Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews culvert and bridge alternatives for County Road 6 and County Road 20
Summary
County engineers presented hydraulic studies and multiple replacement options for two bridges; commissioners discussed costs, longevity, and whether to pursue local funding versus federal grants and agreed to solicit contractor quotes.
Steele County commissioners heard a technical briefing on April 1 about options for replacing two county bridges and related culverts and asked staff to pursue competitive quotes rather than a formal state advertisement.
County engineering consultant (speaker S10) summarized the hydraulic studies for the bridges on County Road 6 and County Road 20 and described several alternatives. “The first alternative, the smallest alternative is a double line of 7 foot culverts,” S10 said, noting other options include “three lines of 6.5 foot culverts” or two-line arch pipe alternatives and that arch pipe can reduce required road raising in tight vertical clearances. S10 cautioned that some federally eligible bridge funding is delayed and that using county funds might be necessary in the near term.
Commissioners and road staff pressed on longevity and installation details, including corrosion concerns for galvanized metal culverts and the sensitivity of volumetrically coated pipe to installation damage. Road superintendent (speaker S9) reported readiness to start crack sealing and routine maintenance once spring weather stabilizes. Several commissioners expressed preference for designs that keep most pipe out of constant standing water to extend service life and discussed staged approaches to limit immediate county spending while preparing for potential grants.
