Shelby County approves HLR for 2026 bridge inspections after resident complaint
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Shelby County commissioners approved a $149,000 engineering agreement with HLR for 2026 bridge inspection program management, amid a resident's public comment alleging past easement and drainage problems with the firm; the board said FHWA requirements and limited local capacity led to the selection.
Shelby County commissioners voted to approve a $149,000 engineering agreement with HLR Engineering for bridge inspections and program management on Feb. (board meeting), despite a public commenter who urged the board not to hire the firm.
The speaker during public comment said HLR’s previous work routed drainage across the speaker’s property and failed to secure easements, adding, “I would not hire them for anything.” The board voted 14–2 to approve the package of items that included the HLR agreement, a joint IDOT agreement to use $602,842 in LPF grant funds to reconstruct Structure 087-3038, and a $989,465.91 cape-seal resurfacing contract on County Highway 19.
County staff explained the HLR contract covers bridge inspections and program management, not design work. According to staff, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires a qualified program manager for bridge-inspection programs; staff said HLR is an established firm with more than 100 employees and that the program manager must meet continuous experience requirements while technicians perform field inspections. “This is just they’re not doing any of your design work. This is purely just to look at our bridges, make sure they are safe,” a county staff member said.
Board members asked whether the work had to be competitively bid and whether other firms in the area could perform the work. Staff said bidding was not required for the funding stream, that three local firms had previously been contacted but declined because of workload or lack of qualified staff, and that some inspections were due to begin this month, creating a time-sensitive need.
The chair introduced the three-item slate before the vote and a motion to approve was made by Miss Matlock and seconded by Mister Wallace. Roll call produced a 14–2 vote with Commissioners Cole and Greg opposed.
Next steps: staff will proceed with the inspection agreement and the associated grant and resurfacing work as approved by the board.