Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Bridge Replacement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Training Board approves Bridge 85 replacement project; MPO grant covers majority of Bridge 85 work

Johnson County Training Board · November 6, 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 Johnson County Training Board voted Nov. 4 to approve replacement work on Bridge 85 and reconstruction of Culvert P009, citing an MPO grant that covers Bridge 85 construction and inspection.

The Johnson County Training Board voted Nov. 4 to approve replacement work on Bridge 85 and reconstruction of nearby Culvert P009, part of a project that county staff said is funded largely through an Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) grant.

"A few years ago, the county applied for funding from the Indianapolis MPO, and we received approximately 1,680,000.00 for construction and inspection of 2 drainage structures," Daniel Johnston, Johnson County highway engineer, said, describing the funding for Bridge 85 and the related structure.

Johnston said Bridge 85 is ranked third on the county's major-works priority list and that Culvert P009 is an older steel multiplate pipe in deteriorated condition. He said the county contracted Strand Associates for design, coordinated reviews with the county surveyor and received a provisional approval from Christopher B. Burke Engineering.

Johnston told the board that the MPO funding covers Bridge 85 construction and inspection; he said the culvert work will be paid 100% with local funds. Commissioners had recommended the county waive fees related to the project; a board member moved to approve the project with waivers and the motion carried by voice vote.

Chris Bland, project manager from Strand Associates, attended the meeting; county staff noted multiple on-site meetings and a prior preliminary field check. The board did not discuss a project construction schedule or set a project start date at the Nov. 4 meeting.