Residents from 75th Ave., Stone Bridge Rd. dominate road hearing

     Two roads/structures in Jones County monopolized the Jan. 26 Secondary Road Construction Program public hearing: 75^th Avenue outside Cascade and Stone Bridge Road outside Monticello.

     Due to an influx of attendees, the Jones County Supervisors moved the hearing to the courtroom on the second floor. The public was invited to not only speak in person, but via Zoom as well.

     The program presented to the public included the following projects:

FY 2022 (accomplishment year)

     • HMA resurfacing with milling on County Road E-34 from 230^th Avenue to Anamosa city limits – $1,750,000

     • Bridge replacement on Buffalo Road – $500,000

     • Twin concrete box culvert replacement on Madison Road – $250,000

FY 2023 (priority year 1)

     • PCC overlay on County Road X-64 from Cedar County to Massillan Road – $4,000,000

     • Grading on 75^th Avenue – $200,000

     • Bridge replacement on Landis Road – $2,750,000

FY 2024 (priority year 2)

     • Grading on 215^th Avenue from 70^th Street to 90^th Street – $650,000

     • Twin concrete box culvert replacement on 200^th Avenue – $250,000

FY 2025 (priority year 3)

     • HMA paving on County Road E-28 – $1,500,000

FY 2026 (priority year 4)

     • Bridge replacement on County Road X-64 – $3,500,000

     County Engineer Derek Snead made several comments on the projects listed. E-34 is the highest-traveled roadway in Jones County.

     “It’s reached its life expectancy,” Snead said.

     Madison Road has had a posted bridge for many years now.

     Buffalo Road also has a posted bridge, but on a paved roadway.

     “It sees a fair amount of traffic,” said Snead.

     X-64 was the very first paved roadway in Jones County in 1964.

     “It’s outlasted its lifespan,” commented Snead.

     75^th Avenue is a seal coat road that needs to be widened and graded.

     The county is working on securing federal grant funding for the Landis Road Bridge project.

     “This is the only way that Jones County could replace a structure like this,” Snead said of the cost associated with the project without grant funding. “The majority would be paid for with federal funds.”

     200^th Avenue has a posted bridge on it.

     “It’s one of the worst in Jones County,” said Snead.

     E-28 is one of the top five highly traveled roads in the county.

     Secondary Roads receives its funding for projects like this in a few different ways: farm-to-market funds, federal STP (Surface Transportation Program) block grants, bridge funding, and LOT (local option tax) funding.

     Aside from the projects listed on the program, Snead said Secondary Roads also takes on several maintenance projects annually as well, which are done in-house, and generally do not require bids.

     Many people present at the hearing wanted to see 75^th Avenue graded, which is in the works, but also wanted to see it returned to a hard-surface road, not gravel, as planned.

     Tom O’Brien said many people who live on 75^th bought or built a house out there knowing they would live on a hard-surface road.

     Supervisor Joe Oswald noted that there are a lot of seal coat roads in Linn County. He asked Snead to look into whether landowners could collaboratively pay to have their road seal coated again. “Would there be interest in that?” Oswald proposed to those present.

     Those who have lived on 75^th for quite some time said they initially paid for a hard-surface road in the very beginning. They can’t see paying for it again, especially after the county tears it up for a grading project.

     Supervisor Jeff Swisher said he would like to see the county patch 75^th rather than go backwards and turn it into gravel.

     “I don’t agree with that,” he said.

     Supervisor John Schlarmann did not want to see landowners having to pay for a hard-surface road.

     Snead said the outside edges of 75^th are breaking up, and the roadway needs to be widened for adequate traffic.

     “It’s a poorly designed road with steep grades,” he said. “Safety is a big concern. Are you comfortable with a narrow road and a decent surface to last another four or five years?”

     Snead said there are also drainage issues along the 75^th corridor as well.

     One resident commented that the road does not need to be widened because there’s not a lot of tractor traffic that uses the road. Another commented that going back to a gravel road would lower property values.

     Residents asked how much it would cost the county to seal coat the roadway again. Snead shared a quote from 2018 at $65,000. But that doesn’t include $200,000 for grading, which would need to be done before a new surface went down.

     Assistant Engineer Todd Postel explained that the county has applied surface stabilization on several gravel roads and has seen great success.

     “You’ll get a few more years out of it (the road),” he said.

     Many on 75^th were opposed to the idea.

     Dean Cox, who resides off Stone Bridge Road, said he felt it was a mistake for the county to pave that road over a one-lane bridge.

     “That was not the right solution at the time. I urge you to do something with this problem,” he said of the poor condition of the bridge.

     Stone Bridge Road has been closed to through-traffic since 2017. Cox said the county had three and a half years to come up with a solution and nothing has happened.

     “Keeping it closed is not good for anybody in that area,” Cox added. “It would be nice to have this on your five-year plan.”

     Snead shared several options for the county, as well as the costs associated:

     • Short-term repairs to the existing structure, keeping with its historic significance, but still restricting vehicle traffic – $125,000

     • Remove the existing structure and build a new structure in its current location – $750,000

     • Long-term replacement of the existing structure – $500,000

     • Build an adjacent structure off-alignment to the existing one, with no repairs to the current structure – $1.3 million

     “There are pros and cons to all alternatives,” said Snead.

     Cox said he’d like to see the existing bridge re-opened for visitors and something built around it for traffic.

     “I urge you to work on it and try to accomplish something,” he told the supervisors.

     Both Swisher and Schlarmann agreed with Cox, saying they want to see Stone Bridge restored for tourist reasons.

     David Dusanek who also lives on Stone Bridge Road said his family has enjoyed living in that area for the beauty of their surroundings, including the bridge.

     “We’ve watched the arches crumble more and more,” he said, commenting on the lack of maintenance to the road and bridge over the years. “That bridge as it looks now doesn’t fit the décor of rural Iowa. You can’t even ride a bike over the top anymore. We’d love to see some sort of restoration.”

     Kendy Bohlken spoke via Zoom, saying the bridge has been repaired and modified over the years, money spent on an historic structure that has lost its historic nature.

     “The community deserves that road to be open,” she said, wanting to see a plan that’s fiscally responsible. “The bridge has lived its life. It’s not safe to function in this era. It’s time for it to go.”

     Bohlken said the bridge needs to be managed, again, by the county and not the Historic Preservation Commission.

     “We were led to believe they would financially take care of it,” she said of JCHPC’s plans to raise money to restore Stone Bridge. “Nothing has been done.”

     Following the lengthy public hearing, the board of supervisors did not take action to approve the proposed five-year program.