Dunn County approves final contractor pay, utility permit and directs road crew to surface troubled stretch of Massey Road

Dunn County commissioners on Jan. 8 approved a final pay request for a road contractor, accepted a utility permit, and voted to have county crews place surface material on the west half‑mile of Massey Road.

The commission approved the final pay request for the contractor listed in the meeting materials as Gray Tech. The amount appeared inconsistently in the transcript (two different totals were read during the meeting); the board carried the motion by roll call. The county also approved a utility permit for an underground utility that county staff said will not affect the adjacent road project.

The board spent substantial time on an extended public discussion and staff briefing about recurring maintenance and drainage problems on Massey Road, centered on a half‑mile stretch near the west section line that residents said floods and requires repeated private maintenance. After hearing from Road Department staff and property owners, the commission voted to instruct the Road Department to smooth ditches, seed back slopes and place scoria (surface material) on the first west half‑mile in spring when crews are able to get to it.

Chair (unnamed) moved the motion to direct the Road Department to perform the work in spring; Commissioner Heiser seconded. The board recorded a roll‑call vote in which Commissioners Heizer, Olsen, Clement and the chair voted yes; the motion carried.

Resident David Tormach (transcribed “Mr. Tormach”) and another property owner, identified in the record as Burwick, spoke during the discussion, saying the road has been difficult to maintain and asking the county to make the section reliable for regular traffic. Road staff and commissioners discussed options including hauling dirt, regrading back slopes, installing culverts and placing surfacing, and estimated that completing a 16‑foot‑wide surface for three miles would take about 3,000 cubic yards — but the motion limited work to the initial problematic half‑mile.

The utility permit acceptance was made by motion and second; the board voted unanimously. Road staff said the permit was for an underground installation between Section 8 and Section 7 and would not affect the ongoing road work.

Clarifying details in the record include inconsistent contractor and amount references: the contractor was referred to as “Gray Tech,” “Grama Tech,” and “Great Tech” in different places in the transcript; a pay request amount was read as $44,047.43 in one place and later as $44,057.43 when the motion was stated. Commissioners and staff did not correct or reconcile the two figures on the record.

The commission concluded the item by instructing the Road Department and the road portfolio holders to coordinate with residents and return with any further recommended work on the remainder of the 3‑mile route.

Ending: The road projects update portion of the meeting continued with additional project briefings but no additional formal votes on other individual projects.