Engineers: Gibson Bridge finished but road profile, material quantities still need work; county to seek planning grants

Gibson Bridge is essentially complete, but county and consulting engineers said follow‑up work on the approaches and a final materials survey are needed before the contractor’s work can be closed out.

Adam, a consulting engineer with TCA Group, told the Treasure County commissioners during the meeting that inspectors found the road surface contained “a little bit more sand” than the contract specification and that some approach areas are lower than the plans. He said the contractor expects to bring additional surfacing material and asked whether a county grader could follow the contractor to finish roadway shaping.

“From an engineering standpoint, we didn't see any issues with that,” Adam said of the sandier material, but added that the commissioners should decide whether to approve the material or require replacement. Adam described two near‑term fixes: have the contractor supply and place surfacing material, and have county equipment re‑shape and compact the road to the profile in the plans.

Adam said a short survey and a computer comparison of the as‑built elevations and quantities would resolve remaining quantity questions. He told commissioners the engineering team is under budget by roughly $12,000 and that the county can use the remaining engineering funds to pay for a post‑construction survey to document actual quantities and protect the county from future disputes.

Commissioners and road‑department staff agreed that a grader could be made available on short notice to shape the approaches while the contractor brings surfacing material. The county's engineer will send formal follow‑up e‑mail with the locations and recommended fixes.

Separately, the commissioners discussed road maintenance needs countywide: a contractor has proposed a seal‑coating for about 6.2 miles at a cost discussed in the meeting as $78,000. Commissioners asked for an in‑person visit from the seal‑coat contractor before committing funds, citing concerns whether the road surface is ready and whether light blade work or additional prep is needed before spraying. Commissioners also discussed using cold‑mix, millings and grader work on several problem sections, and a smaller, pull‑behind grader alternative that would cost substantially less than a full grader.

Finally, Adam flagged upcoming grant opportunities. He said the state will open a MSEP planning‑grant cycle that covers 50% of the cost for developing Preliminary Engineering Reports (PERs) needed to apply for bridge replacement funding. He estimated the local out‑of‑pocket cost for a PER at roughly $15,000 and asked permission to submit a planning grant application on Treasure County’s behalf; commissioners agreed he should proceed and to review bridge priorities before final application.

What happens next

- The county will ask the contractor to bring surfacing material and coordinate with the road supervisor to schedule grader work. - The county’s engineering consultant will perform a post‑construction survey and deliver a quantity comparison report. - Staff will proceed with an application for a state MSEP planning grant to position one or more bridges for replacement funding.