Fort Scott commissioners debate fixes for Horton Street overlay after contractor work deviated from specs

City commissioners on Dec. 17 continued a prolonged discussion about problems with the recent Horton Street overlay and the adjoining Sixth Street work after profiler testing and inspector notes indicated defects and possible specification departures.

The conversation centered on whether to accept a corrective diamond-grinding treatment recommended by a contractor and subcontractor, or to require a full removal and re‑pave that would be costlier but more certain to meet the original specification. Commissioners and staff also discussed whether the contractor or subcontractor should bear the cost, and how much time to give the contractor to produce firm repair plans.

Why it matters: Horton and Sixth are higher-volume streets in Fort Scott; the commission and public want a durable repair that protects the city’s pavement investment while avoiding unnecessary litigation or additional expense to taxpayers.

City staff and the contractor presented test results and operational detail. A state-certified profiler run produced dozens of “defects” in each lane; the contractor recommended waiting until spring to reassess and, if needed, perform diamond grinding and sealing. Several commissioners said the 3-inch lift recorded in contractor daily logs departed from the written contract specification (which called for smaller lifts) and that a contract remedy is required.

City Attorney Bob told commissioners that the contract is a signed written document and that oral approvals do not change the contract: “The contract is in writing and it’s signed, and you can’t change the written document with an oral conversation,” he said during the discussion.

Contract representatives and the city engineer repeatedly said they preferred to resolve the problem without litigation, through corrective work or negotiated settlement. One contractor representative told the commission the material could have performed if installed to spec; another said if the commission rejected the diamond-grinding option, the remaining choice would be to remove and replace the overlay.

Commissioners asked staff to return with quantified options, costs and a timetable. City staff agreed to contact Heckawicker/Heckendorf (the prime contractor on the project) and the subcontractor, obtain a written response on their preferred corrective action and a written plan, and to request a re‑profiling after seasonal settlement. The commission signaled it would expect to review an updated report and proposed fix at the next meeting in early January.

What’s next: Staff will contact the contractor and report back to the commission with the contractor’s proposed repair plan, any price or schedule commitments, and an updated profiler report to guide a final decision.