FORT MADISON – An agreement that would reset the city’s 28E agreement with Lee County regarding roadways that border city limits and county boundaries was shot down unanimously for the Fort Madison City Council Tuesday night.
And Fort Madison Mayor Matt Mohrfeld fired some shots of his own at the county’s handling of the situation, prompting the revisiting of the agreement.
The crux of the problem is drainage concerns the county has on 302nd Avenue near Gethsemane Cemetery where PORT Trail construction work has left water draining across the county’s road and county officials are asking the city to either take over the street, or replace drainage infrastructures that were in place prior to the trail construction.
The two entities have been unable to reach an agreement on the issue and the county has threatened legal action to make the city correct the problem.
As a result, the two sides etched out an agreement that was recommended to the City Council by City Manager Laura Liegois, but Tuesday that recommendation was met with a strong rejection by the council.
The recommendation from Liegois, based on discussions with the city and county staff, would have reset some maintenance of the shared boundary roadways where, on some roads, the county would maintain to include repairs and snow removal, and others, the city would maintain.
The shared roads include 4,000 feet of Henry Ladyn from Hwy. 61 west; 260th Street from Hwy. 61 west 1,650 feet; about 3,700 feet near the intersection of X32 and 302nd Avenue. Those stretches, or about 9,400 feet, would be property within the city that would be maintained by the county. Additional shared roadways the city would maintain under the agreement would have included: 7,000 feet of Ortho Road from Hwy. 61 south to Mississippi River, of which 2,800 feet is city owned, 2,800 feet is county property and 1,400 is on the line; 1,100 feet of Bluff Road on the corporate line; 840 feet of X32 near Ridgewood Drive; 1,400 feet of Iris Lane from Hwy. 61 south of which 725 feet is in the county; and 302nd Avenue from the north intersection of X32 south 2,650 feet to the south intersection.”
The agreement would have been for two years to allow both parties to solidify plans for shared roadways going forward. It also included language for construction projects on the roadways, routine maintenance to include snow and ice removal, spot patching and others, and other special maintenance, and traffic control measures.
A previous agreement has been in place since 1993.
“Why?” asked Councilmember Justin Yager.
“What’s the benefit? Why are we doing it?”
Mohrfeld then explained the history of the dispute saying 302nd near the trail at Gethsemane, has been a seal coat road with minimal ditches. He said partnerships with the county, city, hospital, citizenry generated the PORT Trail, which now include enhancements.
“The bulk of this is through the county, but it does lay some to the city. So there are x number of feet are with the city so we are technically responsible for a portion to the centerline,” he said.
He said the reality is that the city has formal and informal agreements with the county, mostly with regard to snow removal.
“Some are formal where we have a 28E where they take this and we take that and then along the way, in theory, it balances out.”
He said 302nd Avenue has become the controversial portion.
“This whole process was bullsh*t. This was the most unprofessional, inappropriate process I’ve seen since I’ve been mayor,” Mohrfeld said.
“We put in this beautiful PORT trail with pennies from heaven. The hospital gave us $2.5 million to connect Rodeo Park to the rest of our system. We had input from the PORT committee, people, the city, the county. We had a professional engineer and we had it put in by a tremendous contractor,” he said.
Now the community has a wonderful trail, he said, and asks what went wrong.
Now the county is concerned about damages and Mohrfeld said he pushed it back to County Engineer Ben Hull and City Public Works Director Mark Bousselot.
“That didn’t go anywhere and out of that we were approached, or I guess threatened, by the Board of Supervisors to enter into this agreement or face litigation,” Mohrfeld said.
He added to be sued, the city had to be guilty of some damage and that could only be that the city improved the area with a path, and enhanced wellness for the city, the county, and visitors.
“We’re guilty of that. Damn right we are,” he said.
He referenced assistance from fire department outside of city limits, or helping with ambulance calls, or schools needing help with traffic control, the city does it without recourse.
“We don’t throw a fit and we don’t charge them. We are here to serve our people. This whole project is about the health and wellness of our people," he said.
Wednesday morning Morhfeld said he stood by his comments Tuesday night.
“This is just too good of a project for the people of the area to be clouded with this kind of activity. We built a beautiful wellness path, and we have to maintain it. Let’s regain our perspective. The road looks good, and the path is wonderful,” he said.
“If we want a healthy and happy community, these are the things we have to do and we shouldn’t be fighting over a mud puddle that’s there, that was there five years ago. We should be celebrating the success.”
Without the agreement in place, the county could now potentially move forward with a lawsuit against the city to correct the drainage problems. In voting down the agreement the city council is now asking city staff to start reviewing all shared road agreements with the county.
In other action, the council voted 7-0 to approve a letter of support for a brownfields assessment grant that, if awarded, would assist the area in determining areas for development. Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission is applying for the grant on behalf of the city, Lee County, and Keokuk.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here