Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cabin Site 2 residents and engineers press commission on paving options, cost estimates and county participation
Summary
Residents and engineers discussed a 1.9-mile paving proposal for Cabin Site 2. Estimates ranged from roughly $1.5 million to $2 million; commissioners asked for clarified ownership, right-of-way status and potential county and state funding before proceeding to petition or sponsor a special-assessment district.
Residents, engineers and county staff spent a large portion of Wednesday’s meeting discussing a proposed paving project for Cabin Site 2 — a 1.9-mile section from the end of pavement to the loop — including whether the county should participate financially or help the neighborhood form a special-assessment district.
Background and scope: Representative Steve Schwann told the commission residents want to consider paving roughly 1.9 miles from the end of pavement through the loop and discussed two preliminary cost estimates: Moore Engineering’s estimate was higher (about $1.9–$2.0 million when including anticipated engineering and widening), while a Northern Improvement rough estimate was about $1.5–$1.6 million for the county-section work. Tom Weigel (Moore Engineering) said the estimates include widening and some dirt work where needed; he said where the existing gravel road is 21–25 feet wide, paving with a 5-inch overlay and a 24-foot finished top requires an additional two feet on each side in places.
Key issues: Commissioners and staff raised three primary questions before moving forward: - Ownership and easements: The commission asked staff to confirm whether portions of the road are on county right-of-way, on Corps land or privately owned, because funding and authority depend on ownership and recorded easements. - Cost breakdowns and engineering: County engineers and vendors emphasized the difference between preliminary estimates and formal bids; the commission requested a detailed preliminary estimate, including dirt work and culverts, to determine the financing gap. - Funding and county participation: Commissioners discussed whether the county should offer a contribution (commissioners noted arguments that county-funded paving increases property values and tax base) or whether the project should be fully financed by a special-assessment district or Bank of North Dakota financing. Tom said the state’s “special road fund” may provide up to roughly $300,000 for recreation-area projects, and the commission asked staff to query DOT on eligibility.
Legal and liability considerations: County counsel Todd warned the commissioners that if the county helps fund or approve a nonstandard (narrower) road section, the county must secure waivers to limit future liability and ensure the road meets acceptable design standards for emergency access and equipment.
Next steps: Commissioners asked engineers to prepare more detailed, line-item estimates and directed staff to confirm property/ROW ownership and whether the Corps of Engineers (if involved) will require additional approvals. If residents want to proceed, the next formal step would be a sponsor petition for a special-assessment district; that petition must meet a 60% support threshold under county ordinance before the commission can act.
Ending: Commissioners said they were open to helping move the project forward but asked residents to gather clarifications and preliminary financing commitments. Tom and county staff will return with more precise engineering costs and funding options for consideration at a future meeting.
