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

County engineer recommends denying Niles Road upgrade request citing bridge, drainage and maintenance costs

November 25, 2025 | Saline County, Kansas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

County engineer recommends denying Niles Road upgrade request citing bridge, drainage and maintenance costs
Saline County commissioners heard a concept presentation from County Engineer Justin Mader on a landowner request to upgrade sections of Niles Road between Asaria Road and Tinkler Road that would convert earth‑surface roadway to gravel to serve a proposed residence.

Mader said the request centers on three short sections (noting one is already a gravel segment) and described the main obstacles: an aging timber structure in fair but deteriorating condition that would likely require eventual replacement (he estimated roughly $180,000 to replace that structure), a culvert/low‑water crossing that drains a large catchment (the pipe upgrade material estimate was about $15,000) and material costs of about $17,200 for road rock on one segment; upgrading the red section to gravel and replacing the pipe was estimated at about $38,300 for materials alone. He told commissioners "my recommendation is not to do it" and relayed the road and bridge office's recommendation to deny the request as presented because of future replacement and maintenance obligations.

Applicant Todd Gabor, who said he plans to build a specialized house for a daughter with special needs, asked the commission to consider cost sharing and noted the house would generate additional property taxes; Gabor estimated his own driveway work could cost $20,000–$40,000 and said he and a neighboring landowner were willing to have their names placed on a request for cost share. Commissioners pressed on precedent and pointed out that upgrades to accommodate private development have typically been paid by landowners in the past; several commissioners said they were not willing to have taxpayers cover 100% of the cost.

County staff described a potential cost‑share model in which landowners would pay materials and the county would provide labor and equipment and assume future maintenance. Commissioners asked staff to decline bringing an immediate request for action; they encouraged the applicant to explore cost‑share arrangements and provide additional information if they wish to proceed.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Kansas articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI