Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council moves to gather bids for culvert and roadwork tied to developer improvements
Summary
The council discussed a developer's offer to improve a road crossing if the city installs culvert protection, reviewed lower-cost design options (concrete barriers and riprap), and directed staff to obtain contractor hourly/material estimates and stream alteration permit details; council noted roughly $100,000 is available in the roads account.
Spring City council members discussed a road and culvert project connected to a pending development and directed staff to obtain contractor estimates and complete required permitting.
Council members said a developer has offered to improve a road if the city installs and pays for certain culvert and crossing work. Staff presented construction alternatives intended to reduce cost: rather than building full concrete wing walls and grading a 3:1 slope, staff suggested setting culvert sections, grading to a reduced depth across the crossing, armoring the culvert with riprap and adding concrete traffic barriers across the top to protect vehicles from driving off the crossing.
"My thought is we can get culvert, four sections in, simply put culvert, grade it off with some rock riprap, and just have a concrete wing over the opening the culvert itself to protect erosion around the collar, and then just put concrete barriers on the top," a council member said while describing the lower-cost option.
Staff warned the city needs a stream-alteration approval for work in the waterway; that permit process can take months and will require cross-section drawings and other information. Staff said a completed stream-alteration packet and a cross section of the affected stream would be required before receiving final approvals.
Council members discussed funding. The transcript record shows approximately $100,000 in the city's road-related account that could be applied; staff cautioned that some of that is already budgeted for other projects. Possible project cost ranges discussed in the meeting varied; council members referenced estimates in the tens of thousands up to a possible $100,000 depending on the work scope. One council member suggested a $50,000 high estimate for the city's portion, but council members did not commit a final dollar figure.
Staff proposed a procurement approach of collecting hourly and per-material estimates from multiple local contractors rather than requiring a fully engineered bid package at this stage. Contractors would be asked for per-hour equipment rates and approximate material unit costs (riprap, culvert sections, backfill) so the city can compare prices and choose the most economical approach. The council instructed staff to solicit comparable offers from local contractors and to present the estimates at a subsequent meeting.
There was a motion to move forward with preparing construction under the proposed approach and to solicit contractor cost estimates and stream-permit guidance; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally or an ordinance number. No construction contract award was recorded in the meeting.
If approved in a later meeting, the construction would include culvert installation, localized grading, riprap protection, and top-of-crossing concrete barriers. Staff also emphasized they would coordinate the permitting timeline with the developer's schedule so that road improvements line up with the developer's utility installations and the broader project timeline.
