County discusses DOT flex-fund offer to remove four deficient bridges; some removals deferred pending replacements or landowner options
October 07, 2025 | Steele County, North Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
County commissioners discussed a Department of Transportation (DOT) flex-funds request that identified four county bridges as candidates for removal, and they outlined how the county will respond to the DOT’s next-step request for cost estimates.
The DOT’s flex-funds process seeks to remove deficient inspected bridges from the inventory; the agency offered to fund removal costs but not replacements. The DOT asked the county to provide cost estimates by the following Wednesday to inform selection among many applicants statewide.
County staff listed the four candidate structures identified by DOT (as read in the meeting): 119‑01K (north area), 124‑15.1 and 124‑15 (two bridges approximately a mile apart on the county’s east side) and 116‑17 (in Sherbrooke Township). Commissioners debated responses for each:
- For 116‑17 (Sherbrooke Township): staff recommended declining to provide a removal estimate because the county had previously indicated it would consider removal only if funding were available to replace an adjacent west-side bridge; DOT did not offer replacement funds. Commissioners agreed to decline that one unless replacement funding was provided.
- For the north-end bridge (119‑01K) and the two east-side bridges (124‑15.1 and 124‑15): commissioners discussed landowner impacts, detour lengths and whether the bridges remain needed for local access. For the north-end bridge, staff suggested exploring the option of transferring the structure and associated road segment to a private landowner (a gift/abandonment), which would remove the bridge from federal inspection rolls; commissioners asked staff to pursue landowner conversations if interested.
Commissioners also discussed federal program rules: staff explained that a culvert longer than 20 feet is treated as a bridge under federal rules and would return to inspection rolls; DOT’s stated objective is to reduce the number of federally inspected deficient bridges because inspection and maintenance obligations can be costly.
The board directed staff to provide DOT with targeted responses and cost estimates for the bridges the county would consider for removal, to decline removal of the bridge that requires a funded replacement to the west, and to continue outreach to landowners about possible transfer/abandonment where appropriate. Staff emphasized that DOT will aggregate county cost estimates statewide and then select projects that fit available funds.
The DOT’s flex-funds process seeks to remove deficient inspected bridges from the inventory; the agency offered to fund removal costs but not replacements. The DOT asked the county to provide cost estimates by the following Wednesday to inform selection among many applicants statewide.
County staff listed the four candidate structures identified by DOT (as read in the meeting): 119‑01K (north area), 124‑15.1 and 124‑15 (two bridges approximately a mile apart on the county’s east side) and 116‑17 (in Sherbrooke Township). Commissioners debated responses for each:
- For 116‑17 (Sherbrooke Township): staff recommended declining to provide a removal estimate because the county had previously indicated it would consider removal only if funding were available to replace an adjacent west-side bridge; DOT did not offer replacement funds. Commissioners agreed to decline that one unless replacement funding was provided.
- For the north-end bridge (119‑01K) and the two east-side bridges (124‑15.1 and 124‑15): commissioners discussed landowner impacts, detour lengths and whether the bridges remain needed for local access. For the north-end bridge, staff suggested exploring the option of transferring the structure and associated road segment to a private landowner (a gift/abandonment), which would remove the bridge from federal inspection rolls; commissioners asked staff to pursue landowner conversations if interested.
Commissioners also discussed federal program rules: staff explained that a culvert longer than 20 feet is treated as a bridge under federal rules and would return to inspection rolls; DOT’s stated objective is to reduce the number of federally inspected deficient bridges because inspection and maintenance obligations can be costly.
The board directed staff to provide DOT with targeted responses and cost estimates for the bridges the county would consider for removal, to decline removal of the bridge that requires a funded replacement to the west, and to continue outreach to landowners about possible transfer/abandonment where appropriate. Staff emphasized that DOT will aggregate county cost estimates statewide and then select projects that fit available funds.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
