Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Vacation 115th topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors decline to vacate portion of 115th Street, agree to close it during nearby construction
Summary
After a public hearing on March 11, the Adair County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to reject a request to vacate a portion of 115th Street; the board agreed the segment should be closed during nearby construction and discussed potential improvements and enforcement.
The Adair County Board of Supervisors voted March 11 to decline a request to vacate a portion of 115th Street, but agreed the roadway should be closed at a minimum during nearby construction. The public hearing drew opposing comments: Leonard Shelley spoke against vacating the road, citing increased traffic and safety concerns tied to construction and a new truck stop; Dan Deluhery supported vacating, saying vehicles have become stuck and that maintenance resources are strained by rutted, muddy conditions. Resident Rob Mensing asked the board for its reasoning.
Engineer Nick Kauffman told the board the vacation request came from landowners after the engineer's office contacted them about closing the road during a nearby construction project. Board members discussed costs associated with improving the road (rocking and widening), enforcement of closures and access questions. Supervisor Walker said the only comment he received locally asked why the closure wasn't planned farther toward a driveway.
The board took a formal motion to not vacate the segment (moved by Supervisor Baier, seconded by Supervisor Wedemeyer). The recorded vote was: Supervisors Hoadley, Baier and Wedemeyer — aye; Supervisors Christoffersen and Walker — nay. The motion carried. The board directed that the portion be closed during construction and discussed coordinating barricade placement and enforcement; Dan Deluhery volunteered to reinstall barricades as needed.
Why it matters: The decision leaves the county responsible for managing access and safety during a nearby construction project and preserves non-vacation access for other landowners who opposed the change. The board debated competing concerns about safety, roadway condition and the cost of improvements.
Next steps: The board recommended closing the road during construction and exploring possible improvements and enforcement mechanisms; no immediate funding or improvement plan was approved at the meeting.
