Council approves plans to advertise bids for Kurt Street reconstruction after public hearing

The Greenfield City Council voted 4–1 on July 7 to accept plans and specifications and to authorize soliciting bids for the Kurt Street reconstruction project, moving the project into the advertisement phase.

The council approved Resolution 2026-39 after an improvement hearing that drew multiple residents from Kurt Street and a detailed presentation by city engineering staff. The engineer said the construction estimate is $261,972; with 15% design and administration fees, the total base-bid estimate is $301,268.84. Bids are scheduled to be opened July 29, with award considered at the Aug. 4 council meeting and an assessment hearing tentatively set for Nov. 2. The engineer told the council the plan calls for roadway reclamation, a uniform 23-foot rural cross section (two 11.5-foot travel lanes and one-foot shoulders), culvert replacements, a roughly 200-foot subgrade drainage improvement at a low point, and a 3.5-inch initial asphalt lift with a second lift planned the following year.

Why it matters: Staff said the project is driven by a low pavement condition index (PCI 30 in 2025) and substantial structural cracking; if approved and constructed, the city would share half the project cost with the benefiting property owners under the citys past practice and assessment policy.

Residents pressed the council on cost and impacts. Katrina Jones, who said she lives at 7540 Kurt Street, asked whether drainage work would stop spring water from reaching adjacent yards and expressed safety concerns about frequent speeding on the street: "Delivery trucks, garbage haulers, newspaper delivery drivers, and even some neighbors go well over the speed limit. I would say 40 to 50 miles per hour," she said. The engineer replied the project will replace the culvert at the low area and install drain tile within the roadway subbase to improve road drainage but will not perform work on private property; "we're addressing the issues underneath the roadway to protect that investment," he said.

Several residents urged the council to reduce the city's 50% assessment share. One resident questioned whether the city could lower its share to 25% or attach costs to other fees to reduce the burden on retirees and young families; the council acknowledged that assessment policy and equity across projects are policy matters but noted the vote before them was solely to accept plans and advertise for bids. Another resident who submitted a letter, Micah Vannica of 7680 Kurt Street, said he supported the project and the assessment method presented.

Council debate focused on technical clarifications and broader assessment policy. Council members asked whether access to homes—especially during school travel times—would be maintained (staff said access would be phased and maintained), whether a second lift of asphalt would be placed the following year (yes), and how final assessments would change if bids came in higher or lower (final assessments will be set at the assessment hearing once construction costs are known). Council member McSheehy voted no, citing concerns about appraisal independence and consistent methodologies for assessments; the motion passed with four votes in favor.

What happens next: Staff will advertise the project, open bids July 29 and return award recommendations to the council on Aug. 4. If awarded and built, the city will mail final assessment notices and hold an assessment hearing (anticipated Nov. 2) to finalize each propertys share. The engineer emphasized that the $4,184.29 per property figure presented is an estimate based on the current engineers projection and that actual per-property assessments will change with final construction costs.

Sources and attribution: Quotes and figures in this article are drawn from the engineer's presentation and residents testimony during the Kurt Street improvement hearing, as recorded in the council transcript. The vote on Resolution 2026-39 was recorded in roll call; McSheehy voted no, and the remaining voting members voted yes.