Adam Clemens, Wright County engineer, told supervisors the draft 2026 county five‑year construction program (version 0.1) will be funded with BR dollars and will not use local property tax revenues. Clemens also told the board the item will appear on next week’s agenda with a resolution to adopt the program.

Why it matters: the five‑year program sets the county’s near‑term road and bridge priorities and ties specific projects to BR (bridge/road) funding that excludes local tax dollars. Clemens said one addition — an extra $200,000 in BR funds for Bridge 175 at R33 and C20 — will be included in Resolution 2025‑34, which the board approved during the meeting.

Clemens spent the bulk of his presentation explaining state Department of Transportation (DOT) guidance and legal limits on county maintenance inside municipal limits. He said the DOT’s road‑use and jurisdiction rules prevent county crews from doing maintenance on streets wholly inside a city with more than 2,500 residents unless the county is reimbursed. For towns under 2,500 residents, Clemens said the county may perform maintenance if it is reimbursed.

Clemens described map layers showing routes that are wholly inside city limits (paved and granular), shared routes (jurisdiction split down the centerline) and farm‑to‑market extensions for communities under the population threshold. He told the board the county has a vested interest in some shared routes but that work inside a city could create insurance and liability exposure through ICAP if the county performs un‑contracted maintenance. Clemens said continuing un‑reimbursed work risks DOT rejecting the county’s annual report and jeopardizing road‑use tax funding.

Board members asked whether the county or the DOT sets reimbursement rates and whether the board could set lower rates. Clemens said reimbursement should reflect the county’s actual costs and noted the cost basis in his packet derives from a transportation research analysis and the county’s 2024 annual report; he recommended contacting affected city administrators and seeking formal 28E or long‑term agreements so work can continue lawfully and without risking state funding.

What happened next: the board approved Resolution 2025‑34 to add $200,000 in BR funds for Bridge 175 and voted to place the 2026 five‑year program (resolution 0.1) on next week’s agenda for formal adoption. Supervisors asked Clemens to reach out to city officials and to compile comparative practices from other counties and from the ISAC engineers group.

The board did not immediately change operational practice; Clemens said until formal agreements are in place, some maintenance inside cities is restricted by state rule and the county will seek to negotiate reimbursement and clarify which shared routes fall under county responsibility.