Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Active Travel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses push for DOT-funded South Third Street shared‑use path after resident concerns
Summary
Beresford officials discussed a Transportation Alternatives grant that could cover 80% of design and construction costs for a shared‑use path on South Third Street, but delayed committing to DOT-funded design work after at least one resident objected and questions were raised about right‑of‑way, grades and long‑term maintenance.
Beresford city officials discussed moving forward with a Transportation Alternatives Program application to build a shared‑use path along South Third Street but decided to pause and pursue more community outreach rather than immediately accept DOT’s offer to fund design work.
The discussion centered on whether the city should request DOT pay 80% of preliminary design and the city pick up the remaining roughly 20%. Council members and staff said they do not yet have “100% concurrence” from residents along the route and that steep grades, driveways and narrow public easements could complicate construction and swelling costs.
Why it matters: the grant would extend the town’s active‑transportation network and provide a potentially safer route for students and residents who walk or bike. DOT involvement would reduce the city’s construction risk, but local buy‑in and design feasibility are prerequisites for committing limited city funds for design and future maintenance.
City staff described three broad options: 1) proceed with DOT‑funded preliminary design (DOT would fund about 80% and the city about 20%), 2) pursue an alternative alignment that uses city‑owned land near the golf course to avoid private frontages, or 3) delay and reapply in a later round after reaching more consensus. Council members favored further outreach and additional design homework before asking DOT to invest in the next step.
Officials noted several constraints and tradeoffs discussed during the meeting: sidewalk versus shared‑use path responsibilities, existing easements on the corridor, the steep grades near the Atwood and Halbertson properties, likely driveway conflicts, and maintenance obligations (shared‑use paths would generally be the city’s maintenance responsibility; sidewalks are typically the adjacent property owner’s responsibility). Staff estimated that the city’s portion to fund DOT‑recommended preliminary design would likely be under $10,000, but said spending that amount without stronger resident agreement may not be an efficient use of funds.
Staff and council agreed on next steps: draft an explanatory letter to DOT, continue outreach to property owners along the proposed route, explore a golf‑course alignment for segments that cross constrained frontages, and return to the council with a clearer plan. The mayor asked staff to coordinate with Jerry and Pat (council/committee members) and to continue background work led by Maisie to build consensus. No formal vote to accept DOT’s design offer was taken; the council’s direction was to research alternatives and seek greater resident concurrence before committing to design funding.
Officials emphasized that if the city requests DOT funding for design, DOT may be more likely to fund future construction; conversely, DOT would accept a city decision to “push this down the road” and consider future applications. The council also noted shared‑use paths receive lower priority for snow removal and that homeowners’ concerns about driveway slopes and landscaping would need engineering solutions.
The conversation included engineering observations from staff and consultants who described difficult drainage, driveway slopes and right‑of‑way limitations around the curve near the Dennis and Kelly properties and the Baptist Church. Council members directed staff to prepare clearer alternatives and community outreach materials and to return with a recommendation.
