Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board authorizes due diligence on Canon Road stabilization pilot after detailed drainage and base-repair pitch
Summary
After a lengthy presentation on subgrade failures, drainage fixes and a flexible base-reinforcement treatment, the board authorized county staff and counsel to perform due diligence on a recommended Canon Road pilot project; no funding was committed.
The Oktibbeha County Board of Supervisors authorized county staff and the board attorney to perform due diligence on a proposed Canon Road rehabilitation pilot after hearing a technical presentation from Nova Soil and Head Construction about an expanded scope addressing water intrusion and structural deficiencies.
Presenters said the original plan — a surface stabilization only — would likely fail because of underlying subgrade saturation, insufficient shoulder confinement and chronic drainage problems. The revised proposal calls for full ditching, culvert repairs, raising low sections of road by about 3 feet where necessary, widening the traveled way to 22 feet (with a 20-foot paved surface and one-foot shoulders each side), and application of a flexible base-reinforcement product (presented as “Inovasil MH72 and MH44” plus a hydrophobic treatment) to prevent water from working into treated base layers. The team also offered a three-year limited performance warranty and an optional long-term maintenance package.
William Head of Head Construction described field tests the team performed, noting average strength and deflection measurements and concluding the site needs structural intervention rather than a short-term overlay. Head said the company typically certifies local contractors, oversees construction and can provide monitoring and warranty support.
Counsel and administrators emphasized that the board’s action authorizes only due diligence — legal and procurement review — not project funding or contract approval. Supervisor comments stressed the need for rigorous review of procurement rules, clear single-source justification if applicable, and identification of funding before contracting.
A motion to permit the county administrator and county attorney to continue detailed review and report back to the board passed unanimously. County staff will return with findings and any recommended contract documents or procurement steps before any commitment of county funds.
Ending: The board left funding decisions for a later date and asked staff to bring back a written due-diligence report and procurement recommendation at the next meeting.
