Council questions downtown picnic-grounds plan as estimated costs rise; EDC to return with scaled design

Members of the Dickinson City Council pressed the Dickinson Economic Development Corporation (EDC) on the scope and fiscal trajectory of a long-proposed downtown picnic grounds project, expressing concern about cost escalations and the project—s return on investment.

The EDC—s executive director, David Funk, and board leader Colin (last name provided to staff) responded to council questions about prior spending, change orders and potential redesigns. Funk said no construction had started and that change-order risk is lower pre-construction, but he acknowledged earthwork and raising finished floor elevation had been major cost drivers. He said removing or altering the enclosed building and reducing earthwork could materially lower costs.

Council members pressed for concrete numbers. Funk estimated the EDC has spent roughly $170,000 to $175,000 on planning and design to date. Council members and the EDC discussed a prior consultant-driven effort that the EDC—s leadership described as a larger, earlier planning expenditure; the EDC referenced a historical planning investment significant in scale. Council members asked how much additional design work would cost to re-scope the project; EDC leaders said the cost to revise drawings could be modest (they offered a range from a few thousand dollars to a larger, case-dependent number) and pledged to return with a design that fits the Council-approved budget or less.

Several council members urged the EDC to either proceed within the previously approved $2.2 million budget or halt further spending and consider selling the parcel. One council member urged immediate action, warning that ongoing indecision increases costs and wastes taxpayer funds. EDC representatives said they would provide revised proposals and a costed phased plan: a reduced-scope open-air pavilion, playground, pickleball courts, infrastructure for food trucks and a temporary stage; the permanent indoor facility would be deferred to a later phase pending additional approvals.

No final council vote was taken on the project at the meeting; the item was discussed at length and the EDC was asked to return at a future meeting with updated design options and firm price estimates. The council also requested clarity on the cost to terminate existing contracts and the total sunk costs to date.