Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Gasline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sherman County agrees to cost-share relocating gas line on Road 32 after landowner appeal
Summary
After a presentation from a landowner, the Sherman County Commission approved a motion to share the cost of relocating a gas line that sits in an easement on Road 32; the county's portion covers half of a quoted $3,975 estimate for the easement segment, with a contingency to adjust if a larger-diameter pipe is required.
Brent Cook, a local landowner, asked the Sherman County Board of Commissioners to share the cost of relocating a private gas line that lies in the county’s Road 32 easement. The commissioners voted to approve a 50/50 cost share for the easement segment, based on a contractor estimate, and directed staff to confirm whether a larger 2-inch line is required before finalizing the bill.
Cook said the line currently runs in the ditch and across pasture and that planned bridge work will widen the crossing and likely require excavation that would intersect the pipe. He told commissioners the contractor’s quote for the easement portion was $3,975 and asked the county to pay half — $1,987.50 — ‘‘to get it done before construction starts.’’
The request matters because Cook and other speakers said the county’s bridge work could damage the line and interrupt irrigation. Cook described the farm’s center-pivot irrigation (about 205 acres) and warned that taking the well out of service during construction could reduce yields; he said, ‘‘if we drop 30 bushels on 205 acres’’ that would represent a significant crop loss at current prices.
Commissioners and attendees said an engineer who visited the site recommended a 50/50 split for the easement portion. Commissioners asked about pipe diameter: the initial quote used 1¼-inch pipe, but several participants recommended using a 2-inch line for the full run to preserve pressure over the long distance. The board approved the cost share with the expectation that a revised quote reflecting a 2-inch line would be reviewed and the final cost adjusted accordingly.
The approved scope for the county’s share covers only the easement segment (50 feet) in question. Cook said the full project the contractor described would extend roughly 1,700 feet to move the line entirely out of the ditch and pasture where practical, and that the full-run cost was higher; the county committed only to its portion for the easement segment at this meeting.
Commissioners moved and seconded the motion to approve the cost-share; after the vote the motion was recorded as passed.
Cook said he would coordinate with the contractor (AJ Stevens) and confirm whether the project should use a 2-inch line for the longer run, and the county would then process the adjusted invoice.
The commission’s action resolves an immediate safety and construction risk tied to bridge work on Road 32 and leaves the final procurement details (pipe diameter and final invoice) to follow-up with the county engineer and contractor.
