Two residents used the public-comment period at a Geary County meeting to press county officials for information about delayed road and bridge work and to report local driving hazards.

One commenter said the county’s YouTube feed was not working but the meeting was proceeding on a laptop. The commenter reported that “they’re getting complaint. They’re starting to complain a lot,” and urged the county to publish a date for the work, saying the NPO meeting had discussed the project but that the county could not supply a timeline. The commenter also said the contractor handling the project was the same firm that worked on a bridge at “633.”

The second resident described concerns about a roadway median collapsing and asked why one side was failing. Another attendee noted that concrete for bridges needs time to cure, and that railroads and related delays had affected the timeline for the other bridge project.

Commenters said an email with additional details would be circulated to county officials after the meeting. No county staff responded with a timeline or funding details during the public-comment portion.

The public-comment exchange lasted only a few turns: two people were present to speak, and the remarks were limited to local traffic, contractor identification, and procedural questions about when work would appear on county schedules.

No formal action, vote or staff directive on the roadwork was recorded in the meeting transcript.