Mills County approves $219,828 low bid from Myers Concrete for County Road 189 crossing
May 18, 2026 | Mills County, Texas
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A special session of the Mills County Commissioners Court on May 18 unanimously approved the low bid from Myers Concrete to perform work at County Road 189, known locally as the Boxcar crossing. The court’s presiding officer announced the Myers bid at $219,828 and moved to accept the lowest qualified proposal in accordance with applicable local government code procedures.
The decision came after commissioners reviewed competing proposals from Corral Fencing and Dozer Service, Gage and Cade Construction Service, and others. Commissioner Williams moved to approve Myers Concrete’s offer; a commissioner seconded and the court voted aye, recorded as 5–0 in favor.
Why it mattered: the project addresses a county crossing where engineers supplied differing pipe quantities and diameters, raising questions about the correct materials and unit pricing. A commissioner flagged a discrepancy between two sets of specifications — one calling for five 30‑inch HDPE pipes spaced 15 inches apart and another (attributed to engineer Nick Taylor) specifying three 36‑inch runs. That discrepancy will be resolved in the field once the Boxcar opening is cleared.
Myers Concrete’s contact, identified in the record as Chase Botkin, told the court the company based its bid on the engineer’s listed quantities (including 204 linear feet of 36‑inch pipe and an itemized excavation and concrete slab quantity as written in the bid documents) and said the firm could adjust pricing if the county directed a different pipe diameter or additional runs. “If everything was to go through this week, I could start on Monday,” Botkin said; commissioners noted holiday scheduling could shift an actual start date to the following day and discussed a target start near June 1.
Contract administration details clarified during the meeting: the contractor must arrange utility locates (Botkin said he needs two days for locators to mark lines before excavation), coordinate with the private property owner for site access and temporary fencing, and follow the county’s progress‑invoice claims process. The presiding officer verified that payment is to be made after work completion or on approved progress invoices submitted through county claims procedures.
What comes next: the court accepted the low bid and thanked Myers Concrete for bidding. The contractor said he would follow up by phone in the next day or two to complete paperwork and schedule utility clearances; commissioners indicated the work will proceed once those logistics are cleared and site conditions permit.
The meeting adjourned following the vote.
The decision came after commissioners reviewed competing proposals from Corral Fencing and Dozer Service, Gage and Cade Construction Service, and others. Commissioner Williams moved to approve Myers Concrete’s offer; a commissioner seconded and the court voted aye, recorded as 5–0 in favor.
Why it mattered: the project addresses a county crossing where engineers supplied differing pipe quantities and diameters, raising questions about the correct materials and unit pricing. A commissioner flagged a discrepancy between two sets of specifications — one calling for five 30‑inch HDPE pipes spaced 15 inches apart and another (attributed to engineer Nick Taylor) specifying three 36‑inch runs. That discrepancy will be resolved in the field once the Boxcar opening is cleared.
Myers Concrete’s contact, identified in the record as Chase Botkin, told the court the company based its bid on the engineer’s listed quantities (including 204 linear feet of 36‑inch pipe and an itemized excavation and concrete slab quantity as written in the bid documents) and said the firm could adjust pricing if the county directed a different pipe diameter or additional runs. “If everything was to go through this week, I could start on Monday,” Botkin said; commissioners noted holiday scheduling could shift an actual start date to the following day and discussed a target start near June 1.
Contract administration details clarified during the meeting: the contractor must arrange utility locates (Botkin said he needs two days for locators to mark lines before excavation), coordinate with the private property owner for site access and temporary fencing, and follow the county’s progress‑invoice claims process. The presiding officer verified that payment is to be made after work completion or on approved progress invoices submitted through county claims procedures.
What comes next: the court accepted the low bid and thanked Myers Concrete for bidding. The contractor said he would follow up by phone in the next day or two to complete paperwork and schedule utility clearances; commissioners indicated the work will proceed once those logistics are cleared and site conditions permit.
The meeting adjourned following the vote.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
