Granton,
from p. 1
reflects that. Originally the project was $1,650,000, but now with the design on paper, it’s looking like $1.9 million, almost $2 million because of the increase in construction costs.”
“We have gone through a lot of economic changes,” added Cedar Corp. representative Greg Adams. “In 2021 there was no inventory, in 2022 it was workforce issues, and now we’re dealing with skyrocketing prices on projects billed this year. There are a lot of things in play that have made these costs change. Had the project gone forward before (in 2023), we would have probably run into some issues with funding because the prices increased so much. It’s hard to say how these numbers will all look in 2024, but we have never seen an increase in one year like this before.”
To be able to move the project forward, the representatives said the village needed to be able to show it can cover its portion of the costs, which will amount to $882,150. The deadline for the village to provide that proof was May 18, so the board reconvened in an emergency meeting on Monday after talking with Citizens State Bank to find out how much borrowing power they had. That amount came out to $728,310, which would take up almost all of the village’s borrowing power during the life of the loan. The rest of the $882,150 amount would be covered by the village’s fund balances.
“It’s a very close thing,” said Village Clerk Joye Eichten. “It takes up all of our borrowing power so there’s nothing left for anything else. However that is not including the principal forgiveness grant or the TAP (Transportation Alternatives Program) grant we are also applying for. We just need to be able to show that we can afford the project without those grants.”
While the board crunched the numbers, Cedar Corp. gave the village three items they could remove from the project, most of which were centered on the section between Fourth and Fifth streets. The board went out to the site at its emergency meeting to go over the deductions and see what effects it would have on Main Street before deciding whether or not to accept any of the changes.
The first deduction, which would have cut $84,000 from the project, was to remove the sidewalk, curb and gutter on the west side of Main Street and narrow the street section from its 39-foot width down to 36 feet between Fourth and Fifth streets. Currently in that section, there are no sidewalks and no curb and gutter on the west side of the street, so removing those items from the project would keep the area nearly the same as it was before the project, but at a narrower road width.
The second deduction offered to the board was to narrow the entire street from Kirk to Fifth from its 39-foot width down to 36 feet, which was expected to save about $40,000. The final deduction was to keep the sidewalks at a width of 4 feet instead of installing 5-foot-wide sidewalks. ADA guidelines require sidewalks to be at least five feet wide, or if it remains at 4 feet, to have a passing area every 200 feet that was 5 feet wide. The reductions in the sidewalk would have cut out $29,000 from the project.
Armed with a measuring wheel and tape, the board surveyed the area in question to help them visualize what the deductions would actually do to the roadway if they were implemented. The board expressed concerns with each one, especially after observing how traffic flow was changed when members of the board parked vehicles at the 36-foot width.
“You’ve got tractors coming through here,” observed Village President John Garbisch. “If they’re coming through here with triples on, you’re not getting cars through here if parking is still on both sides of the street.”
“If we made the street narrower, we would have to move the centerline and have parking on just one side of the street,” added board trustee Bryan Vine.
The board also looked at the sidewalks, discussing potential funding from a TAP grant they had applied for and the future of sidewalks with ADA compliance. For years, the village board has expressed a goal to repair the sidewalks in its limits and to try to expand them to the southern end of the village where there are none. Residents currently walking in those areas are forced to walk along the highway, which is a safety issue they hope to resolve if they receive funding from the TAP grant.
“The TAP grant requires 5 foot sidewalks,” explained Eichten. “And we applied for sidewalks along the whole path from Kirk up to the convenience store. We don’t know yet what we will get from the grant, but if we get something, we can adjust and cut sidewalks out of the Main Street project.”
“We have to ask if in the future, will 5 foot sidewalks be mandatory?” asked Vine. “If we set it at 5 feet now, we would be all set for the future.”
After two hours of going over the street and sidewalks and the impact the deductions would have on each, the board voted unanimously to decline all the deductions and keep the original plan. The village will now have to wait until September to find out if it will receive funding for its project as grants will be announced for the CDBG, principal forgiveness and others sometime during that month.
