Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges county to investigate failed sealcoat work on County Road 43, requests engineer report
Summary
During public comment, resident Jim Long accused contractors and county staff of failing to follow standards on a recent resurfacing of County Road 43 and asked the commission to direct the county engineer to produce a formal report answering detailed technical questions.
Jim Long, a resident of County Road 43, told the Chilton County Commission that recent resurfacing work on his road was done improperly and is causing ongoing vehicle and property damage. “This road has not [been repaired],” Long said, adding he had compiled applicable standards from the Alabama Department of Transportation and other sources and wanted the county to answer a long list of questions about the project.
Long said he has driven the road daily since the resurfacing and described open potholes, washed-away shoulders and gravel being thrown into yards. “This system...didn't have a top coat and it should,” he said, and asserted the work’s life expectancy under proper application would be seven to ten years, not the outcome he is seeing.
The commission did not dispute his request; commissioners indicated the questions were legitimate and asked that the county engineer respond. The commission asked staff to have the engineer provide answers and a report at the next meeting so Long could present his root-cause analysis in response.
Why it matters: Long's account raises questions about whether county standards and contractor procedures were followed on a recent road project. The commission directed staff to obtain a formal response from the county engineer, creating an opportunity for technical review and possible corrective work.
What’s next: The county engineer was asked to prepare answers and return them to the commission within two weeks for review at the next meeting.
