Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County seeks consultant for Bridge 105 overlay; approves $8,900 guardrail repair at Bridge 122
Summary
County highway staff said they will pursue a not-to-exceed $15,000 engineering engagement on a Bridge 105 wearing-surface project and commissioners approved an $8,900 quote from Ctech to repair a guardrail and end treatment at Bridge 122.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County highway staff told the Board of Commissioners they will pursue short-term rehabilitation options for Bridge 105 and brought a contractor quote for guardrail repair at Bridge 122 that the board voted to approve.
Nate (Highway Department staff) said Bridge 105 — a deck-overlay rehabilitation project that was not funded by federal grant — needs preventive maintenance in the next five years to avoid deterioration of the underlying beams. He recommended pursuing an asphalt mill-and-overlay or a high-performance concrete overlay as a wearing surface and said HWC Engineering has submitted a draft proposal for a not-to-exceed fee of $15,000 to prepare plans and a contract. Nate said he will return with the formal contract for commissioner approval after negotiating scope and fee.
On a separate item, Nate reported he solicited three firms for a slope-stabilization and guardrail repair at Bridge 122 and received one responsive quote from Ctech for $8,900. The scope included mobilization, W-beam guardrail with 8-foot posts and an end treatment (an OS soft stop). One commissioner moved to approve the quote and the motion carried; Nate said he would sign the agreement and schedule the work.
Why this matters: staff said the Bridge 105 overlay is intended as preventive maintenance to slow deterioration and avoid a more costly replacement later. The guardrail repair addresses a slope-stability concern and includes a crash‑worthy end treatment the county is adopting on repairs.
The meeting also included a broader highway discussion led by Brad (Highway Department staff) about line‑striping and whether to buy in-house striping equipment. Brad reported the county sold 2,686 buggy plates in the recent season and reviewed chip-seal scheduling constraints: striping contracts and chip seal timing can conflict because both require warm weather; chip sealing can also reduce the lifespan of fresh line paint if done shortly after striping. Brad said the county is researching paint truck equipment and costs and will return with numbers.
Discussion distinguished emergency small repairs — like the approved $8,900 guardrail job — from larger planning for Bridge 105, which Nate said will come back as a contract for commissioner vote. The board did not authorize the HWC contract at this meeting; staff will return with a formal contract for approval.
Ending: Commissioners approved the Ctech guardrail quote and asked staff to return with a negotiated HWC proposal for Bridge 105 work and with cost estimates for striping equipment before making long-term purchases.

