Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Maintenance Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
900 Road culvert replacement stalls after flowable-fill pour shifts pipes; commissioners question design and responsibility
Summary
Work to replace two culverts on 900 Road exceeded original estimates after a flowable-fill pour shifted one pipe and deformed the other; commissioners and the county's engineering representative debated responsibility for the added costs and next steps.
The 900 Road culvert replacement project ran into unexpected problems after workers poured flowable fill that lifted one of the installed culvert pipes and deformed the other. The issue has driven the project cost well above the original county estimate and prompted a sharp exchange at the commission meeting over who should bear additional expense.
Chad McCullough of Kaw Valley, who helped obtain permits and advised on the project, described how the crew poured flowable fill in lifts. He said the first pour went as planned but on the second pour the material got underneath a culvert and raised one end. "We had to back up and move over the other side and try to backfill to the tube that was remaining in there so that we could get the concrete in to cover the gap between the 2," McCullough said. He described options before the board: carefully excavate and remove the culverts to reinstall them (at risk of further damage) or leave the pipes in place and fill the lined area with concrete.
Commissioners said the county had relied on the engineering oversight and that the result was not what they expected. One commissioner criticized the execution and said the county should not "incur all the costs" when the outcome followed the recommended approach presented by the engineering representative. In response, McCullough said he did not want to assign legal blame in the meeting but requested time to assemble documentation and correspondence if the county chose to pursue contract or legal remedies.
Cost figures discussed at the meeting: the original budget for the project was reported as $40,000 to $55,000; county staff said last week the project had reached about $70,800 to date. Commissioners asked for a concrete estimate of the remaining work — the discussion referenced tens of thousands more for additional concrete, or replacement culverts at roughly $7,000 each plus coupling and installation costs (county staff estimated about $10,000 per culvert if replacement is required).
Commissioners asked staff to determine the least-cost path to restore roadway service while protecting county interests and to gather the written project record and permit communications so the board can evaluate next steps. The board did not authorize a contract change at the meeting; commissioners asked for a follow-up report with cost options and supporting documentation.
