 The letters required that resolutions be passed saying that the city
would accept partial financial responsibility for work scheduled to
be done later this year by IDOT.One letter addressed resurfacing
of Fifth Street from Evans to Keokuk and included placing traffic
lights at the intersection of Fifth and College. The letter also
stated that the city would be responsible for a portion of the cost
of installing the signals.
At the previous workshop, Alderman David Wilmert questioned how
this had come about, and was told by Tracy Jackson, city street and
alley superintendent, that it was the result of a request made a few
years ago.
At the suggestion of then-Ward 2 Alderman Verl Prather, the
council had agreed to request a study from IDOT to see if a traffic
control device was warranted.
At the end of the meeting, Wilmert, who is the newest Ward 2
alderman, and Alderwoman Kathy Horn from the same ward said that
they wanted the public to voice their opinion on the matter.
At this week's voting meeting the resolution was read and the
motion to approve it was made by Alderwoman Marty Neitzel.
The discussion that followed indicated that the majority of the
council is not in favor of placing a traffic light at that
particular intersection.
Alderwoman Melody Anderson was the first to speak up. "I'm going
to be voting no on this," she said.
"I don't have any problem with the road improvements, the
milling, patching, resurfacing," she said. "(As for) the signal at
Fifth Street and College, I don't know where all this was initiated
in terms of whether there was an alderman at that time that pushed
it, but the consensus that I have heard back -- and this isn't my
ward, but I've still heard input -- is that they really don't want
that signal."
She continued, "As for the money that it would cost us, I would
rather we use that for road improvements."
Alderman David Wilmert commented: "That has been my feedback as
well. It caught me by surprise, being new to the council. Kathy
(Horn) and I decided to do some polling."
Wilmert went on to say that the majority of the people he heard
from were opposed to the light. Wilmert also suggested that perhaps
there was a need for a light on Fifth Street, but just not at that
particular intersection. He suggested that it might be wiser to
place a traffic light at one of the intersections closer to the
school. Wilmert concluded that he, too, would be voting no.
Horn said that she, too, would vote no on the motion.
"This is my ward, and I'm very interested in what the people have
to say about this," she said.
She recounted that many of the people she had heard from in the
last week were confused about how this had come about. Horn said
that the discussion was before her time on the council, but that as
she understood it, IDOT had said that the intersection did not
warrant a signal.
Alderman David Armbrust asked city engineer Mark Mathon to verify
that the proposed signal would be a "car-triggered" signal. Traffic
on Fifth would only be stopped when vehicles were at the
intersection on College, waiting to turn or pass through. Mathon
said that, yes, that was the case.
Armbrust then recounted that there are many times when it can
take several minutes to get out onto Fifth from College.
Anderson said that one could say the same thing about the
intersection of Fifth and Union.
Alderwoman Stacy Bacon said that she, too, thought that a stop
was needed on Fifth Street, but for safety concerns, it would be
better placed near the (Jefferson Street) school.
Mathon said that he wanted to clarify that when the study was
done by IDOT, the warrant study showed that except for actual
traffic count, which was low, the intersection did qualify for the
light.
Anderson asked if they could exclude the light and approve the
resurfacing.
Mathon said that if the city vetoes the light, he's really not
sure what will happen to the rest of the proposal.
[to top of second column] |
In city attorney Bill Bates' absence, Blinn Bates was asked by
Alderman Buzz Busby if the paragraphs regarding the light could be
stricken from the resolution.
Bates indicated that what might have to be done would be
submitting a counteroffer to IDOT. He said that they would not be
able to accept the letter of intent in part, so the city would need
to propose a counteroffer.
Mathon also suggested that refusing this letter of intent could
have consequences down the road.
"If the city were to say, ‘We will participate save for the
lights at Fifth and College,' in the future they (IDOT) may say
signals are now required there and it's on your dime," Mathon said.
He qualified his statement by saying, "How founded this concern is,
I'm not sure."
"At this point, I'm not willing to take that consideration that
may be unfounded to go against the wishes of my ward and the people
who have responded," Wilmert said. "So we'll wait for that day as
far as I'm concerned."
Neitzel said that she, too, has experienced long waits trying to
get out onto Fifth. She also noted that she thought it would be best
to stop traffic before it gets to the school. She concluded that she
would be voting yes to the stoplight.
Wilmert said that he felt like they were being pushed into making
a hasty decision. He respectfully asked that the council vote down
the motion and take a little more time to investigate the situation.
Mayor Keith Snyder said that it wasn't anyone's intent to push
the resolution through without due consideration, but that IDOT had
issued a timeline that the city was expected to adhere to.
The council discussed whether or not they could change the
resolution and the letter, and it was decided that they would have
to wait until next week's meeting to make any further changes.
The motion on the floor to approve the resolution was voted down
7-2.
Those who voted against the resolution and consequently the
traffic signal were Aldermen Jeff Hoinacki, Turner, Wilmert, Bacon,
Anderson and Horn. Neitzel also changed her vote from yes to no,
leaving only Busby and Armbrust voting in favor of the light.
Alderwoman Joni Tibbs was absent for this week's meeting.
The second IDOT letter that required a resolution from the city
was for resurfacing work to be done on Route 10 from Kickapoo to
Pulaski. Included in the work will be repaving of parking lanes, for
which the city will bear the cost.
Funding for the city's portion will come out of motor fuel tax
revenues and will total approximately $19,000.
This resolution was approved by unanimous vote.
[By NILA SMITH]
Past related articles
|
