Dunn County engineers outline $3.5M Hay River bridge replacement; committee weighs costly intersection fixes

Dunn County engineering staff told the Highway Committee that the County Road D bridge over Hay River is slated for replacement in 2028 at an estimated cost of about $3.5 million, with the county responsible for roughly 20% of the total.

The presentation described two primary options for the west‑side intersections: relocate the intersections about 100 feet to the west or construct cul‑de‑sacs at the current locations. Both options will require additional real‑estate acquisition and substantial rock excavation in places; staff said the relocation option could add roughly $1 million in rock‑removal costs and that upgrading a cul‑de‑sac to meet the town’s 120‑foot standard would add several hundred thousand dollars beyond the DOT‑funded 60‑foot minimum.

"This is approximately about a $3.5 million project. The county is on the hook for 20% of that," an engineer presenting the plans told the committee. The same presenter noted that "DOT will only cover up to the 60 foot. Anything above and beyond that falls on the local cost," summarizing the funding gap created by the town ordinance that calls for a 120‑foot diameter cul‑de‑sac.

Committee members pressed staff on safety and maintenance tradeoffs. Several members expressed concern that relocating intersections could place guardrail close to turn movements and create visibility issues for motorists; others said larger cul‑de‑sacs could create maintenance and law‑enforcement concerns in dead‑end areas. Staff recommended geotechnical exploration to determine whether rock is excavatable or whether blasting would be required — the latter approach would drive bids and overall cost significantly higher.

Engineers outlined the schedule for design and right‑of‑way work: the project is moving toward 30% plans, with 60% plans expected to trigger real‑estate acquisition work; staff said acquiring real estate typically takes about a year. The presenter told the committee that, based on current estimates, the county could meet the budget for a 60‑foot DOT standard, but larger diameters or relocation with rock removal would likely exceed the present allocation.

Members signaled they want staff to pursue a compromise between the DOT minimum and the town ordinance — for example an intermediate diameter in the 80–100 foot range — and to work with the town and state design engineers on a preferred option that balances safety, emergency access and local cost. Staff (Dustin) agreed to pursue those discussions and return with a recommended design and refined cost estimate.

The committee did not take a binding vote on the design choice; staff will return with additional geotechnical information, revised cost estimates and proposed plan options as the design advances.