Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Bridge Foxcrest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council workshop approves moving forward with box-culvert value-engineer option for Foxcrest Bridge
Summary
Engineering staff presented a value-engineering proposal that would replace a planned single-span bridge with double 10x12 box culverts, lower construction cost by an estimated $237,972 and require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit; the workshop approved pursuing the change order and directed staff to return with formal paperwork.
Washington engineering staff proposed a value-engineering change for the Foxcrest connector project on Feb. 3 that would replace the planned 114-foot single-span bridge with two 10-by-12-foot box culverts, reducing estimated construction costs and requiring Corps of Engineers permitting.
Why it matters: Staff said the box-culvert option would save roughly $237,972 from the current contract estimate and reduce construction time, but it would require a Corps permit (staff estimated roughly a 60-day permitting timeline) and would raise the road grade in places from 5% up to 7% to meet collector-street standards.
Staff presentation and technical points: Charles (engineering staff) told the council the existing contract with KJ Understall allows 129 days for completion after notice to proceed and that the bridge contract amount is “a little over $1,200,000, and under budget. Budget was 1.6 for this project.” He said the contractor’s box-culvert proposal would require Corps permitting and would increase the base flood elevation locally by about 0.2 feet at the culvert opening, though downstream residential areas (Bettany Court) would not experience a measurable rise.
Safety, maintenance and accessibility concerns: Staff and council discussed trade-offs. Engineering and fire representatives said a steeper grade affects snow plowing and fire access; Charles and other staff noted the plan was revised to 7% (the city’s collector-street maximum is 7%) from an earlier 10% design. Staff noted a box culvert sits lower than a bridge and will be buried with fill, which reduces bridge-deck freeze risks but increases long-term maintenance needs (debris and silt accumulation) that street crews must manage.
Cost-sharing and schedule: Staff said typical MoDOT-style splits on value-engineering savings are roughly 50/50; the contractor proposed a split that would leave the city with about $150,000 in savings. Staff advised the council that Corps mitigation costs were included in the estimate and that the permit timeline would delay the notice to proceed but would not necessarily change contract days after NTP is issued.
Council action: Patke moved and Coulter seconded a motion directing staff to proceed with the value-engineering path and to present a formal change order for council approval; the motion passed at the workshop. Staff will prepare the change order and return to council for the official contract amendment.
Context and next steps: Staff said the box-culvert alternative has precedent in the city (examples cited included High Street and Beaker Road crossings) and that the culvert option typically can be constructed faster than a bridge. Staff will return with a formal change order that includes the Corps permit package, mitigation costs and any revised schedule impacts for council approval.
