Langdon City Commission meeting has short agenda

The Langdon City Commission met on Monday, January 23 with only two items on their agenda.

Posted 1/27/2017

By Melissa Anderson

The commission first heard department reports with the Street Department being the focus. City Superintendent Rob Gilseth discussed with the commission possible options for what to do with future snowfall. The snowfield, located just west of Langdon is already near capacity, and Gilseth presented a few options on what he felt the city could do to alleviate the situation. The commission approved the suggestion to take a day to try and push the snow already out on the field back and up in attempts to make room for potentially new snow.

Gilseth also recommended that the city update the snowblower that is currently being used. Gilseth cited recent breakdowns as the main reason for the need to upgrade. Gilseth and Commissioner Marty Tetrault were already exploring options on that front.

The Sanitation Department, headed by Tom Beauchamp, informed the commission that the contract with Waste Management would be up in November and that he had already begun the negotiation process for the renewal with hopes of finalizing the contract sometime this summer.

The commission moved on to  new business which was a presentation by Carol Goodman of the Cavalier County Job Development Authority on improving the infrastructure on 9th and 10th Streets by paving the streets to encourage development of that area. Commissioner Jim Rademacher, who lives on one of the streets recused himself from the discussion.

Goodman based the presentation on the need for housing development and new homes as the selection in Langdon is limited. That area already has infrastructure such as water and sewer in place, making it the ideal area for new construction.

Goodman went over possible funding for the paving of the road and the city’s options in pursuing this venture to increase the areas appeal to new builds.

Following her presentation the commission and Goodman discussed the options of how the paving of the streets could be paid for. The commission  explained that it would be unfair to force the city residents to pay for the paving of streets that they would be seldom used. Prior discussions always cenetered around the paving of the streets requiring a special assessment for the residents of 9th and 10th street to bear.

One option put forward would be to include the paving of those specific streets in the current phased plan being worked on by the city of improving the water and sewer lines and subsequently the need to re-pave sections of the city. Thus it would be more cost-effective than having a single project of 9th and 10th Street.  Goodman agreed that would be a good option to pursue.