Elkader Council hears public concern, makes decision on Carter Street error
By Willis Patenaude, Times-Register
The Sept. 13 Elkader City Council included public comments regarding Alliant Energy’s decision to turn the power off and discussion on how to proceed in the aftermath of a paving error during the Carter Street project.
The public comments came from Julie Doeppke of American Family Insurance on Main Street, who first made it a point to thank the fire department and community members who helped during the recent flood.
She stated her intent was “not to cause a ruckus,” however, Doeppke was displeased with the “lack of communication” from Alliant Energy regarding its decision to turn the power off early in the morning during the flooding. While the flood was considered minor, Doeppke said it was “brutal to businesses.”
Council member Peggy Lane also mentioned concerns about the short notice prior to power being shut off. The issue prompted Lane to suggest the city have a conversation with Alliant about providing more time to businesses and residents to prepare. Even mayor Josh Pope lamented the lateness of the decision, while council member Bob Hendrickson said businesses could form a group to come up with a series of solutions.
“If we help those businesses, then that helps the town,” Hendrickson said.
An Alliant Energy representative was contacted about the decision to shut off the power, but did not respond in time for publication.
When it comes to Carter Street, council members met with MSA representative Jake Huck at the construction site prior to the meeting to address the error and possible solutions. Three were noted: removing the curbs and removing the excess and adding to the other side; staying the course and continuing with the current alignment until the intersection; or phasing in a correction.
According to city administrator Jennifer Cowsert, MSA and the contractor both favored staying the course due to a variety of factors.
“Removing and repaving a section would be disruptive to the residents and they already dealt with construction once; it could also affect the overall life of the street,” she said. “Phasing it in would be OK, but would be a bad end result. In the future, it would be odd to have one end of the street ‘X’ feet from the sidewalk and the other end different. Staying the course keeps the construction schedule on track. It does affect the residents who were concerned about the space between the curb and the sidewalk being reduced.”
The council opted for staying the course, when member Daryl Koehn “moved to continue with the current street alignment, bringing it back to the planned alignment at the intersection and to consider retaining funds from the contractor at the end of the project.”
Most of the residents who commented on the project, while upset at the error, opted not to undergo further construction and simply resigned themselves to the alternative of staying the course. The error itself, according to Huck, is under further investigation.
In an interview with the Times-Register, Huck stated, “MSA has requested they further investigate and document how, during the paver set-up process, the error was made and we plan to provide an update to the city council once more is known.”
However, after the meeting, one council member said an engineer was on site while the error occurred, leading them to question how it was missed. In response to this inquiry, Huck confirmed an MSA engineer was on site during most of the paving operations, though he added, “All electronic information and field control provided to the general contractor and paving subcontractor by MSA was accurate. The contractual obligation to complete the project in conformance with the project plans is solely the general contractor and any of their selected subcontractors.”
The issue is compounded by the fact that, according to Huck, this type of mistake is rare.
“This is the first time I or any one at MSA that I have spoken with have had a roadway center line shifted by a contractor using stringless paving technology,” he said.
Council member Tony Hauber expressed concern at the lack of an answer to the error.
“I am concerned that we can’t identify where the problem occurred and what went wrong,” he said.
The error also prompted Hauber to address the issue of compensation due to the financial impact. He argued the contractor should take this into consideration since the project will not be completed to the original specifications, and this should result in the city getting a reduction on the final cost. On this point, both Koehn and Huck mentioned this could be done at the end of the project, with Koehn adding that he hopes MSA watches the contractor “closer on the next phase.”
Regarding the likelihood that the city would receive compensation at the end of the project, Cowsert simply stated, “I don’t know if I can make a good guess on that.”
In the interview, Huck was asked a similar question. “That will depend on a number of factors, not the least of which is how receptive the general contractor is to the requested compensation if the city chooses to do so at the end of the project,” he replied.
