Valley County commissioners on Dec. 22 paused a final determination on a concrete defect in a recent county project after initial strength tests fell short of expectations and staff recommended additional sampling and third‑party testing.

Chair (Speaker 2) asked for an update and Speaker 5, identified in the meeting as the project representative providing technical results, summarized tests that showed cure and strength results below typical targets. He explained industry expectations — for example, that '7‑day concrete should be 70%' and that 28‑day strength normally reaches about 90% — and reported that some initial break tests were '7% low.' Speaker 5 recommended extracting new cores and having an independent lab perform destructive testing to verify those readings.

Commissioners, including Speaker 3 and Speaker 4, expressed concern about relying solely on contractor‑supplied tests. Speaker 3 said, 'I think it absolutely needs to be a third party,' and speakers agreed that an independent verification (examples named during the discussion included MTR or Sperata) would reduce conflicts of interest and provide a clearer basis for any remedial work or credits from the contractor.

Staff and project personnel agreed to punch three additional cores behind the wall to establish a current baseline. The board also directed staff to arrange for the county engineer and absent staff member (Terry Kennedy) to be present when results are reviewed. The commissioners set a follow‑up meeting for Monday, Jan. 5 at 10:45 a.m., to review the new testing and recommendations.

The board did not take a final vote on remedies during the Dec. 22 meeting. Speaker 5 noted the contractor (identified in discussion as Nike River in the transcript) would be responsible for replacement if independent testing ultimately shows the concrete does not meet contract specifications; the meeting record did not specify exact contractual remedies or cost estimates.

Next steps: county staff will (1) extract three additional cores for testing, (2) engage an independent laboratory to perform verification testing, and (3) present findings and an engineer recommendation at the Jan. 5 meeting.

Attribution: Quotes and technical descriptions are drawn from the meeting transcript. Where staff or attendees were not named in the record, this article attributes statements to the meeting speaker labels used in the transcript (e.g., 'Speaker 5').