Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highway director warns of staffing strain as commissioners approve Bridge 60 preliminary engineering
Summary
Commissioners approved preliminary engineering for Bridge 60 and heard a multi-part highway update on paving, a drainage problem, a trial rubberized chip-seal and concerns that wage levels threaten staff retention and project delivery.
Commissioners voted to approve a preliminary engineering report for Bridge 60 (DCCM, not to exceed $6,500) and received a lengthy update from highway staff on paving schedules, a culvert problem on a private driveway, a proposal to trial a rubberized chip-seal surface and the department's staffing challenges.
The highway presentation covered near-term construction: paving and shoulder work scheduled on Cameron Road and 1200 East, ongoing work on Old State Road 2 and community crossings packages that will fund multiple pavement and bridge projects. Staff told the board they expect the county's pavement program to exceed $6 million in the coming fiscal year and that three federal-aid bridge projects are proceeding.
A localized drainage issue at a private driveway was described: staff found a blocked culvert that does not connect to a visible downstream tile; options discussed included asking residents to petition for a regulated drain (which could assess neighbors) or engineering a new tile connection. Staff will contact property owners and the county surveyor to pursue the process.
The board also heard about a trial surfacing known locally as 'chrome rubber,' a rubberized chip-seal using recycled tire rubber. Staff described demo and life-expectancy estimates (five to ten years on low-volume roads), and cited illustrative costs: a one-mile demo priced at roughly $100,000 and potential per-mile costs around $64,531 if more miles were combined into a larger contract; staff recommended budgeting the option in 2027 and testing it on a candidate 4.5-mile stretch.
During the bridge discussion the highway engineer warned that current wage levels make it hard to retain qualified staff and manage a growing capital program: "If I can't get these wages corrected ... I'm not going to sign another contract," the engineer said, urging the board to plan for staff replacements, consultants or an HR review. Commissioners acknowledged regional competition for workers and discussed the need to review wages and benefits.
Next steps: staff will proceed with the Bridge 60 preliminary engineering under the approved contract, follow up with property owners about the culvert, return a cost and scope analysis on the rubberized surface for 2027 budgeting, and provide options for addressing staffing and wage compression.
