County to tap IEDA board for annexation of 302nd Ave., X32

302nd AVENUE

This has been discussed to a great degree. Everyone knows that we’ve had a long road to get to this point regarding when the trail was put in on county right of way. We have put forth, among other things, that the city acknowledge that those roads need to be annexed and be their maintenance.”

Ben Hull, Lee County Engineer

FORT MADISON – The Lee County Board of Supervisors is taking action to force the City of Fort Madison to take possession of half a road that has been the center of sour grapes between the two entities.
At Tuesday’s regular meeting of the county board, County Engineer Ben Hull presented a letter to the board he was forwarding to the Iowa Economic Development Authority’s City Development Board outlining the city’s responsibility to annex part of two stretches of  road because the city owns property adjoining the roadways.
The two roads are a section of X32 and a portion of 302nd Avenue. The section of 302nd Avenue is the portion of the road that runs along the west side near the PORT Trail. The county and city were at odds about drainage issues that surfaced when the trail was put in, causing icing and potential damage to the roadway due to water draining across the road.
Hull said the 302nd Avenue annexation was done by the city in the 1980s, but the abutting half of the road was never annexed into the city and the county has been maintaining the road. The county owns the property on the other half of the road and would maintain ownership of that half of the road.
The city and county have agreements in place for maintenance of roadways that have split ownership, which is not uncommon in areas where city jurisdiction butts up against county property.
The section of property along X32 is a more recent annexation, Hull said. But the roadway there wasn’t annexed into the city either.
According to Hull and Lee County Attorney Ross Braden, state law requires the city to annex their half of the roadway into the city. The City Development Board is the committee within the IEDA that has authority to make that happen, hence the letters from the county.
“This has been discussed to a great degree. Everyone knows that we’ve had a long road to get to this point regarding when the trail was put in on county right of way,” he said. “We have put forth, among other things, that the city acknowledge that those roads need to be annexed and be their maintenance.”
Hull said the county has been maintaining the road for more than 40 years which should have been maintained by the city. He said the city has been plowing snow on 302nd during deliberations over the stretch of road, but the city declined to do that this year.
Hull said several meetings, along with correspondence from Braden, have taken place and a handshake agreement was reached with city staff over the issues. However, the Fort Madison City Council declined to accept the agreement.
As part of the handshake deal, Hull said the county agreed to sealcoat the road, which he did.
He said the annexation in question is for roads only and not any private property.
Supervisor Tim Wondra asked if was normal for the city to have annexed the road when they annexed the adjoining property. Hull said he didn’t know if was normal, but according to the state it was “proper”.
Braden said in 1993, the state clarified code and any roadway that has common boundaries with the city has to be annexed or the county can notify the City Development Board and that board would put forth action to have the roadway annexed.
The annexation would result in the city and county each owning half of the road and Hull said the current 28E in place for shared maintenance of roadways, which has been in place since 1993, should reflect those roadways. He also said it would be a good idea to revisit the 28E for clearer understanding and benefits for both sides on all roadways in the agreement.
Supervisor Garry Seyb said the road is as good as it will be.
“It’s not like were turning something over that’s in disrepair and they would have to spend a lot of money on right now,” he said.
Hull said the City Development Board will set a hearing and give the city a chance to be heard, and then make a determination that Braden said would be binding under state code.
The city has pushed back, stating the roadway is not suffering and the county should be on board with the benefits of the PORT Trail and support the project.
The board voted 5-0 to have Hull forward the correspondence to the City Development Board for action.