Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants brief commissioners on CDBG flood‑repair projects, schedule and rising cost estimates
Summary
Walker Partners and Langford presented preliminary engineering and a project schedule for four CDBG‑funded sites, noted a planned August bid date, and warned of engineering discoveries that have increased projected costs and introduced design tradeoffs.
Walker Partners and Langford gave the commissioners a technical briefing on four CDBG‑DR sites awarded to Coryell County and outlined a schedule that targets August bidding and November construction documents.
Jacob Bell (S2) introduced the team and explained that the grant application began in 2022 and the award arrived the previous June; Langford/consultants will provide engineering, administration and environmental services. Curtis (S8) walked through the sites and the proposed structural solutions: a 30‑inch RCP for East Avenue B, precast or bolted structural plate options for Shady Lane crossing, a larger bridge opening at Bridal Knob, and replacement of three culverts on County Road 274 with larger structures at the most expensive site.
The consultants flagged areas where preliminary designs uncovered unexpected utility conflicts, larger-than-expected watersheds, and costly constructability issues. Curtis summarized the four awards listed in the presentation as roughly $390,000 for East Avenue B, $400,000 for Little J/D Culver, $700,000 for Bald Knob Road and $1.2 million for the County Road 74 project (totaling about $2.7 million in construction awards). He also warned the court that engineering reviews can reveal challenges: "sometimes things change... we have to adjust," and that the county should expect at least one additional cost‑check before final design.
Langford’s Brianna (S10) told the court the firm has opened a line to the Texas GLO about whether certain flood‑warning hardware (barrier arms or warning systems) would be eligible under program rules and noted there is some flexibility in schedule and fund reallocation. The court asked the consultants to return with refined cost checks at the preliminary‑design and final‑design milestones and to present bidding packaging options that could include alternates to preserve choices at bid time.
The briefing emphasized the need for continued coordination among county staff, consultants, and municipal partners (Gatesville and Copperas Cove) on alignment decisions and utility relocations before the county issues bid documents.
