Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Bridges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chase County road official outlines equipment needs, bridge inspections and drainage costs
Summary
The county’s road supervisor told commissioners that aging vehicles and increasing bridge inspection requirements will require long‑range planning, outlined heavy use on a mini‑excavator and proposed a two‑person drainage crew and selective truck replacement to manage costs and workloads.
Tom, the county road official, told the Chase County Commissioners on June 15 that several road‑and‑bridge issues require planning and likely capital spending. He said one mini excavator’s service record shows heavy use and cited rising bridge‑inspection demands that have added several fracture‑critical or POA (plan‑of‑action) structures to the to‑do list. "We've put 21,100 hours on that thing since August 23rd of 2022," he said, presenting equipment‑usage reports and urging commissioners to consider replacement and equipment‑sharing strategies.
Why it matters: commissioners must balance immediate maintenance needs with limited county resources. Tom presented preliminary cost metrics using FEMA hourly rates and offered staff recommendations for fleet rationalization, drainage staffing and phased bridge repairs to keep priority structures safe and inspections current.
Key points and staff proposals included: Tom’s review of bridge inspection status, noting a change in inspection parameters that temporarily increased the count of fracture‑critical bridges to around nine but that some were removed from that status after repairs; proposals to group inspections on even/odd years to simplify management; a recommendation to consider purchasing an additional mini excavator rather than deferring work while aging equipment fails; and a fleet plan to sell an older International truck and a Kenworth single‑axle truck and replace them with one newer full‑size truck assigned to drainage work.
On staffing and recurring costs, Tom gave a working example for a dedicated two‑person drainage crew: two operators at roughly $24 per hour each (annual labor near $100,000), plus equipment amortization (he suggested spreading replacement costs over five years). He said the county should plan for a combination of equipment and operating costs rather than rely on ad‑hoc repairs.
Tom also outlined discrete project updates: right‑of‑way acquisition for the selected bridge project at Stouts corner (he said owner contacts and ride‑way acquisition are the next steps), and a potential east‑of‑Conley replacement using driven sheet‑pile abutments and a Husker deck as a cost‑effective option.
On chip seal and road stabilization, Tom said staff has scheduled soil core sampling to evaluate three stabilization options (conventional chip seal, emulsified‑oil stabilization, and Portland cement stabilization) and that final cost estimates depend on those geotechnical results. He recommended pausing major expenditure decisions until the core results are available.
Commissioners asked for follow‑up: more precise ranges for ditch‑cleaning costs (light vs. heavy projects), firm replacement‑cost figures for key trucks and excavators, and an updated inspection list after recent repairs. Tom said he will provide those numbers in subsequent budget work sessions.
The commission did not take formal action on the road program during the meeting; staff will return with estimates and options.
