Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County weighs concrete vs. asphalt for Southeast facility road; state to decide turn-lane cost-sharing
Summary
County commissioners and highway staff reviewed three surfacing options for a road serving a Southeast facility, discussed bid alternates, and said the state must finalize agreements for turn-lane construction before total costs are known.
Clay County commissioners and highway department staff discussed surfacing options and costs on a proposed access road for a Southeast facility, focusing on concrete versus asphalt alternatives, the need for turn-lane agreements with the state and remaining funding gaps.
County staff presented three surfacing options — an 8-inch asphalt section with a cement-treated base, an 8-inch concrete option and a 9-inch concrete option — and provided unit-cost estimates for the surfacing materials alone. Highway staff said the surfacing estimates do not include excavation, traffic control, mobilization, culverts, erosion-control, painting, mailbox reset or other items that make up the full project cost.
"My gut instinct is obviously concrete is gonna provide the best option. You'll have less maintenance," said Adam, a highway department staff member who described long-term maintenance tradeoffs between asphalt and concrete. He added that asphalt will require more maintenance in early years, including crack sealing and overlays.
Commissioners asked whether the cost estimates included the state-required turning lanes and whether the county should bid both asphalt and concrete as alternates. Adam said the surfacing-only estimates exclude turning-lane work; earlier county estimates that the commission had been discussing — roughly $1.2 million to $1.7 million depending on included items — reflected fuller scopes that included mobilization and other construction work.
"Those numbers are the concrete and the aggregate only," Adam said, referring to the written estimates produced for commissioners. He said his last full project estimate, which included surfacing plus the other work items, was about $1.7 million but needed revision because the project now also requires turn lanes.
County commissioners agreed to include multiple alternates in the bid package so the county can compare the lower-cost asphalt sections and higher-thickness concrete sections. "I honestly think your idea of the bid alternate is a great idea. That settles a big debate when you do it that way," a commissioner said.
On turn-lane responsibilities, Adam reported he had spoken with the state last week and was told the state would prepare agreements that identify who pays which portions for the turn lanes. He said the county cannot finalize survey work or bidding until those agreements are signed.
Commissioners noted the county lacks in-house equipment to repair concrete and would have to hire contractors for any concrete repairs if patching becomes necessary. Commissioners also asked staff to check whether the grant that funded the project contains conditions related to turn-lane cost-sharing.
The commission asked staff to prepare a bid package with alternates for the three surfacing sections (6- or 8-inch asphalt options and 8- and 9-inch concrete alternatives), to track outstanding items (turn-lane agreement from the state, full project mobilization and ancillary items), and to return with revised full-project estimates when the turn-lane agreement is available.
