Waseca County and city of Waseca vote on road projects

Waseca County and the city of Waseca both discussed and voted on road projects at their May 7 Board of Commissioners and City Council meetings.

Waseca County awarded a contract for the pavement resurfacing of County Road 103 (330th Avenue) while the city of Waseca voted on an assessment plan for the 11th Avenue NW rehabilitation project.

County Road 3

The pavement condition of County Road 3 between County State Aid Highway 4 and Minnesota State Highway 13 lead to the county planning on resurfacing the road due to its deterioration. Construction plans were made for a project to resurface the road and bids for the project were opened on Thursday April 25.

The county received three bids for the project, with two of them being under the engineer’s estimate of $514,302.05. The third bid was just 0.10% under the estimate.

Crane Creek Asphalt was the lowest bidder with $463,618, which is 9.85% under the engineer’s estimate. Waseca County Public Works Director Jim Kollar recommended the county board to award the contract and project to Crane Creek Asphalt at the May 7 Waseca County Board of Commissioners meeting.

One of the obstacles of the project was the railroad tracks that go through the road. Kollar was aware of this and obtained a right of entry from the railroad and included that in the bid documents for the contractors. The contractor will work around the railroad tracks as they will stay since they are still active.

Kollar noted to the commissioners that he applied for a local Road Improvement Program(LRIP) grant for the project, but was unsuccessful.

Commissioner Brian Harguth wondered if it would be better if the county waited and held the project off and try for a LRIP grant next year. Kollar stated that as of right now, there is no LRIP funding next year from the state as the bonding bill is up for debate in the Minnesota legislature.

Commissioner De Malterer, who motioned award the contract to Crane Creek Asphalt, said that it is a necessary project. The average daily traffic for the road is 418 vehicles per day, and Malter pointed out that is.a significant amount of traffic.

“There’s no sense of waiting because as you said there is no guarantee of additional funding next year, in fact there’s less chances of it than there was this year,” Malterer said to Kollar about the project and LRIP funding. “One of the reasons why I moved the project is because it is necessary.”

Commissioner Brad Krause seconded Malterer’s motion and the board agreed unanimously to reward the project to Crane Creek Asphalt.

11th Ave. NW

The Waseca City Council voted on the special assessments for the 11th Avenue NW rehabilitation project on May 7. Waseca Director of Engineering Nathan Willey presented the council with three options on how to assess the project.

The assessment plan could be a little different than others the city has done in the past, because the city was awarded an LRIP grant, which is anticipated to cover close to 100% of the project construction costs, as the bid amount for the contractor was already under the engineer’s estimate.

“I was somewhat surprised, but pleasantly surprised, that we did get awarded this project, which is a good thing,” said Willey.

With estimated costs of just $15,000-$30,000 that the city would have to pay for the project, Willey had the council decide on how they wanted to assess residents.

Willey’s first option to the council was the standard special assessment process the city has done in the past with other projects. This includes an assessment rate range of $3.58-$7.16 for residential/duplex residents, $5.46-$10.92 for multi-family residents, and $6.14-12.28 for business and tax exempt properties.

For option 2, the city would recover approximately 17% of the estimated $15,000-$30,000 in general fund and LRIP grant ineligible costs. This option would provide the city’s general fund with an estimated $2,600-$5,100 in reimbursement.

Option 3 would not have the city assess the project at all and not recover any reimbursement to the general fund.

“I don’t really have a recommendation,” Willey said to the council. “I just wanted to present this information and just ask for your direction and see if you have any questions.”

Council member Jeremy Conrath was the first on the council to speak about the matter. He stated that he thinks option 3 should be out of the question, due to residents who had to pay for past and current road projects.

“When you talk to people that are on 8th Avenue and soon probably on 8th Street, this isn’t going to be fair to them or people that have been on 3rd Street,” Conrath said about residents who live on streets that have other rehabilitation projects done on them. “For me, option 3 is out, because that’s not being fair to the other people being assessed.”

Conrath then said that he was 50/50 on option 1 and 2. Council member Stacey Schroeder agreed with Conrath on how there should be consistency with the assessments.

Council member John Mansfield had a different take on the matter, but he ultimately agreed to go with either option 1 or 2.

“I would like to see option 3 applied universally across the board, and I think I’ve already made that clear in other meetings,” Mansfield said. “However, in all fairness to the rest of the citizens, they’re getting a big break off of this one so it’s a very minimal amount to assess them.”

The rest of the council agreed that it would not be fair to go with option 3 for the project.

“I guess on the surface when you look at it right off the bat, it’s all sunshine and rainbows,” council member James Ebertowski said about option 3. “But there’s a little bit of unknown if you go down that road as of right now with looking to the future, if we were to explore that option of making that a universal thing where we kind of collectively as a community put into the roads, because we all drive on them. But I think that’s uncharted territory as far as that goes for now.”

The majority of the council was undecided if they would want to go with option 1 or option 2. Ebertowski was the first member to make a motion on the decision with him choosing option 1. Schroeder seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, with Mayor Randy Zimmerman having an excused absence at the meeting.

The money the city will receive from assessments that will not go toward the project will go back into the city’s general funds and could be used for future projects.