Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dirt Road Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County maps 31-year dirt-road program, advances ordinance to formalize ‘legacy’ roads
Summary
County staff reviewed 31 years of dirt-road improvements, outlined remaining unimproved mileage and proposed an ordinance to formalize acquisition of right of way for historically maintained ‘legacy’ roads; committee advanced the ordinance with no objection.
Beaufort County staff presented a 31-year history of the county’s dirt-road paving program and asked the Public Facilities Committee to advance an ordinance to formalize county ownership of so-called “legacy” roads.
The presentation showed the county has improved 317 dirt roads totaling about 105 miles over roughly three decades, with about 195 dirt roads — just over 70 miles — remaining unimproved. Jared, county staff, told the committee, “over the past 31 years, we have improved 317 roads throughout the county … totaling 105 miles.”
County staff said the presentation and the ordinance are linked: the history explains the program’s funding, how right of way has been handled since the 1990s and why the county now needs clearer title on many road segments. “In 1994 … that gave a portion of state gas tax to local governments,” Jared said, summarizing the effect of what staff called the C fund law and the resulting County Transportation Commission (CTC) role.
Why it matters: staff said only roads where the county holds full right of way can be prioritized for capital funding and paved; many roads the county has maintained under prescriptive use lack recorded conveyance documents. Jared summarized the proposed formalization procedure as a multi-step process: 1) identify required right-of-way width and limits, 2) research and notify property owners, 3) attempt voluntary conveyance, 4) pursue additional right-of-way where a majority agree, and 5) if owners refuse, return to council for direction including potential discontinuation of maintenance or condemnation actions.
Committee discussion ranged from funding options to process safeguards. A council member raised bonding as a financing option, asking whether it “would make sense to bond that and use the funds to repay it?” Jared said staff had not yet run those bond-versus-inflation comparisons but agreed it was a “good thought.”
Several committee members emphasized flexibility in required right-of-way widths. Jared said the proposed procedure would allow staff and engineers to identify where the standard 50-foot right of way could be reduced or adapted by design (for example, single-sided drainage), and he confirmed that step is captured in the “preliminary assessment” portion of the procedure that would back the ordinance.
Staff clarified practical limits and costs: routine early steps (research and notices) incur only modest staff time and postage, while community meetings, negotiation and legal instruments would increase costs and trigger use of on-call right-of-way consultants or outside counsel. Jared said the county historically has not paid property owners for right-of-way under the dirt-road paving program and that condemnation would involve purchase at fair market value and likely come back to council for approval.
Action: committee members moved and seconded the ordinance to establish the legacy-road formalization process and voted to advance the item to county council “with no objection.” Staff said the ordinance would give the county a method to obtain recorded right-of-way and resolve status where only maintenance-based prescriptive claims now exist.
Ending: staff said the county’s second five-year dirt-road plan is nearing roll-out and noted the program currently funds roughly one mile of improvements per year; without new funding the annual mileage is likely to decline because construction costs have risen.
