Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Roads topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Woodruff board approves road project award, includes chip oil and double chip-seal alternates

3383110 · April 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Woodruff Town Board voted to award the base road resurfacing bid with Alternate 1 (chip oil/emulsified asphalt) and Alternate 2 (double chip seal on a section of 300 South). The board discussed using grant funds and adding scope at a pre-construction meeting.

The Woodruff Town Board voted to award the base bid for a town road resurfacing project and to accept Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 after favorable bid results were reported.

Board members discussed that Alternate 1 substitutes a higher‑quality chip oil (emulsified asphalt) that penetrates deeper into cracks and helps rejuvenate existing pavement; Alternate 2 would place a double chip seal on 300 South between 100 West and the 200 block and is intended for specific segments such as Allingford's Lane. A board member moved to approve Alternates 1 and 2; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor.

Why it matters: the bids came in well under earlier estimates (one bidder consolidated pricing and was roughly $100,000 less than another), creating room for the town to expand the work. Officials said they can increase quantities by up to 25% without a contract modification and can add additional work via change orders if needed. The board said it will hold a pre-construction meeting with the contractor to finalize scope and discuss adding culverts and other work where necessary.

Details and next steps: town staff said they will set a pre-construction meeting with the contractor and consider widening sections, adding culverts near known problem spots and increasing quantities by about 25 percent. Board members discussed uncertainty about grant match requirements; some members recalled different accounts from earlier meetings about whether the town must contribute a $125,000 match or if later action converted it into a full grant. Town staff said they will review the signed grant contract and clarify match requirements before finalizing expenditures.

Bidders named in the meeting record included Associated (listed as winning/low bidder), Anderson and Staker/Parsons. Town staff recommended awarding the contract to the low, consolidated bidder and then refining scope in the pre-construction meeting.