Marshall Approves CSX Bridge Utility Payments; Records Differ on Total
Marshall City Council | October 12, 2026
Article Summary: The Marshall City Council on Monday, Oct. 12, 2026, unanimously approved two payments to B & T Drainage Inc. for water and electric work under the CSX IL-1 bridge replacement project, but the city’s own documents do not agree on the amount of the second payment — the minutes record $273,240.00 while the agenda and the contractor’s application both state $293,240.00.
CSX Bridge Utility Payments Key Points:
- The council approved $243,782.00 for water line and bore work, a figure on which the agenda, the minutes and the packet all agree.
- For the electric conduit and bore work, the minutes record $273,240.00; the agenda item and the contractor’s application in the same packet both state $293,240.00 — a $20,000 difference that the record does not reconcile.
- The contractor’s application shows $537,022.00 completed and stored to date against listed item values of $425,130.50, a figure the sheet’s own column puts at 126.30%.
- One line item — 6-inch electric conduit bore — was billed at 4,240 linear feet against 360 bid, or 1,177.80% of the original quantity, for $237,440.00.
MARSHALL — The Marshall City Council on Monday, Oct. 12, 2026, approved two payments to B & T Drainage Inc. for utility work tied to the CSX IL-1 bridge replacement project, in motions that passed without recorded dissent — and left behind a $20,000 discrepancy between the city’s official minutes and the supporting documents distributed with the agenda.
Mayor John L. Hasten presided and all council members were present, according to the minutes, which record every vote of the evening the same way: “Upon roll call all council members voted for. Motion carried.” No individual votes or tallies appear anywhere in the record.
The first motion, made by Alderman Jarod Green and seconded by Alderman Warren LeFever, approved payment “for waterline and bore under CSX IL-1 Bridge Replacement Project in the amount of $243,782.00.” That figure appears identically in the posted agenda, in the minutes and in the contractor’s application included in the agenda packet.
The second motion, also made by Green and seconded by LeFever, approved payment for “Electric Conduit and bore” on the same project. The minutes put that payment at $273,240.00. The agenda item put it at $293,240. The contractor’s application in the packet carries a handwritten circle around two figures — “TOTAL ELECTRIC $293,240.00” and “TOTAL WATER $243,782.00” — and the arithmetic behind the electric figure reconciles to $293,240.00 to the penny.
The minutes are the official record of what the council voted. The packet is the authoritative source for exact figures. Here they do not agree, and nothing in the record explains the gap or records any amendment on the floor. The discrepancy is listed at the end of this package for editorial follow-up.
What the Contractor’s Application Shows
The payment document in the packet is headed “Progress Estimate – Unit Price Work, Contractor’s Application,” identifies the contract as City of Marshall, and is marked Application Number 1 for the application period of August, with an application date of 9/2/2026. A note at the foot of the sheet identifies the form as EJCDC C-620, a standard industry form on which contractors apply for progress payments as work is completed.
Across all four groups of bid items, the sheet lists item values totaling $425,130.50 and a total completed and stored to date of $537,022.00. The percentage column on that line reads 126.30%.
The driver is quantity. The sheet carries its own note that “items with quantities installed exceeding original quantities may represent change orders or additional work,” and several lines exceed their bid quantities substantially.
On the water side, 13 items were bid at a combined $151,080.50 and billed at $243,782.00. Within that group, 6-inch PVC SDR-21 pipe was bid at 200 linear feet and installed at 960 linear feet — 480.00% of the bid quantity, at $104.00 per foot, for $99,840.00. Tracer wire, generally laid alongside buried plastic pipe so the line can be located later, was bid at 350 linear feet and installed at 980, or 280.00%. A fire hydrant assembly bid as one unit at $7,650.00 was installed as two, for $15,300.00. The 12-inch jack and bore — a trenchless method of pushing casing beneath an obstruction such as a rail line — was bid at 104 linear feet at $750.00 per foot and installed at 110 feet, or 105.80%, for $82,500.00.
On the electric side, the $293,240.00 figure in the packet is built from four lines: $36,000.00 for 240 of 360 linear feet of 6-inch electric railroad bore; $16,800.00 for 120 of 180 linear feet of 4-inch telecom railroad bore, both at 66.70%; $3,000.00 for four electrical junction installations at 100.00%; and $237,440.00 for 6-inch electric conduit bore, billed at 4,240 linear feet against 360 bid at $56.00 per foot — a quantity the sheet’s own percentage column puts at 1,177.80%. A separate 4-inch telecom bore line, bid at 800 linear feet for $48,800.00, shows no quantity installed and no amount billed.
What the Packet Does Not Contain
The sheet is not the contractor’s original signed application. A note at its foot reads “Source: BT Pay Application 1 – combined from BT (002) Copy.pdf,” identifying it as a compilation, and two of its other notes are interpretive rather than factual, using the words “may represent” and “appear to be.” No signed contractor’s certification, engineer’s recommendation or retainage line appears in the packet, and the sheet’s “Balance to Finish” column is blank on every row.
The minutes record no discussion of either payment, no questions from the council and no staff presentation. The agenda listed the two items separately as items IX and X.
Both payments were approved separately from the evening’s bill list, which the council passed at $432,376.00 in a later motion. B & T Drainage Inc. does not appear anywhere in the Payment Approval Report attached to the agenda, which covers invoices dated 9/30/2026 through 10/12/2026.