Farmers oppose road reclassification of N. 75th Ave. W.

Property owners who have land along North 75th Avenue West between West 116th Street North and West 108 Street North are not in favor of Jasper County reclassifying the road to a Level B, which would only allow crews to blade it once a year and prohibit any more rock from being applied to the surface.

County Engineer Michael Frietsch said this stretch of North 75th Avenue West was considered a potential Level B candidate due it having no homes located on the road, a low traffic count and a weight restricted bridge. In all likelihood, the county will not replace the bridge any time soon or within the next decade or so.

The eight parcels located along the road are mainly used for farming, and the property owners worried that without maintenance they would have a difficult time transporting harvested crops and navigating heavy machinery through the gravel road. Frietsch did not object to property owners applying their own rock.

“If they want to put three-inch road stone down on that road, as long as I’m aware of it and it’s documented, I’m not opposed to it,” Frietsch said.

However, some property owners were adamant they would not spend a dime on rock that they felt their taxes should pay for. Frietsch noted secondary roads gets 6 cents per every $1 of property tax. He calculated these eight parcels only account for about $474 in property taxes for the secondary roads department.

A farmer who rents ground on North 75th Avenue West told supervisors that never seeing rock again on that road is a “tough pill” to swallow.

Supervisor Thad Nearmyer asked if the secondary roads department could apply one last layer of rock to the road if the supervisors pass the reclassification. Frietsch said if that is what supervisors want, he can do that. But he would not be comfortable putting on anything larger than an inch-and-a-half layer.

Oftentimes, three-inch road stone has a tendency to “float up” and cause problems later on, Frietsch said. He also reminded supervisors that reclassifying the road to a Level C would lower the standards the county would have to meet to replace the bridge. Nearmyer reminded residents that could be a possibility.

“It’s currently a 43-foot span bridge, and if it was gated on both ends and reclassified as a Level C, I’d probably, in my professional opinion, I wouldn’t have a problem throwing a 50-footer in there,” Frietsch said. “So you’re talking $200,000 instead of a three-quarters of a million ($750,000).”

Frietsch noted a 50-foot bridge on a Level C road would also be able to withstand current load standards, allowing farmers to haul their crops across the bridge.

Installing a culvert would be a cheaper route but may be out of the question.

“If you put a culvert in there, being it’s Clear Creek, I don’t know how long that would last,” he said. “You’d have to put a pretty substantial low-water crossing in there to hold it. Because Clear Creek does have a tendency to get up and get fast and get going. Whatever you put up there you gotta make sure it withstands.”

Whether the county reclassifies the road will be decided at the May 27 board of supervisors meeting. Residents will be able to give their final arguments and hear the stances from county supervisors before putting the matter to a vote. Only two affirmative votes are needed to pass the reclassification.