Brown County commissioners weigh options after road reclamation bids exceed earlier estimates

Brown County commissioners discussed a road reclamation project whose bids substantially exceeded earlier cost estimates, prompting requests to rebid, consult additional contractors and counties, and to seek further information from the state on detour routing and contribution levels.

At the commission meeting, commissioners said an engineer's recent estimate for the reclamation totaled about $1.7 million, above an earlier $1.3 million figure discussed when the project was first proposed. Commissioners said the state had earlier indicated it might contribute roughly $900,000 toward the job, but that final state contribution and exact county exposure remained unclear.

The engineer's base bid described a 9-inch reclamation with 6% cement mixed into the existing material plus a 3-inch asphalt overlay; the bid also itemized additional costs for ditches, aprons and other add-ons. Commissioners discussed alternatives raised by the contractor and others: reducing the overlay to 2 inches, increasing depth of base material without cement stabilization, or other mixes that involve more grinding and more rock rather than cement. One commissioner summarized the tradeoff: “Once you put the cement in there, then you got if you do have problems, it's gonna be harder to correct than if you just had more rock and a deeper base in there.”

Commissioners also reported contractor scope limitations: Hall Brothers, they said, would perform only the overlay portion and not the reclamation itself; the reclamation work was expected to be done by another contractor (discussed informally as King’s Construction or similar firms). Commissioners recounted that some potential reclamation contractors had not seen the bid solicitation when it was posted and therefore had not submitted proposals.

Several commissioners said the low estimate the county had relied on was incomplete: the earlier $1.3 million figure did not include prevailing wage adjustments, some bid alternates, or other line items. Commissioners noted the bid documents broke out optional items, and that the 60-day bid validity period runs from the bid opening on the 29th. One commissioner urged staff to produce a single spreadsheet listing all current projects, the engineer’s estimates, the bids received and the county’s expected out-of-pocket cost so the commission could compare priorities and cash flow.

Commissioners expressed concern about budget impacts if the county must cover amounts above the state’s originally anticipated share. One commissioner asked staff to contact the state about potential detour routing and whether the state would shift more traffic onto the county road temporarily; commissioners said the state had proposed routing options including existing gravel roads and possible reroutes of traffic around construction areas.

On next steps commissioners directed staff to: gather additional contractor recommendations and references, re-check whether rebidding is appropriate or feasible given state requirements, verify bid validity dates, ask the state how much it will contribute if the county's scope changes, and return with a consolidated project spreadsheet and cost scenarios at the next meeting.

Votes or formal action on the road project itself were not recorded during the meeting; commissioners stated they would seek more information before making any commitment.