City officials express frustration over street construction delays and quality issues
The city faces ongoing challenges with recent street paving projects, including unresolved issues on Arjem Street and adjustments to manhole covers on 19th Street that require contractor accountability.
Huntingburg Mayor Neil Elkins and members of the Board of Public Works expressed frustration with the pace of street improvements and the responsiveness of contractors during a recent public works discussion. The conversation revealed problems with multiple ongoing projects and concerns about the efficiency of taxpayer spending.
“We just got to do a better job getting these companies out here to respond to us,” said Mayor Elkins during the meeting.
Board member Kerry Blessinger questioned the work on 19th Street that required all the manholes to be raised after the paving was completed. This also required patching around the manholes.
Mayor Elkins explained the practice is common in street projects, with similar work visible on other streets, including Chestnut Street and along the highway.
Though not stated at the meeting, in a phone conversation on Wednesday, Mayor Elkins confirmed the contractor would reimburse the city for the work done by the street department after the 19th Street paving was completed.
More serious problems emerge on Arjem Street, where officials describe the work as “unacceptable” and requiring complete reconstruction. The street shows multiple soft areas that compromise the pavement’s integrity, which are caused by issues with the substrate.
Board member Dustin Schmett questioned whether Street Superintendent Jason Stamm regularly inspected work sites and communicated problems to contractors in real-time, rather than discovering issues after the project was completed. Stamm was not in attendance as he was out of town for training.
“He did on Arjem,” Mayor Elkins confirmed.
Elkins added that they would not be paying the bill until the work was done correctly. He acknowledged that some of the work will be done at a cost to the city, as the contractor was unaware of the substrate’s quality. This is the second time in the past year that a street paving project has had issues due to poor substrate–two out of 15 paving projects, according to the mayor.
“We’ve got to do better. We will do better. Whatever it takes to do that,” Elkins said during the discussion on Tuesday.
He explained that the city will conduct more core drilling for street work in the future to better determine the status of the substrate before seeking bids for the work.
Another issue raised during Tuesday’s meeting concerned the status of First Street and the plan for repairs following the completion of the wastewater work. Here are two stories on that project.
Citizen James Hopf inquired whether it was necessary to asphalt all the cuts being made on First Street as the work progresses, with a plan to return and repair the street with concrete. He also questioned all the change orders being approved for work being done.
Mayor Elkins explained that the city could not include the costs for the street surface improvement project in the bid for the wastewater work when applying for these types of grants to assist in paying for the work. The state reviews those bids to ensure the city doesn’t overestimate the project’s costs. The state also established acceptable estimated amounts based on the average cost of similar projects in the region.
“They don’t allow us contingency funds on the grants,” he added.
The mayor also stated that they are exploring funding sources to repair First Street after the work is completed.
The mayor noted that the city has been developing plans for street improvements in accordance with the availability of Community Crossing grants and federal funding. He explained that the budget for Community Crossing grants, which cities and towns have relied on for several years to complete these projects, has been cut.
In response to Hopf’s statement about change orders, Mayor Elkins noted that the city typically comes in under the estimated cost on these projects, despite the approved changes and additional costs.
