|
Lincoln asked to make a commitment
for Fifth Street Road Project next year
Send a link to a friend
 [August 22, 2018]
LINCOLN
Monday evening, Lincoln aldermen spent the better part of the first
hour of their council meeting discussing issues pertaining to the
Fifth Street Road Project. On hand to take part in that discussion
were Logan County Engineer Bret Aukamp, Chris Isbell with the
Illinois Department of Transportation, Julie Ship with Hanson
Engineering and Stan Hansen with Crawford Murphy and Tilly (CMT).
Ship was the first to speak Monday night. She is the project
engineer for the project. She reported that Hanson has completed
most of its work with design for the three lane road that would
extend from the Lincoln Parkway intersection westward. She said that
the plan has been reviewed by IDOT, it has been reviewed with the
local utilities and conflicts have been identified and resolved, and
that Union Pacific Railroad has signed off on the plan as well.
Ship told the council that the federal funding that has been secured
for the project since 2009 is in jeopardy of being lost, so she said
it is time for the city to take action to show they are committed to
moving forward with the project.
She said that the city needed to work toward acquiring the remaining
right of way parcels needed and then they would be ready to build.
Stan Hansen of CMT said that currently of the 40 parcels needed the
firm has 19 agreements and 21 parcels are still in negotiation.
He said that some of the stumbling blocks on the acquisition have
included business owners concerned about truck access for their
companies during construction, drainage issues, and also there have
been questions about the warranty deed document CMT is asking
sellers to sign. Hansen said that IDOT has been assisting CMT in
putting together a document that is more suitable to the situation.
Hansen said that CMT also have a few counter offers that are
“pending.” He said that he thought it was time that the city become
more proactive and that one solution might be for City Administrator
Beth Kavelman to get involved with the meetings between CMT and the
uncommitted property owners. He added that there could be a letter
written representing the full city council outlining the city’s
commitment to get the project rolling.
Hansen said that the funding for the project is secure and held in a
state managed multi-year program, but that none of the funds are
slated for use in 2018. He said he wanted to get the funding
allocated for the 2019-20 fiscal year with a start date of July 1,
2019.
Steve Parrott asked Hansen when was the last time he had visited the
city council with an update. Hansen said he had been at the city in
January, and since that time he has secured six agreements for
parcels.
Ron Keller asked about the impact the delay because of landowner
“hold-outs” has had on the total cost of the project.
Ship said the holdouts are putting the entire project at risk. She
said if the project doesn’t move forward, money already expended
with federal funding through IDOT could be requested to be given
back.
She added that in regard to some of the drainage issues, design
changes would cost additional dollars. Hansen said that some of the
improvements to the landowner property such as better driveways or
entrances could be done “in lieu of compensation.”
Dayne Dalpoas asked the pair what it was that they were asking the
city to do now. What was needed to get the project done? Ship said
that the final 21 parcels have to be acquired, and she suggested
that the city council “light a fire” to show people that they are
truly behind getting this project finished.
Michelle Bauer noted that the project is not fully funded. While the
federal funds have been secured, the city has to come up with more
than $2 million for their part. That money is not in the budget for
this year for sure. To get it into the budget for an upcoming year,
the city is going to have to figure out where that money is coming
from.
Hansen said that at the earliest construction bids for the project
could not go out until between June and August of 2019, so the city
would be in a new budget year.
Kavelman noted that she had invited Aukamp and Isbell to attend the
Monday night meeting. Both were present, and Aukamp spoke first
regarding the county’s position on the road.
There is an intergovernmental agreement that the county and city
will work to put the road in and extend it into the county west,
toward the I-55 overpass. The county has set aside $488,000 in its
budget for its share of the project. The agreement between the city
and county is set to expire in 2019. Aukamp said that the county has
held that money in reserve for the past 13 years. Right now, when it
is not clear what the city’s intentions are, he is going to be hard
pressed to encourage the county to continue holding the funds. In
regard to extending the agreement Aukamp said, “I would like to say
yes, but we need to know the project is going somewhere.”
Comments were made that even if the city doesn’t go forward with the
design as presented, there needs to be something done to upgrade the
road. Ship commented that “doing something” other than the current
design would mean a new design would have to be created, and that
would be more money. She said it would mean “basically starting
over” on the entire project.
Chris Isbell with IDOT said that to date the city has expended
$700,000, most of which was reimbursed by federal funds. He said
that if the project dies, the federal money might have to be given
back. He said that with federal fund crunches, he is seeing this
happen. He said the national DOT is asking communities to reimburse
them 80 to 100 percent of the funds spent.
Isbell told the council that the $488,000 the county has in reserve
is not the only thing in jeopardy. In addition to that amount, the
county also has $700,000 in federal funding on hold, so that is a
total of $1.1 M that is in jeopardy.
Isbell had noted that the city and county are now in year 20 of
trying to get the Fifth Street Road Project done. He said that the
project was first proposed in 1998. Funding was not secured that
year, but was within a few years after that.
[to top of second column] |
Tracy Welch asked if the needs of the community were the same now as they had
been 20 years ago. He said he wondered why the city was considering the project,
did they know that the community really needs it? He went on to ask why the city
couldn’t pursue a plan that did not require land acquisition, such as a “nice
resurfacing project” and stop there.
Welch added that he would never vote for eminent domain, and with the landowners
holding out, the city’s ability to move the project forward was at risk. He said
that if for the last 15 years landowners have said no, why anyone would think
they will say yes now. Ship countered that the land acquisition portion of the
project has only been ongoing for three years.
It was noted that dropping the existing project could result in loss of funding,
reimbursement of expenses, and new expenses to start over with a new plan. It
was also noted that the project as it is now gives the county something nice to
connect to with its project, so the city’s decision is impacting not just the
city, but the county.
Bauer wondered then if the discussion about the Fifth Street Project should be a
joint discussion with the city and county. She said, “We do need to remember
this is all one surface.” Aukamp said that he felt a joint discussion would be a
good idea, and Bauer said the city and county need to look at all the options
together.
Aukamp also added a warning to the city that to pay back expended federal funds,
scratch the current design for a new one, and starting over. He told the
council, “You may end up paying the same amount of money for a lesser road.”
Parrott said he wasn’t clear on why Ship and Hansen were here at this time. He
said he would understand better what it was they were asking of the city, if the
parcels had all been secured. He said it felt like the two were asking the city
to apply pressure to the landowners to get the parcels secured.
Heidi Brown asked about the budget for the project. City Treasurer Chuck Conzo
said that the current budget is carrying $170,000 for the land acquisition, but
that is all. He said the balance would have to be budgeted in the future years.
He said possibly it could be budgeted across two years.
Isbell said the federal funding was on reimbursement, so if billing were done
over two or even three years, the city could stretch it out. Isbell said that
the state has reached the point that it needs to know now the city’s intentions.
He said the $7 M on hold from the federal government could be redistributed to
other projects within the state.
Dayne Dalpoas asked what would happen if the city said yes it was going to move
forward, then Hansen was unable to acquire the 21 parcels. Hansen said the
solutions would be either a condemnation option or a “final resolution.” Dalpoas
asked what that meant? Hansen said either offer more money or more improvements
to the landowner property.
Parrott said that there were guidelines on how far the offers can go. Hansen
said that is correct. There are guidelines for land acquisition, so landowners
cannot ask for an enormous settlement and expect to get it. He said offers have
to be based on fair market value and appraised value.
Welch asked Isbell how long the federal funding could be held in limbo. Isbell
said that the money has been in reserve for several years. There is generally a
20 year window for expending the funds, but every time the city spends money on
the project it restarts the time clock.
Jeff Hoinacki asked if the city and IDOT needed to file for extensions for the
project. Isbell said yes and that would be an action item for the city.
Dalpoas said he felt that the city and county needed to get together and “hammer
it all out.”
Mayor Seth Goodman asked how often Hansen is in contact with the landowners.
Hansen said they try not to be too overbearing but generally reaching out about
every three months. Goodman also asked why there are 19 agreements reported by
Hansen, but only 13 have been recorded as land transfers. Hansen said that those
other six are the ones that there are currently issues with the wording of the
transfer document and CMT is working on that.
As the discussion wound down on Monday evening, Bauer asserted that she feels
the city does need to take a proactive position within the process. She feels it
will add weight to the acquisition process if landowners can see that the
current city council is still committed to the project.
Welch suggested that Kavelman work directly with Isbell and IDOT to work on the
extensions needed and that she also set up a meeting date between the Logan
County Board and Lincoln City Council. Kavelman agreed. The meeting will be open
to the public.
Watch LDN for when that meeting is scheduled.
[Nila Smith]
PAST RELATED
ARTICLES
|
