Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wagoner County asks engineers to study road‑pavement standards after developer complaints about one‑size‑fits‑all rule
Summary
County commissioners directed staff to research whether the current structural number (3.9) for subdivision streets should remain uniform or be adjusted for open‑ditch rural sections, and asked the county engineer to study two local developments as case studies.
Wagoner County commissioners voted June 2 to ask engineering consultants to examine whether the county’s subdivision roadway specification — specifically the use of a single pavement “structural number” (3.9) — should be adjusted to allow different standards for urban curb‑and‑gutter streets versus rural open‑ditch roads.
Casey Sanders of Planning & Zoning summarized staff research and public comments. Jason Oliver of Colson (county engineer partner) explained that the structural number is a design shorthand that aims to accommodate a wide range of soil types and traffic loads; a single number provides consistency but can be conservative for some rural soil conditions. Developers and local civil engineers told the board the 3.9 standard can be costly for low‑density, open‑ditch subdivisions and asked for a pathway to accept geotechnical, project‑specific pavement designs when warranted.
Developer representatives including Brian Green and contractor/developer Brandy Salazar (King Development) described projects where following the 3.9 standard raised road construction costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Salazar said one subdivision faced a roughly $450,000 change order to meet the structural‑number requirement after geotechnical tests showed a less robust pavement section would be adequate.
Colson and a group of developers proposed a two‑track approach: retain the 3.9 requirement for fully urbanized, curb‑and‑gutter subdivisions but allow alternative, geotechnical‑driven pavement designs (with minimum floors) for lower‑density, open‑ditch projects — subject to review and approval by the county engineer and county staff. Commissioners asked Olson/Colson to produce a written study comparing local jurisdictions’ standards, summarize recent local projects, and run case studies on two nearby subdivisions: The Pines (near Highway 51) and Juniper Hills.
Commissioner James (last name in transcript) moved to ask Olson/Colson to evaluate the current standard and produce recommendations; Commissioner Stamps seconded. The motion passed on roll call, with Commissioners Hanning and Stamps voting “Aye”; Commissioner Kelly had left the meeting prior to the vote.
The board also directed staff to examine proof‑roll and construction‑quality controls—such as geotechnical testing frequencies, proof rolling and density testing—as complementary mechanisms to any change in design standards. Olson’s engineers said any alternative approach should still require proof of subgrade strength (CBR/PI) and appropriate detention/drainage design.
Commissioners said the immediate outcome is a study and proposed code changes to bring back to the board; no design waivers were granted at the meeting.
Votes: Motion to direct county engineers to study pavement design options and produce recommendations, including case studies on The Pines and Juniper Hills — outcome approved (roll call, 2–0 with one commissioner absent).
