Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears safety concerns after Feed Energy removes barricade at railroad crossing; staff consider road vacation and mitigation
Summary
County staff reported Feed Energy removed a barricade at a railroad crossing; DOT warned removal is a federal offense and inspection could cost about $15,000. The board discussed vacating the road, asking for a written pipeline cost commitment, and near-term dust/traffic mitigation for borrow pits.
County staff told the Mills County Board of Supervisors that Feed Energy removed a barricade at a railroad crossing near PJ and installed a gate after discussions with railroad representatives, prompting a DOT warning that removing barricades is a federal offense.
"They reminded us to remind them that removing a barricade like that is a federal offense," Speaker 1 said, noting DOT told staff to postpone inspection and notify the agency when barriers are restored. Speaker 1 told the board the county has two options: reinstall the barricade and face inspection costs that DOT referenced (conversationally described as about $15,000), or pursue vacating the road and making it private so Feed Energy would assume access and costs while keeping existing addresses.
Separately, the board discussed a related set of public-safety complaints about borrow pits and heavy truck traffic. Officials described recent crashes near 119th Street and 95th, citizen complaints about dust, and trucks failing to stop. "We just had the the fairly major crash out there at 95th," Speaker 3 said, and staff reported immediate mitigation measures: placing stop signs, applying asphalt millings (which staff said "made 1000 percent difference" in reducing dust), asking JE Dunn (Vic Klein) to perform a one-day traffic study, exploring rumble-strip pits and increased enforcement.
The board also discussed an unsigned Snyder & Associates pipeline contract; county counsel asked whether the pipeline company would provide written confirmation that it would cover specified costs before the county signs the agreement. Speaker 1 said he had requested written confirmation and will return the contract when the county receives it.
Staff directed follow-up actions: seek written cost commitments from the pipeline company, consult DOT in writing about barricade/inspection obligations, pursue the administrative road-vacation process with Mark Goldman if the county elects that route, and implement short-term traffic/dust measures while awaiting study results.
These issues combine potential legal exposure (DOT enforcement), near-term public-safety mitigation and infrastructure options that could transfer costs to private operators if the county pursues a road vacation.
