Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Walsh County submits four FlexFund transportation projects, authorizes 20% local match
Summary
The commission agreed on a ranked list of four transportation projects for state FlexFund consideration and authorized a 20% local match on the applications, subject to the county's ability to decline awards if unforeseen bridge emergencies arise.
Walsh County staff presented four candidate projects for the state FlexFund (state transportation/flex grant) and commissioners agreed to submit all four with a 20% local match commitment listed on the applications.
Projects presented (staff estimates): - County Road 11: two minor structures requiring replacement to remove load postings and provide an unrestricted corridor between Highway 32 and Highway 18. - County Road 12B: paving from the existing pavement northward; staff used an approximate budget of $1 million per mile for application purposes; this project drew sustained discussion because it connects two school districts and commissioners cited safety concerns and a history of serious crashes. - County Road 4: grading and drainage work to reduce saturation and soft subgrade conditions on a heavily used artery to the sugar‑beet plant. - County Road 9 / County 16: pavement overlay and minor widening on a stretch that includes narrow sections and recent pavement wear.
Commissioners discussed priorities and fiscal exposure. Several commissioners voiced safety concerns about County 12B (they cited a history of crashes along the route) and recommended it as the top priority; others stressed the need to protect bridge and gravel corridors (County 11 and County 4). Commissioners also raised the operational risk that bridge inspections or an unexpected major bridge failure could require redeploying Prairie Dog/Flex funds; staff noted the county’s Prairie Dog balance and an expected payment in the coming year.
After discussion the commission directed staff to submit all four applications, ranked per direction given by commissioners, and to list a 20% local match on each application. Commissioners also agreed the county could decline an award later if a higher‑priority emergency (for example, a bridge failure) required retaining Prairie Dog funds.
A roll-call confirmation of the match commitment was recorded: commissioners indicated general support and staff recorded the county’s formal submission plan; the meeting record shows the commission proceeded with the 20% match on the applications and provided ranking guidance to staff.
