County hears from landowner as DOT looks to close low‑volume bridge, offers roughly $1.5 million
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Mills County officials heard from a local landowner about a state proposal to close a low‑volume bridge over I‑29. County staff said the state’s bridge‑closure program is a cost savings and indicated roughly $1.5 million would be available to the county; landowner concerns centered on access, removal of bridge approaches and who would maintain or receive the land.
Cheryl, a local landowner, told the Mills County Board of Supervisors she fears losing safe access if the Iowa Department of Transportation closes a low‑volume bridge that crosses Interstate 29 and approaches her property.
The board invited Cheryl to discuss the DOT proposal after staff said the state is pursuing a program to close underused interstate bridges. "Basically, it's it's a cost savings for the state," one county staffer said, explaining the state often approaches counties to close bridges that have low daily vehicle counts. Staff reported the state told the county it would receive about $1.5 million if the bridge were closed and removed.
Why it matters: landowners said the bridge provides their only practical access and asked who would remove the concrete approaches, whether land would revert to private ownership and how the county would guarantee continued access. Cheryl said she is "on both sides of that bridge" and explained that the route to her parcels was created when the freeway was built; she asked who would be responsible for tearing down approaches and whether landowners would retain rights to access their parcels.
County staff said the bridge itself is state‑owned, while the approaches are typically the county’s responsibility and that negotiations with the DOT could include transferring approach parcels or otherwise ensuring access. Staff also told Cheryl the county would try to make access assurances part of any negotiation and suggested the county could request the state remove approaches or transfer them to the county or adjacent landowners.
Board members and staff discussed process and options but did not take formal action. The county said it would continue discussions with the DOT, attempt to secure protections for affected parcels and follow up with landowners. The board encouraged staff to include landowner concerns — especially about maintaining access and removing leftover approaches — in negotiations with the state.
The county will determine next steps in coordination with state officials; no formal resolution or vote to accept the DOT offer was recorded during the meeting.