An ongoing debate over freedom of choice regarding installation of driveway pipe could finally be resolved at Monday’s Limestone County Commission meeting.

At Wednesday’s work session, commissioners talked at length about the pros and cons of concrete versus plastic pipe and if plastic should even be made available to residents. Representatives from two manufacturers of drainage pipe also offered their opinions.

The pipe issue was carried over from the commission’s March 18 meeting. Commissioners tabled a bid on concrete driveway pipe in an effort to find a less expensive supplier or alternative.

The commission had received a negotiated price for pipe from Foley Products Co., but it was 20 to 40 percent higher than last year. Kevin Vogler of Foley Products was at Wednesday’s work session and explained there had been “massive increases” in raw and aggregate material costs, which led to an increase in the price of concrete pipe.

“With the steel tariffs, we’ve had over 25 percent increases in steel reinforcement (for the pipe),” he told commissioners.

Foley representatives told commissioners there is no comparison between the quality of concrete and alternative materials like plastic. Kelly Lloyd of Foley explained it’s also cheaper to install concrete pipe because plastic pipe requires 1 foot of cover over the top of the pipe.

“When you’re looking at concrete versus an alternative, it’s not just the cost of materials; it’s the cost of installation,” Vogler said. “No one wants an installation that has to be replaced.”

District 4 Commissioner Ben Harrison, however, explained there is still about a $100 difference between the cost of concrete pipe and plastic. He would like residents to be able to choose plastic pipe, if they wish.

Brian Felder of Advanced Drainage Systems, a maker of polyethylene and polypropylene drainage pipe, told commissioners plastic pipe would hold up as well as concrete. He acknowledged, however, “under the right conditions, our pipe will burn.”

He provided commissioners with a comparison of stormwater pipe installation in Texas markets, where there was closed competition between suppliers versus open competition. Figures he provided show there were savings of anywhere from 36 percent to 57 percent in open-competition communities.

“Your residents pay less if competition is involved,” Felder told commissioners.

Harrison later told his fellow commissioners he feared pipe prices would continue to increase until another pipe supplier enters the picture. He’s fine with not using plastic pipe under roads and in right of way applications, but he wants it to be an option for driveways.

“It can be installed correctly and we need to provide the option to our constituents,” he said. “Yes, it’s only $100 more for concrete, but I’ve got people in my district who can’t put two pennies together.”

Driveway permit discussion

County Engineer Marc Massey had initially asked commissioners if they were interested in issuing permits to homeowners who request a driveway pipe. He explained the permit would be free, but homeowners would be required to sign a document signifying they understand the risk associated with installing a plastic pipe.

Massey told commissioners going that route would require more work for the Engineering Department because the pipe would have to be inspected.

District 3 Commissioner Jason Black recommended making the process formal, but wasn’t necessarily in favor of requiring homeowners to receive a permit. He’s also in favor of eschewing plastic pipe completely.

“I would like to take that option away, not because I want people to pay more but because we know the background of plastic pipe,” he said. “We need to put it to rest and be done with it. … We just need to get on the same page.”

The commission meets at 10 a.m. Monday, April 1, at the Clinton Street Courthouse Annex.