Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbia County outlines dirt‑to‑pave plan, warns costs and right‑of‑way hurdles could slow conversions
Summary
County staff detailed a long‑standing conversion plan and cited steep engineering, ROW and soft‑costs — roughly $1.0M in soft costs and up to $1.2M per mile for full‑depth reclamation — while commissioners debated donation, state grants and limited use of eminent domain.
Kevin, the county presenter, laid out Columbia County’s existing approach to converting dirt roads to paved surfaces and stressed that the technical and legal steps drive large project costs. “We have roughly 380 miles of dirt road left. You have about 77 miles of those dirt roads that have the sufficient right of way,” he said, adding the county’s written plan dates to about 2017 and has guided 46 miles of conversions over 15 years.
Kevin walked commissioners through engineering essentials — stabilized subgrade, rock base, asphalt lift — and provided material estimates: 871 tons per mile of asphalt at roughly $120 per ton at the plant and a material‑only figure he described as about $105,000 before hauling and placement. For complete conversions that use full‑depth reclamation, he said construction could approach $1.2 million per mile plus roughly $1.0 million in “soft costs” (survey, permitting, right‑of‑way acquisition and engineering), making the arithmetic of which roads to advance central to any program.
Commissioner Ford pressed for an operational plan focused on advancing a small number of roads each year. “All I want is a plan,” he said, asking staff to prioritize projects his district could prepare for DOT grant submission rather than relying solely on county funds. Kevin pointed to Mayo Road as a worked example: the county negotiated with 43 property owners and secured 33, leaving 10 outstanding, and he said roughly $1.1 million has already been spent on survey, permitting and engineering for that corridor.
Discussion turned to how other counties share costs. Kevin noted peer models: Clay County performed a study, Bay County uses a 60/40 county/constituent split, and Pasco County relies on an MSTU. Several commissioners urged exploring donation incentives or partial cost sharing rather than paying 100 percent of acquisition costs. One option flagged by staff and the planner was using the County Green Book standards or pursuing a “dusty road” permit for roads meeting limited criteria to reduce initial requirements for ROW and drainage.
The county attorney told commissioners that the policy adopted in 2017 (O‑17) contains ambiguities the board should resolve. “If you want it to be 100% donation all the time, that can be done. If you want it to be…we’re gonna do eminent domain now… Let’s do that,” the attorney said, framing eminent domain as one end of a policy spectrum that the board must decide to pursue or avoid.
No formal vote was taken at the workshop. Staff said it will prepare a memo for a future meeting summarizing the remaining Mayo Road parcels, acquisition steps and legal options; commissioners also agreed the issue should be revisited in the budget process to identify a funding source or policy changes.
Why it matters: the county faces a tradeoff between the high per‑mile cost of full conversions and the practical limits of securing ROW from private owners. The choices the board makes — require donations, ask property owners to cost‑share, accept longer timelines or use eminent domain — will determine how many miles can be advanced each year and which neighborhoods are prioritized.
Next steps: staff will provide the requested property‑by‑property acquisition information, prepare a memo about Mayo Road and work with the attorney to propose clarified language for O‑17 and options for the board to consider during the budget process.
