Resident tells Eagan council contractor failed to follow work‑zone safety standards on Covington Lane

A resident told the Eagan City Council on May 20 that McNamara Construction failed to follow required work‑zone safety practices while performing a road revitalization project on Covington Lane, exposing motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and construction workers to risk.

The resident, speaking during the meeting’s public comment period, said the contractor “failed to supply the necessary advanced warning signs, place them in the appropriate spots, failed to cone off their work areas, and [did not] have flaggers as [were] spotted where needed.” He said work narrowed the road to a single winding lane without separating the work zone from public travel and that crews removed curb ramps without providing temporary ADA access, forcing people with disabilities, bicyclists and pedestrians to enter the work area.

The resident told the council he had confronted company personnel and that, “even after receiving a letter from OSHA filing a complaint of endangering their own employees, they still did nothing.” He said he had contacted city engineers multiple times and that a city inspector was on site while unsafe conditions continued. The resident said he recorded photographs and that at one point he had to act as a spotter to prevent collisions while trucks were backing on an open road.

The resident cited the Minnesota Department of Transportation manual, saying the Minnesota Uniform Traffic Control Device Manual, Part 6, establishes standards for temporary lane closures and traffic control on state, county and city roads and that the contractor did not follow those standards.

Mayor (unnamed) told the resident he could hand documentation to staff and asked that the resident submit the full set of concerns by email to the council. The mayor said, “I’d assume that you and Russ Mathis have had, or have already been in touch, or that you will be in touch soon,” and directed that Russ Mathis report back to the council “on both the background of these, these concerns, and the interactions you have with Dwayne.”

No formal council action on the complaint was taken during the meeting. The mayor’s remarks indicate staff follow‑up was expected; the transcript does not record when or how that follow‑up will be reported.

The council conducted routine business before and after the public comment period. By voice vote the council adopted the agenda as presented and approved the consent agenda; the meeting was then adjourned.

The resident’s comments and the mayor’s direction to have staff return with information are the primary recorded outcomes related to this complaint.