Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Bridges topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Phase 2 design for War Road bridge advanced to consultant agreement; vote not shown in transcript

5790090 · August 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff presented a $102,914.66 Phase 2 engineering agreement for the War Road bridge project, described a proposed three-sided con-span structure and a funding split involving the township bridge program fund, but the transcript does not record a committee vote.

County staff presented a Phase 2 preliminary engineering agreement for the War Road bridge project and described scope, cost and funding but the provided transcript does not include a recorded committee vote on the agreement.

Staff said the board approved a Phase 1 agreement in February 2024 and that Phase 2 will produce the design plans for the project leading to a letting in October 2026. The consultant agreement presented is for $102,914.66. Staff described the bridge alignment shift — “it's gonna be about 50 foot west of the existing bridge” — and recommended a three-sided “con span” structure to limit debris accumulation compared with center-walled box culverts.

Funding for the engineering was described as 80% paid from the township bridge program fund, with the remaining 20% to be split between the county and the township; staff cited county shares of approximately $10,291 and the township share of about $10,002.91 for the non-state-paid portion to be advanced and later submitted for reimbursement from the state and the township bridge program.

Committee members asked practical questions about traffic impacts during construction. Staff said a final decision on whether to stage construction to maintain traffic is “to be determined” and depends on contractor needs and the condition of the existing bridge.

The transcript records a motion to put the resolution on the floor but does not include a recorded final vote in the excerpt provided. Consequently, this article reports the staff presentation, project scope, price and funding split as described on the record but does not report committee approval or rejection.

Less critical details: staff noted similar three-sided structures exist elsewhere in the county and conveyed confidence in that type’s performance.