Hubbard County EDA approves RFQ to study Farden Township industrial site amid strong local opposition

Hubbard County Economic Development Authority members voted to issue a request for qualifications to hire a planner or engineering firm to complete master planning and public outreach for a proposed industrial development on tax‑forfeited parcels in Farden Township.

Administrator Jeff Cadwell told the board the RFQ would fund “the field work to work with Farden Township and the residents” and stressed, “This is not listing any of these parcels for sale.” Cadwell said the EDA purchased the tax‑forfeited parcels and that the RFQ’s intent is to study access, utilities and acceptable types of development before any design or sale decisions are made.

The decision followed more than an hour of public comment in which township residents and local business owners said the proposal could harm neighborhood quality of life and local water resources. Linda Tran, a Farden Township resident, told the board that if the railroad closed crossings at “300 And Fifteenth And 320 Third Street,” the only route to the north portion of the parcels would be past the township park and cautioned that “If that railroad crossing does get closed, there's no other access into that property.” Diane Sullivan Huberty, another resident, raised concerns about proximity to Midge Lake and the Necktie River watershed and said local soils and a high water table increase the risk that runoff could affect the lake. Business owner Tim Allen questioned the rationale and potential tax benefits, asking, “If we're looking to turn a small township ... into an industrial hub ... I want to know what I'm going to sell my soul up for.”

Speakers urged the board to study alternative parcels and to include the county highway engineer, the railroad and pipeline interests in technical reviews. Several commenters noted existing infrastructure constraints: multiple Enbridge pipeline lines run through the area, a high‑voltage power line limits southern routing options, wetlands reduce buildable acreage, and residents said portions of the property have already been clear‑cut for preliminary work.

Board members and staff discussed scope and limits for the RFQ. Staff recommended limiting the initial contract to planning and public engagement rather than construction design, to reduce upfront costs and to gather community input before further investment. Cadwell and other board members said the master plan might identify that a rail spur is not needed depending on potential occupants.

After discussion the board approved a motion to issue the RFQ and to allow the RFQ to include study of alternate parcels and routing options. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

What was decided and what comes next: the EDA will solicit qualifications from planners/engineers to complete a master‑planning process including public meetings, route and access study (including County Road 101 and 500th Street options), and an evaluation of environmental constraints. The RFQ is intended to identify qualified firms; the board can reject all proposals if none meet the county’s requirements. Staff estimated that an initial planning‑only contract would likely fall in the low five‑figure range rather than funding detailed engineering such as water testing.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting record distinguishes public comment and board discussion (questions about access, pipelines, wetlands, traffic and types of industry) from the formal action (vote to issue the RFQ to solicit master planning proposals). No parcel sales, design approvals or contract awards were made at this meeting.

Community concerns, technical constraints and next steps: residents and business owners emphasized access across pipelines and railroad crossings, the proximity of wetlands and Midge Lake, potential traffic impacts on County Road 101, and the loss of recreational land. Staff and board members said those issues are exactly the reasons to hire an independent planner to hold community meetings, evaluate routing alternatives (including an approach that avoids crossing pipeline easements) and recommend whether the parcels are appropriate for industrial development.