Madison County could see some significant roadwork within the next year.
County commissioners agreed Feb. 11 to seek bids on a number of road projects with an estimated total cost of $1.2 million.
The county’s 2013 allotment through the Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant (LMIG) is $543,713. The Madison County government had an approximate $5 million cash balance at the end of 2012. And a portion of the projects is expected to be funded with that money.
Here is a list of proposed roadwork:
•Sanford Road, beginning at Hwy. 106 and ending at county road 160, 2.985 miles, resurfacing, estimated cost: $50,000.
•Blacks Creek Church Road, beginning at county road 398 and ending at the county line, 4.138 miles, resurfacing, estimated cost: $150,000.
•Sam Bruce Road, culvert or bridge, creek crossing, estimated cost: $150,000 to $200,000.
•Madison Oaks Drive, beginning at county road 177, ending at the dead end, .2 miles, resurfacing, estimated cost: $20,000.
•Northwoods Circle, beginning at county road 200, ending at county road 198, .4 new paving, estimated cost: $60,000.
•Shady Lane, beginning at county road 200, ending at county road 500, .1 miles of new paving, estimated cost: $15,000.
•Adams-Duncan Road, beginning at county road 391 to county road 177, 1.274 miles, resurfacing, estimated cost: $120,000.
•Hwy. 29, Hwy. 98 intersection, improvements, estimated cost: $150,000.
•Colbert-Danielsville Road, from county road 221 to Madison Street, 3.5 miles, resurfacing. (Initial estimates were $100,000, but that was when the paving was planned to the South Fork Bridge).
•Sorrow-Patterson Road, beginning at Hwy. 72, ending at county road 228, 2.041 miles, resurfacing, estimated cost: $200,000.
•Foote-McClellan Road and Hwy. 72 intersection improvements, estimated cost: $150,000.
County to seek bids on roadwork
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
#1
MC anon
on
02/20/13 at 01:02 PM
[Reply]
You let the Pethel crowd get their way. Shameful-just shameful.
#1.1
Voter
on
02/21/13 at 02:32 PM
[Reply]
I will vote against those on BOC who supported this Pethel-Sam Bruce Rd paving adventure. Not shameful but waste of money.
#1.1.1
Jr
on
02/22/13 at 11:15 AM
[Reply]
Right on dude about Sam Bruce thing
#1.2
Anon
on
02/22/13 at 08:06 AM
[Reply]
Who let the Pethel crowd get their way? 1.1 you say it's a waste of money how is this if the community get's their road back a waste of money. How do you come to make this statement? Do you want everything to go to sir Stanley or big Mike?
#1.2.1
D
on
02/23/13 at 11:06 AM
[Reply]
Anon 1.2 the money for this road need can be spent better. Bet people that supported this road and petition know many who initially thought OK idea feel duped. I do. Disappointed other BOC did not say no more. Guess Anon you got your way. You got land there you need to sell or something.
#1.2.1.1
Dville
on
02/25/13 at 01:29 PM
[Reply]
Land for sale due to Sam Bruce road. Who benefits from this. If county person is that conflict of interest ?
#1.2.1.1.1
I want to know
on
02/27/13 at 08:42 AM
[Reply]
Is there a major land holder or someone with land that this road makes much more valuable ? I find that hard to believe as not much up there in that part of county. I would not be on that road after dark.
#2
Taxed
on
02/23/13 at 08:23 PM
[Reply]
There is a great need to clarify the process by which road projects are chosen to be done.
#2.1
Ms.K
on
02/27/13 at 05:02 PM
[Reply]
Or at least the paper should do an article on whatever we have now as a basis. If there is nothing, then there is nothing to clarify and there does need to be a formal basis.
#3
Anonymous
on
02/26/13 at 10:44 AM
[Reply]
Sam Bruce Rd. - GITTIN' HER DONE!