Jasper County calls off letters gauging cost-share interest on feasibility study

Supervisors received negative feedback from neighbors living on Iowa Street regarding their proposal to enter into a cost-share agreement for a feasibility study on the closed bridge over the North Skunk River. Letters were intended to be sent last week to gauge interest, but now it seems like that idea is scrapped.

Newton News reported on the board of supervisors considering the study last week before officials ever drafted the letter. Residents attended the Oct. 28 board meeting and told supervisors they were offended the county would even consider asking them to pay for the approximately $15,000 study.

Others were disappointed to learn about the idea from a newspaper article rather than the supervisors themselves. The idea was brought up during the Oct. 21 work session, and the subsequent story caused a mild uproar online. Supervisors said they were just trying to do everything they could for the neighbors.

Supervisor Thad Nearmyer explained the letters were not going to say residents had to pay for the study, but rather asked if they would be interested in splitting costs. Nearmyer said the county engineer had already exhausted his efforts in finding a solution; the study would give an outside entity a chance to do so, too.

“We were encouraged to think outside the box,” Nearmyer said to neighbors during the most recent work session. “We had an outside-the-box idea. If this is the neighborhood saying they don’t want that option, then that’s fine. We can continue to look for other options.”

Dawn Bollhoefer, who lives along Iowa Street, advocated for having an objective third party take a look at the bridge, but she was seemingly against neighbors paying for it. Supervisor Brandon Talsma defended the county engineer, saying he does have an objective view and had tried to find grant funding for the bridge.

“A bridge that has to be replaced has to meet certain standards,” Talsma said. “The standards are not set by us. They are set by the federal department of transportation and the state department of transportation and the Iowa (Department of Natural Resources).”

But Talsma explained the reason supervisors asked about the feasibility study is because they were asked directly about it by Iowa Street residents. While supervisors were OK moving forward with a letter, Talsma still had reservations because he worried the study would be redundant and start a chain reaction.

“If we pay for a feasibility study for this bridge, we will then immediately have at least five more people coming in and requesting feasibility studies on their bridges, too,” Talsma said. “I know of five people off the top of my head that will come to us within a matter of months demanding the exact same thing.”

Mindy Adkison pleaded that residents are concerned about their safety knowing there is only one way into the neighborhood in case of an emergency. Talsma said that is why they reached out about the cost-share proposal, but he stressed the supervisors were reasonably confident all solutions had been exhausted.

Nearmyer said, “We’re trying. As Brandon indicated, we wouldn’t have to keep having these discussions but we agree you guys have a problem you want fixed and we’re trying to find ways. So far there’s no super good way to fix the bridge. I don’t know — short of a (new) bridge — will work for you.”

FURTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Public hearings were held before supervisors made any formal decision on the bridge closure and removal. They knew a number of the 16 or so households would not like the idea, but the bridge had grown old and was beyond repair. Replacing it would have been an expensive undertaking.

If the traffic count had been higher or if it was classified as a farm-to-market route, then in all likelihood the bridge could have been replaced. But it didn’t meet those parameters. Still, residents argued the removal of the bridge posed a safety risk as it would remove any other route in and out of their neighborhood.

The only other way in was through a railroad crossing, which neighbors said makes frequent prolonged stops. State law only allows trains to be stopped for up to 10 minutes at a time, but residents said they have experienced up to 40-minute delays. Maybe even longer.

In response, Jasper County decided to leave out a camera to track the crossings, but the removal of the bridge was still inevitable. The county was liable for any potential dangers or disasters, and the bridge was showing serious signs of deterioration. Residents fought hard to find alternatives but were unsuccessful.

The county attempted a number of times to find additional funding streams and grants for the bridge, but it was also unsuccessful.

Supervisors were encouraged by neighbors to get creative and think outside the box. When the supervisors received a letter complaining about them ordering a feasibility study for a proposed bridge over T-38, they took the complaint seriously and gauged board interest about ordering a feasibility study.

While they all believed the study would likely tell them what they already knew, they were open to the idea of alternative solutions. Supervisor Doug Cupples was uneasy with the idea, saying the cost-share should be primarily covered by the county and that some neighbors might take offense to it altogether.