Grant County approves highway appropriations; director asks council to study road‑scoring software

Grant County council on Wednesday approved additional appropriations for the highway department to fund paving, chip‑seal and equipment needs and heard a separate presentation on a road‑condition imaging and asset‑management system that the highway director said could make resurfacing decisions more objective.

Highway Director David White asked the council for multiple additions to make projects "shovel ready," saying the requests include $700,000 for bituminous material for chip‑seal work, about $1,000,000 for paving projects and roughly $664,500 for equipment tied to recently ordered trucks. White said two bridge projects awarded a Community Crossing grant require the county to provide a 50‑50 match and that inspection costs are 100% the county's responsibility.

"I've asked for additional $700,000 in bituminous, which is for a chip sale program, $1,000,000 in paving projects, $664,500 for equipment," White said during his presentation. The council voted on the three additional appropriations as a block and approved them by voice vote; the record shows the motion carried with ayes and no opposed votes announced.

White also introduced Biolytics, a commercial system that uses cameras mounted on county vehicles to take images every 10 feet and produce road‑condition scores intended for grant applications and asset management. He said the vendor quoted "the first 3 years is basically $46,988.60 per year for 3 years," and that the package would include four devices and cloud storage. White said the system can record signs, guardrail and pipe conditions and allow staff to pull images for specific locations.

Commissioners raised questions about scope, cost and vendor pricing. One council member asked whether the state requires such a system; White said it does not, though some counties use it and the state currently accepts similar scoring methods. Another member challenged the vendor's price structure: "Why would they give you a discount at 83%? That means they're overpricing to begin with," the member said, noting a large apparent discount on the vendor's line pricing for the county's mileage.

White said he would ask the vendor and the county attorney to review the contract language and report back. Commissioners agreed to give staff time to answer the outstanding pricing and contract questions and asked White to return with more details at the next meeting rather than signing a contract immediately.

The highway director said he expects the contracted trucks to be completed this year and that some requested appropriations would be used to pay manufacturers when trucks are delivered. White told the council he plans to split equipment costs between restricted funds (for snow and winter operations) and highway maintenance funds so state rules for restricted equipment funding are followed.

The council approved the appropriations and separately voted to permit the highway department to replace an employee when an internal reassignment creates a vacancy. The Biolytics purchase was not approved; commissioners asked for follow‑up information on the 83% discount, unit pricing and contract language before considering a purchase.

What happens next: White will seek counsel review of the Biolytics contract and report back to the council with an explanation of the vendor pricing and any recommended changes. The approved appropriations will be processed so projects can proceed as weather allows.