Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Maintenance Dog Beach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonner County weighs stopping maintenance or paying BNSF to keep Dog Beach open
Summary
Parks staff told commissioners maintaining Dog Beach costs roughly $6,000 annually and that BNSF has offered a lease option requiring an application fee and annual charge; commissioners asked staff to return with options and legal detail before deciding whether to continue county maintenance.
Bonner County Parks and Waterways presented commissioners with options for Dog Beach, a popular dog-access shoreline area located on railroad right-of-way, and said the county currently spends roughly $6,000 a year maintaining the site without a formal agreement.
Parks and Waterways Director Matt Zoeller said the county's historical, informal maintenance of the area is not supported by a written contract and that the underlying land is BNSF railroad right-of-way. "So I guess the discussion will be is, do we continue to maintain something that costs us $6,000 a year that is not ours," Zoeller said, noting a recent BNSF response offering a formal lease and insurance requirements.
BNSF's offer, Zoeller told the board, would require a $1,500 application fee and about $4,500 annually to continue maintenance legally; Parks staff also warned the county would need railroad insurance and permission to be on the property. "If we keep moving forward with Dog Beach, we need an MOU and it's gonna cost us approximately $10,000 a year or we will cease maintenance," Zoeller said.
Why it matters: Commissioners and public commenters raised liability, ownership and expenditure concerns. Some urged the county to stop maintenance and post signage, while others asked whether the county could seek a donation or volunteer management model. Board members also asked staff to confirm who actually owns the parcel and whether ITD or BNSF controls the right-of-way.
Legal and operational concerns: County counsel and Parks staff described a distinction between ownership and rights-of-way: ITD may hold an underlying interest while BNSF controls active railroad rights. Commissioners noted that formalizing maintenance will increase recurring county costs, insurance exposure and administrative steps.
Public comment: Several residents urged the county to stop spending taxpayer money on a small-use site or to require the users to take on maintenance costs. "It seems to me that we're spending a lot of money for a very small group of people for their dogs to do their thing," resident John Dupree said. Others suggested simple signage to inform users about ownership and risks.
Next steps: Commissioners directed staff to return to the board with a memo and options for a future decision; one commissioner asked staff to pause any maintenance until the board can formally act. The county will also verify the parcel's ownership record and clarify BNSF's authority to lease the right-of-way.
