Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Isanti staff presses county for full cost data after poor hot-patch work on County Road 5
Summary
City staff reported county crews used bulk hot-patching on County Road 5 that scattered rocks and left sidewalks messy; the city will obtain the county’s maintenance costs, Cambridge agreement and patching frequency before deciding whether to request the county to improve work or consider taking on summer maintenance.
Isanti City staff told the Committee of the Whole that county hot-patching on County Road 5 (Heritage Boulevard through the city) produced poor workmanship in some locations and that county officials offered an apology and said they would change future patching methods.
A staff presenter described that County Engineer Justin Bergerson and Maintenance Superintendent Joel Schleicher acknowledged the issues and said future work could include using a tender and rolling to reduce loose material and curbside spill. "They did apologize for the workmanship that had been done," staff said.
Council members pressed staff about whether city public works could assume summer maintenance for that stretch. Public Works staff said the city’s small crew handles water, wastewater and other responsibilities and likely lacks capacity to take on County Road 5 without additional hires. Staff estimated a realistic staffing need of at least two to three additional people for patching and plowing in peak seasons; one councilmember estimated that hiring three positions plus bare-minimum equipment could approach $150,000–$200,000 annually.
Staff further described that the county has an existing maintenance agreement with the city of Cambridge for full maintenance of a roadway inside Cambridge, including plowing, and suggested Isanti request a copy of that agreement as a model. Staff also said the county might reimburse the city for some hot-patch material if the city performed summer maintenance, but that payment for staff time would require county board approval.
Council directed staff to ask the county for a breakdown of current material and labor costs, to obtain records of how frequently the county crews visit that road, and to circulate the Cambridge agreement ahead of the next Committee of the Whole meeting so the council can examine options and costs.
No vote was taken on transferring maintenance at the committee meeting; the next step is data collection and a return to committee for detailed review.
