed to return in April with detailed municipal‑advisor estimates and multiple design/cost options (steel vs. precast; 54,000 vs. 72,000 sq ft) and to add a remodel placeholder to the five‑year plan so the board can consider staging.

The committee did not take a final vote on a preferred option and asked staff to present levy and debt‑service scenarios before formal CIP approval.