Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Humble County approves drainage pay estimate and change order, awards bridge/box projects amid debate over vacating little‑used road
Summary
The board approved a drainage pay estimate and a change order that reduced a contract by $4,377.75, awarded local bridge/box projects to contractors after receiving competitive bids, and debated whether to vacate a little‑used county road whose bridge replacement has been on the county five‑year plan.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approved several infrastructure actions: a drainage pay estimate and a change order, and awards for box/bridge projects after staff reported competitive bids.
Colin, calling in from Jacobs and Westerard, presented pay estimate #3 and a change order for a D1 drainage contract covering work completed in the January–February timeframe. Colin said final contract quantity reconciliations and some miscellaneous items (including four core‑drilled holes through private tile lines) were part of the change order discussion; he told commissioners the change order would reduce the contract amount by $4,377.75. Commissioners voted to approve the pay estimate and change order.
Separately, staff reported multiple bids for county box/bridge projects and recommended awarding work to local contractors, noting bid prices were lower than recent years. The board recorded motions to award the projects to the recommended contractor(s) and approved them.
Commissioners also debated repairing or vacating a largely unused county road and replacing an associated bridge. Some commissioners and nearby landowners said the road sees almost no traffic and could be vacated, while staff noted the bridge and road have been on the five‑year plan for years and that removing the bridge could landlock property owners (Joe Jacobson was identified as one owner who would lose access). Staff said the bridge replacement is meant to preserve long‑term access for affected parcels. The board did not reverse the planned award but discussed tabling or revisiting the specific road work pending landowner input and potential vacating petitions.

