Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chase County staff warn new federal bridge rules require costly prework; urge a comprehensive bridge plan
Summary
County staff told commissioners the Bridge Investment Program now expects preliminary engineering, NEPA and benefit‑cost analysis completed before application, a package they estimate at about $3 million; staff recommended hiring a consultant and developing a multi‑year bridge plan rather than pursuing the current BIP cycle.
Chase County officials told commissioners May 29 that recent changes to a federal bridge grant program make the county unlikely to compete for large construction awards this cycle without major upfront spending.
A county staff member briefed the board that the Bridge Investment Program now expects preliminary engineering (PE), NEPA environmental work and benefit‑cost analyses to be completed before an application will be considered. "The estimate for our bridges for those three things is about $3 million," the county staff member said, adding that the studies could be reimbursed but must be completed before applying and that projects must be shovel‑ready within 18 months.
The change matters because Chase County projects proposed for the program total into the tens of millions of dollars. Staff said the county could technically pay for the upfront studies and seek reimbursement later, but doing so would risk having $3 million in engineering on the shelf if construction funding does not follow. "If we're going to play to win, I think we need a more comprehensive plan about what bridges, where, and how we're going to pay for them," the staff member said.
To improve competitiveness, staff recommended commissioning a consultant to prepare a prioritized, multi‑year bridge plan that identifies candidate bridges, matches funding sources and sequences preconstruction work. The presenter also noted alternative funding streams and low‑interest government loans exist for preconstruction work, and that some counties use revolving bonds to fund the up‑front phase.
The county also discussed coordinating with regional partners and leveraging the county's Build Kansas Fund match where appropriate. Commissioners did not adopt any formal motion to commit to the $3 million pre‑work; staff said they would explore grant and borrowing options and return with recommendations.
What happens next: staff will look for potential funding to hire a consultant and report back to the commission; no application to the Bridge Investment Program was submitted during the meeting.
