Lagging Fifth Street Road property acquisitions forces city to reconsider plans

 

[February 28, 2019] 

LINCOLN 

At the Tuesday night Lincoln City Council Committee of the Whole, aldermen were asked to consider dumping the Fifth Street Road project.

Mayor Seth Goodman explained that he feels that the end goal of the project is unattainable. He said that while he agrees that the businesses and residents on Fifth Street deserve to have a decent road, the right-of-way parcel holdouts make it impossible for the city to ever complete the project as it is currently designed.

In addition, Mayor Goodman noted that the current design would have a detrimental impact on International Paper Company. He said in considering the losses of business and industry the city has experienced in the last year, he has a problem doing something that he feels could jeopardize the future of the paper company.

The topic of Fifth Street Road was introduced at the meeting due to two discussion items on the agenda. The city was to discuss and decide how to move forward on renewing an intergovernmental agreement with the Logan County Board and also with West Lincoln Township. That agreement, which has been in existence for many years outlines that the entities will work in partnership to improve Fifth Street Road from the Lincoln Parkway intersection westward toward the New Holland-Middletown blacktop.

The county is anxious for the city to make a decision about the agreement because it has set aside just under $500,000 for the partnership with the city and has additional funding for its share of the road improvements that extend beyond the city limits. The county is planning to move forward with its portion of the improvements according to county board member Kevin Bateman.

Bateman, Tuesday night, noted that a wind farm project is about to start that will impact the county portion of Fifth Street Road.

Another topic on the agenda was a discussion and decision on how to move forward with a request from the Crawford, Murphy and Tilly, engineers for the project. CMT is asking an additional $11,744 for design changes. Those changes are reported to be adjustments to the original plan to accommodate some of the needs of the paper company.

Goodman approached the topic of dumping the project by saying that he was not in favor of committing another $12 thousand to the project when there are 13 holdouts on the acquisition of right-of-way property. He said that he can say first hand that there are three of the 13 who have said they will never sell their parcels to the city.

Goodman also expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of CMT. He noted that at least two months ago the firm was told to contact the holdout landowners and at that time, Ward Two Alderwoman Michelle Bauer and Goodman had said they would be happy to go with the firm representatives to speak with these owners. He said to date, to the best of his knowledge, CMT has not reached out to the landowners. He asked Bauer to confirm, and she said she had not been contacted by the firm nor asked to assist in any way.

Dayne Dalpoas asked what the city should then do. He wondered if the city could just scrap the project and be done with it altogether. He also noted that a lot of money has been invested in the project that would end up being money wasted. Goodman said that was true. In addition, Goodman said that the city now owns several parcels of land that he feels confident it will not be able to sell back to the landowners.

City Administrator Beth Kavelman noted that the project is being backed with Illinois Department of Transportation funding, and that could get complicated as well. The city could be asked to return funding to IDOT.

Jeff Hoinacki said that in spite of the current issues, the road has problems that need to be addressed, most importantly the drainage. The road floods quite often. Where there are ditches they are not sufficient to handle the run off. Water backs up into lawns and a few homeowners have reported that the flooding also has an impact inside their homes, particularly in basements.

Tracy Welch said he was in agreement that the city should not pay CMT for additional design work without the commitment from the last 13 parcels. At the same time, he doesn’t want to throw out the agreement with the county and township just yet.

Kavelman said that she had spoken with County Engineer Bret Aukamp and the county Road and Bridge Committee meets on March 4th. She said Aukamp had indicated that the committee would like an answer from the city before that meeting.

In regard to CMT, Welch said that the city should ‘draw a line in the sand” and tell the engineers that they have until a specific date to accomplish the land acquisition. Goodman said he felt like the line in the sand had been drawn two months ago and CMT had not responded.

Steve Parrott said that he felt that CMT was pushing the city toward taking Eminent Domain of the property and that is something he is not willing to do. Goodman agreed saying he would never support taking Eminent Domain.

Parrott said he would support dumping the current project and looking at a new option for upgrading the road. It was also mentioned that looking at a new option would be new designs and subsequently more cost.

Bauer said that she felt the city needed to gather more information before dumping the project. She said she would like to see what has been spent to date, what monies would potentially have to be paid back and what grants could be lost as a result of dumping the project. She noted, “We need to understand the repercussions.” She also noted that she as the ward two alderwoman wants to be able to give constituents a clear answer as to why the city is not continuing the project.

Aldermen went on to discuss how to address the intergovernmental agreement. Jeff Hoinakci suggested asking for a short extension to the agreement perhaps six months or one year.

Heidi Browne said that she would hate to drop the agreement until the council fully understands what the losses would be if it drops the project.

Dalpoas asked when the agreement actually expires. Kavelman said that the expiration date is April 25th but that the county is pushing for an answer now. Dalpoas said he felt this could wait until the next committee of the whole.

Welch said there were questions that the county could answer and he wondered if the city should send someone to the next Road and Bridge meeting. Kavelman said the meeting was to be held on Monday, March 4th and that would be a voting meeting for the city council. Welch said he didn’t feel that mattered. He said as long as there were enough aldermen in the chamber for a quorum the city meeting could proceed, and he felt it was very important for someone from the city to attend that county meeting.

Goodman brought the discussion to an end asking if the consensus of the council was to take no action on these two items at the next voting session, but to wait and discuss them further at the next Committee of the Whole on March 11th. By nod of the head, the aldermen agreed with Goodman’s conclusion.

The expectation of the aldermen is that by the March 11th meeting, they will have been given the information about the monetary impact of dropping the project as well as perhaps information on the cost of starting over on a new, less invasive to landowners, road project.

[Nila Smith]