Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Flood Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners remove County Road 274 from CDBG flood‑recovery grant after engineers find steep cost and risk
Summary
After an engineering briefing showing much higher costs and residual flood risk at County Road 274, the Coryell County commissioners voted to remove the lower-water crossing from a CDBG‑CR grant and direct staff to seek a grant amendment with the Texas GLO.
The Coryell County commissioners voted to remove County Road 274 (lower water crossing) from a federal Community Development Block Grant — Disaster Recovery (CDBG‑CR) after engineers told the court the site’s needs far exceed the grant’s original scope.
Walker Partners’ technical lead, Curtis (S8), said the site’s hydraulic demands and structure size make the project unusually expensive. "The hundred year flow, at the site is, 28,000 CFS, and the 2 year flow, is still, like, 7,000 CFS," Curtis said during the briefing, illustrating the volume of water the crossing must accommodate. The firm told the court that meeting higher design standards at that site would drive costs well beyond the grant award and recommended removing the site from the CDBG package.
Commissioner Weddle moved to remove County Road 274 from the CDBG‑CR grant; Commissioner Matthews seconded. The judge announced the voice vote result: "Ayes have it. Motion carries." The court instructed county staff to work with Walker Partners and the Texas General Land Office (GLO) to amend the grant and reallocate funds to the remaining three sites in the package.
Officials and consultants discussed alternatives short of full reconstruction, including force‑account work by the county, bidding alternates (smaller pipe sizes as an option), and pursuing separate mitigation or hazard‑warning funding for low‑water crossings. Langford representatives and the court noted the importance of early coordination with the GLO so that any amendment or reallocation would meet program rules and preserve eligible uses.
Next steps identified by the court included directing the county judge’s office and Walker Partners to open formal communications with the GLO and to return with a written amendment path for the court to approve. The court’s action removes County Road 274 from the CDBG scope; no roll‑call vote totals were recorded in the transcript.
