Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brown County weighs alternative bridge repairs as seal-bid opening draws lower-than-estimate bids
Summary
Commissioners discussed two bridges that may be repaired via rail‑car superstructure replacement or buried soil/tube structures and heard a technical bridge inspection and condition‑rating briefing; the county opened bids for FAS51 with the apparent low bid near $767,480 and discussed timing, liquidated‑damages and contractor schedules.
Brown County commissioners discussed repair options for two county bridges and opened public bids for a separate FAS51 bridge contract, while an engineering presenter summarized condition ratings and maintenance priorities for county bridges.
Staff described two candidate bridges: one with a steel superstructure and wooden deck that vendors told the county could be replaced using three rail cars (preliminary, not solicited bids) for roughly $150,000–$178,000; the second small wood‑deck span (about 20 feet) could be repaired using a buried soil/tube structure with materials estimated at $15,000–$20,000 and construction under $50,000. Staff said these were soft estimates and recommended pursuing firm quotes, contacting suppliers that build tubes in Topeka and arranging site visits in Iowa to review completed projects.
At 2 p.m. the county opened bids for FAS51. Two bids were presented: B&B submitted $767,480 (apparent low bid) and the other firm $810,602. Staff will verify arithmetic and confirm that each bid complies with the plans and specifications. Commissioners discussed contract timing: awarded contractors must begin by Nov. 2 (working days) to avoid liquidated damages; the contract allows roughly 100 working days to substantial completion, with the start window chosen to fall after fall harvest and while asphalt plants are producing.
Separately, an engineering presenter walked the commission through new Federal appraisal reporting requirements, condition ratings on a one‑to‑nine scale, scour‑critical classifications and common maintenance recommendations. The presenter highlighted a timber‑deck bridge (OS 56) with broken or aged tension rods; the presenter said many of those original rods had been replaced over time with threaded replacements and that replacing tension rods is possible with an experienced contractor, though it carries safety risk and requires appropriate expertise.
Commissioners said they will pursue tighter cost estimates and engineer input before deciding whether to self‑perform repairs, contract locally, or pursue grant programs. They also discussed prioritizing bridges that cannot carry loaded trucks or are scour‑critical and pursuing state and federal bridge funds where eligible.
What happens next: staff will verify the FAS51 bid math and compliance, obtain firm quotes for the two candidate bridges, contact engineers and suppliers for site visits, and pursue grant or cost‑share opportunities where appropriate.
