City of Lincoln asks for “Plan B” for Fifth Street Road
Increased costs and expired easement agreements give aldermen pause

 

[December 14, 2022] 

Tuesday evening, Lincoln aldermen learned of the impact the recent explosion in inflation will have on the Fifth Street Road Project, if they continue moving forward with what was referred to by Mayor Tracy Welch as the “Cadillac Plan” for the road.

In addition, they were told 17 of the Temporary Easement Agreements along the right of way have expired and will have to be re-negotiated.

This led to aldermen by nod of the head, asking City Street Superintendent Walt Landers to come up with a “Plan B,” for the road that would not require the easements and would improve the condition of the road but at a lesser cost.

The evening began with Bryce Beckstrom of Hanson Engineering and Amber Knox of Crawford Murphy and Tilly coming to the speaker’s table to share updates about the project.

Beckstrom reported that the final stages before letting out the construction phases of the project are at hand, with the city needing to make decisions about moving forward in relation to the cost of the project. He said that the stark increases in material and labor costs have caused the firm to re-evaluate the city’s share of the cost. Several years ago, it was estimated that the city would need to come up with $3 to $4 million out of pocket to go along with funding provided by grants from the Illinois Department of Transportation and other government programs.

Now, the estimated out of pocket costs have doubled to approximately to about $8 million.

City Treasurer Chuck Conzo said that the city couldn’t come up with that kind of cash without help. He said the best solution would be to investigate issuing a bond for the amount needed and spread the payback over a 20-year period. If the city chose to take that route, the annual payment for the bond would be around $600,000.

Knox spoke about the Temporary Construction Easement agreements. She reported that there are still four agreements unsigned, but with verbal confirmation that they would be in the future. However, the big issue in front of the council regarding the easements is that 17 of the 21 that have been signed and payments issued to the landowners have expired and will have to be re-done. She told the council that she would go back to the 17 and ask the landowners to extend the easements without further compensation, but the odds were that some, if not all, would want additional payments for a new easement agreement.

In the council chambers, all eight aldermen were present. The left side of the chamber consisting of Aldermen Kathy Horn, Kevin Bateman, Tony Zurkammer and Rob Jones was silent during the meeting and discussion. Questions and concerns came from the right side of the room with aldermen Rick Hoefle, Wanda Lee Rohlfs, Sam Downs, and Steve Parrott speaking.
 

Hoefle was the first to say that he felt that this was a project that had gone on too long with no results and now he was gravely concerned about the fact the city had so much work to do over, and so much more money to invest out of pocket.

He said that he had in the past spoken about “shutting it down” and was told if the city did that the state would probably never give the city grant funding again. He said, “But, this is ridiculous.” Knox said that in part the issue was that the city had opted not to use eminent domain tactics to secure the easements, which gave the power to the landowners in the negotiations and slowed the process.

Knox had reported that there are still four unsigned agreements. Parrott said it seemed to him that CMT had reported the same thing a year ago. He wondered when the last time was that anyone had actually signed an agreement. Knox said the last agreement signed was about one month ago.

Hoefle questioned the total cost of the project. He said that it was his understanding that the $8 million was matching funds for approximately $16 million in total cost, and that money was to be invested in about 1.6 miles of road. He said he did not know that he could support such an expenditure for such a small amount of roadway.

Beckstrom had noted that the firm could be ready to start the letting process for construction mid-year 2023. Parrott said that considering the time it has taken to secure the easements and considering that all those easements now must be re-done, he didn’t believe it would be likely that the city could move on to letting the project by mid-2023.

Rohlfs asked what the cost to the city would be if they council voted to abandon the project. Beckstrom said the city would have to give back funding that had been reimbursed to date to the granting agencies. He said that he had a spreadsheet showing that cost would be a little over $1 million.

Rohlfs said she was trying to figure out what to do. She said the road does need repair, but at what cost?

Beckstrom said that certainly, if the city chose to eliminate the big project, and simply do a reconstruction or restoration of the current road, that would cost less money.
 

Same Downs said he had been a supporter of the Fifth Street project, and was not necessarily against it now, but his concerns are more about the drainage issues that the improvement of the road.

He said he would need a lot more information before abandoning the project, and suggested the city devise a “Plan B” before deciding to reject the current plan.

Landers said that if the city did let go of the current plan, the road would be addressed in the same manner as any other street project. He added that the road is structurally sound, though it does need attention. He said all this could be done for considerably less money than the current proposal. He was asked how that would impact the budget. He said the stretch of road would have to be added to the list of roads for the next season and budgeted into the amount permitted for road work.

Landers spoke about the drainage issue saying that the city has secured property to address the drainage issues that are impacting primarily Westminster Drive and Canterbury Lane. He said the city might need to pay for some engineering to create a drain plan to correct the issues, but that could be done.

Welch also reported to the council that IDOT and other granting agencies “are getting impatient with this project.” The question was put to the council as to what they next step was going to be. Downs said he would like to see a plan ‘B” before abandoning the original. He said he didn’t want to say no to the original without knowing what the next step would be.

Rob Jones did speak toward the end of the conversation, saying that many had referred to this project as ongoing for more than 20 years. He said he felt like it was more like 40 years, and here the city was still debating it. He said it was what it was, but why wasn’t the project done 40 years ago?

Rohlfs said she was concerned about whether the city implemented plans would be suitable to accommodate the industrial traffic on the road. Landers said that for the most part the industrial traffic was not supposed to be on that road. He said that Sysco and others were utilizing Heitman Drive and Malerich Drive. There are a few businesses located along that road, a trucking company, and the paper factories, for example, that used it, but stone quarry traffic and other heavy vehicles not using that stretch of the Fifth Street.

As the discussions concluded, Landers was asked to create “Plan B” and bring it before the council for review. Welch said when Landers does come back with a plan, the council will then decide how to move forward.

It is expected that the new plan will be presented to the council after the first of the year.

[Nila Smith]