Cannon Falls approves assessments and awards contract for $1.58M 2026 street and utility project

The Cannon Falls City Council on May 19 adopted the assessments for the 2026 street and utility improvement project and approved awarding the construction contract to the low bidder, Fitzgerald Excavating, paving the way for work to start in June and finish by early November.

Darren, who identified himself as the assistant city chair, told the council the total project cost is about $1.58 million (oversized trunk piping excluded from assessments). The city will recover roughly 20 percent of the assessable cost—about $300,000—through front‑foot assessments. Using that formula, Darren said individual assessment estimates range from roughly $8,000 for a single residential lot to about $63,000 for a large industrial parcel; there are 13 lots in the project area. Property owners may defer if they are seniors, permanently disabled or active military; prepayment is available through Nov. 15. Unpaid assessments roll onto taxes with a 3.5 percent interest rate applied for a 10-year term.

The presentation outlined project work on Fourth Street (from Dakota to Washington/County Road 17) and a short block of Ohio Street: the city standard 32‑foot street, new sanitary and water mains where applicable, new services to served properties, and storm sewer work to address standing-water issues on Ohio Street. Darren said oversized trunk mains are being paid separately and will not be assessed to property owners.

The council opened a public hearing for assessment objections. Residents asked questions about the roadway widening to 32 feet, potential tree removal and the project schedule; staff responded that the road width will increase roughly 4–6 feet overall (from about 26–28 feet now), tree removals would likely happen early in the project (June) and that a scheduled railroad crossing window in mid‑June is the limiting factor for the contractor’s sequence of work.

The council then voted to adopt Resolution 2874 to approve the assessments and, by a separate vote, approved Resolution 2875 to receive bids and award the project contract. The minutes record one council opposition on both motions; the transcript does not give a roll‑call breakdown for those votes. Staff earlier said Fitzgerald Excavating was the low bidder on the April bid opening.

The council and staff explained the statutory appeal process under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429: property owners may file written objections at the hearing or later pursue a district court appeal after serving notice to the mayor or clerk. If a court sets aside an assessment the court may order a reassessment; if the court upholds the assessment, court costs could be added to the property owner’s obligation.

Council members and staff also discussed sequencing for nearby alley paving that was on the consent agenda; one property owner had presented a survey showing an alleged 4.5‑foot encroachment and safety concern for vehicle egress. Council members pulled that alley paving item from consent, discussed on‑site staking and survey verification, and later approved the alley work (see votes summary below) with additional staking and potential vegetation removal on the affected alley to ensure the pavement falls within the recorded right‑of‑way.

The contractor’s railroad access schedule (staff said a mid‑June crossing block of about nine days is required) and a targeted completion in the fall were emphasized as reasons to allow construction to begin promptly once contract documents are finalized.

Votes at a glance: Resolution 2874 (adopt assessments) — approved (one opposition recorded); Resolution 2875 (receive bids/award contract to low bidder) — approved (one opposition recorded); Consent agenda (items A–H) — approved after pulling Item F (alley paving) for separate consideration; later action approved alley paving with additional surveying/staking for the contested alley. The transcript does not supply a full roll‑call vote for each motion, but staff recorded a single council opposition in multiple motions.

What comes next: The contractor is expected to mobilize to meet the railroad crossing window; property owners who wish to challenge assessments must follow the Chapter 429 process and serve notice if they intend to pursue a court appeal.