Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County engineers outline Zeel Road bank-stabilization concept; court directs preliminary engineering and easement work
Summary
Engineering consultants described a concept that would add drainage structures, a gabion wall and road reconstruction to stabilize an eroding bank on Zeel Road; commissioners asked staff to move forward with preliminary engineering, easement needs and a contract to scope costs.
County engineering staff and a consultant described a conceptual bank-stabilization plan for Zeel Road (south of I‑10 near Caffey Road) on Tuesday and asked the court to authorize preliminary engineering, easement identification and a construction-ready design package.
Tom Turk, principal at Freedom Turk Engineering Group, told commissioners the site has active erosion where the creek bed sits 20–25 feet below the roadway and existing roadside ditches allow water to run over the pavement. Turk presented a concept that would enlarge roadside drainage, create a new inlet and culvert to move water under the roadway, construct a gabion (rock-filled basket) retaining wall at the toe of the slope, and rebuild an estimated 200–300 feet of roadway surface. The design includes a vertical riser and a box culvert through the gabion wall so water would be conveyed to creek elevation without creating drop waterfalls that currently cause bank scour.
Turk said the work will require temporary and permanent easements (likely long, narrow strips on one side and possibly small permanent easement on the opposite side), access for construction equipment to the creek bed, and coordination regarding utilities. He said the project lies in a FEMA floodplain, so the hydraulic design must show no rise in the flood elevation. On cost, Turk said he could not provide a reliable figure without 50% preliminary engineering; however, he indicated the project would likely exceed $1 million and could be materially higher depending on wall length and reconstruction extent.
Commissioners agreed to proceed with preliminary engineering and asked staff to bring a professional services agreement back for court approval, identify funding options (road and bridge reserves, the county’s $10 million additional allocation, or targeted project funds) and determine whether any utility relocations are needed. Court members also emphasized constructability and the need to evaluate lower-cost alternatives if the full concept proved cost-prohibitive. Road and Bridge staff said emergency concrete barriers have been placed for public safety pending a full design and that preliminary engineering should be started promptly to avoid a catastrophic failure.
