Supervisors Shuffle Bridge Projects In Emergency Meeting
Checking The Bank Account – Engineer Carl Grubb explains a chart showing remaining state funds available for bridge and road projects in Yalobusha. Grubb works for Willis Engineering. – Photo by Jack Gurner
Supervisors met Wednesday, April 28, to discuss funds for two bridge projects.
By David Howell
Editor
WATER VALLEY – A contract the county awarded for a bridge replacement project in District 4 on County Road 428 will be rescinded following a vote taken last Wednesday in an emergency meeting.
The meeting was called last Wednesday, April 28, after supervisors discovered the Local System Bridge Program (L.S.B.P.) funding for the bridge in District Four would come at the expense of another bridge replacement project in District One.
A notice was posted at the Water Valley courthouse prior to the meeting, as required by law, informing the public of the meeting.
“This is a special meeting called by the president to address two issues,” Board Attorney John Crow explained as the meeting opened.
The problem was discovered two days earlier, at a recessed meeting held April 26, after supervisors awarded a contract to replace a bridge in District 4 to Dye Construction. The bid price was $304,097.50, which will bring the total price to $355,800 with engineer’s and other expenses.
The estimated price for the bridge in District 1, located on County Road 131, is $543,722, which brings the total price of both bridges to just under $900,000. The total amount of funds available under the L.S.P.B. funding is $683,469.57, meaning the price tag for the two bridges exceeds the state funding by more than $200,000.
The issue becomes more complicated for two reasons. First, the state aid specifications were enhanced for the bridge replacement in District 1. The original engineer’s estimate on the cost of the job increased from $370,000 to $543,722, or almost $170,000. The increase reflects an increase in the bridge span, which was increased from the original bridge distance of 86 feet to a distance of 182 feet.
The second complication is a right-of-way issue that impacted the timing of the District 1 bridge. The bridge in District 4 – although programmed for March 2009, seven months later than the bridge in District 1 – moved to the construction process faster. This allowed the county to advertise for bids even though the bridge in District 1 was programmed earlier.
“It went through faster. No right-of-way issues, everything was there,” engineer Carl Grubb explained to supervisors about the District 4 bridge. Grubb is employed by Willis Engineering.
Although not mentioned specifically at the emergency meeting, Grubb was referring to a right-of-way issue that has slowed the preliminary work on the District 1 bridge. Former Tax Assessor/Collector Guy Dale Shaw, who owns property adjacent to the District 1 bridge, told supervisors he would not authorize the use of his land for the project.
Shaw’s objection comes as he explained to supervisors that the new bridge on County Road 131 would adversely affect water flow on Turkey Creek. This would ultimately cause damage to his property, Shaw also explained to supervisors.
In April supervisors voted to proceed with eminent domain to obtain the right-of-way from Shaw.
The Discussion
“I would ask to rescind that board order last week and do this one,” Vaughn asked, as the issue was discussed in the emergency meeting. Supervisors M.H. “Butch” Surrette and Frank “Bubba” Tillman were not at the meeting.
“If we are going to build that bridge in District 4, that will postpone that bridge project (in District 1) until the next term,” Vaughn explained. “My feeling on it is, I haven’t spent a penny of state aid money in District 1 in my term. As a rule we always swap around – everybody gets a turn on a bridge. It was my turn to get a bridge. I didn’t say anything last week because I assumed the money was still there. I have been told all along that the money was there, but apparently it wasn’t,” Vaughn said.
“I really hate to even bring this up… George is just as innocent as I am in this thing because we have been told time and time again that the money was there,” Vaughn said.
The biggest problem, expressed by Vaughn, is that the county was not being supplied with a spread sheet from Willis Engineering informing supervisors of the available funding.
“The only option we have for District One to get some state aid money in this four-year term is for me to ask George to possibly rescind his bridge project over there. I hate to even ask that, but it is not fair to the people in District 1 to go a four-year period without spending a penny of state aid money. We have spent close to $500,000 or $600,000 for a road in George’s beat, plus another bridge. It needed to be done, we were all in agreement with it.
“Instead of me putting mine off, since we hadn’t spent any money I would ask that we would rescind that board order and do this one – if George will go along with it,” Vaughn added.
“None of us, as Tommy said, saw this coming. Our thoughts were that the money was there for the project,” Board President Amos Sims added.
“The ball is in George’s (District 4 Supervisor George Suggs) court,” Sims continued. “I know that George would like to get his project done. Tommy’s project has already been designated that we would do it. It just kind of left us in a situation. The ball is in George’s court,” Sims reiterated.
“I will let you have it,” District Four Supervisor George Suggs said, after asking what the time factor would be get the District 4 bridge funded if it was pushed back.
“You won’t get allocated new money until the next term,” Grubb explained.
“I will let you have it,” District Four Supervisor George Suggs said. “It won’t be no problem.”
“What really bothers me is I sat here right in front of the press and t.v. and explained how this money was there,” Vaughn said. “It kind of ruins your credibility. People say, well he did not even have the money. I was told I had the money… I don’t like being put in the position where I don’t look like I know what I am talking about when it was not my fault,” Vaughn said about the mix-up.
Supervisors also agreed to put the District 4 bridge at the top of the list when the L.S.B.P. funding is replenished, which will be at the beginning of the new term starting January 1, 2012.
“It is another one of those old wooden bridges that needs replacing,” Grubb said.
The Purpose of the Emergency Meeting
Grubb also explained the need for an emergency meeting. The board order awarding the contract for the Bridge in District Four must be rescinded before the paperwork arrives on the desk of state aid engineer Brooks Miller.
“(Miller) said if the paperwork arrives at his office, he will not hold the project. He will sign it and it will become a project. If it arrives on his desk, he will sign it if he does not have a board order saying different,” Grubb explained.
