The Sherburne County Board will be faced with some tough policy decisions in the next few weeks. In March, the board tabled awarding the contract for overlay projects on Co. Rds., 6, 8, 16 and 72 because of policy questions. There were issues about shoulder paving materials, connecting to driveways and narrowing the bituminous surface on reclaim and overlay projects. 

 

Last week at a workshop meeting, County Engineer  Rhonda Lewis gave an overview of the county’s current policy on overlays. She said in order to make the surface a 10-ton road, it requires an additional layer of bituminous - typically between 3.5 and six inches. Than means the paved edge of the road surface becomes one foot narrower in order to maintain the outside slope. Instead of paving that section, the county has been using a foot of crushed recycled bituminous material where the road meets the ditch or outside slope.

 

Some residents have complained about that bituminous material washing onto their lawns. They would prefer using regular soil instead.

 

That’s one of the issues the board will be discussing. Public Works Director John Menter said his department’s recommendation is to use bituminous for safety and to preserve the investment the county has made in that road.

 

“There’s a lot less erosion, it packs better and there’s less maintenance,” said Lewis.

 

Commissioner Felix Schmiesing said there had to be a way to work with property owners.

 

“I don’t have a problem with bituminous where people don’t have lawns,” he said. “But where people are grooming their lawns, I think we should be considerate of them and talk about using a soil shoulder if they’re agreeable to maintaining it.”

 

Bill Kiffmeyer of Clear Lake had an issue with the county’s policy to narrow the roadway every time it did an overlay. He said Co. Rd. 6 is hazardous to drive on with farm equipment because it’s too narrow.

 

“The combine ends up with the outside wheel off the pavement. There’s nothing supporting it,” he said. “It’s a fight to drive along and stay on your side of the road.”

 

He said the county had to consider the width of farm equipment.

 

“The farmer is going to have liability because he’s over the center line,” he said. “I would think the county has liability here.”

 

Alan Peterson, who lives near the junction of Co. Road 6 and 16, agreed with Kiffmeyer.

 

“Co. Rd. 6 is a much more dangerous road. You took a road with a four-foot shoulder and made it a two-foot shoulder,” he said. “As much as many people would like to see farm equipment go back to smaller, it’s not. It’s getting bigger and getting wider.”

 

He said he understood it would cost more to keep the road wider because the county would have to do more work with the outside slopes.

 

“I realize it costs more to regrade, but in my opinion, I cannot believe we should ever be narrowing up a road today,” he said.

 

Menter said they could maintain the width of the road. But there was a cost of about $102,000 per mile added on to the overlay project.

 

“I understand what you’re saying,” he said. “It’s a cost issue and that’s for the county board to decide.”

 

Lewis said it’s also a timing issue. For a reconstruction project, it takes about two years of planning and design before any physical work is done.

 

For overlays it has to be planned a year in advance.

 

“If we need to make changes to our program, at the minimum for a reclaim and overlay we would need to know before the budget is approved the year before,” she said.

 

With road bids already waiting to be awarded, those will be some of the concerns when the board discusses its policies over the next few weeks. Whatever they decide could have implications on future overlay projects throughout the county.