A vote to pass an ordinance related to the Highway D reroute plan failed Tuesday night due to not having enough aldermen supporting the issue. The postponement is yet another failed attempt to get …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active subscription, or you are a print subscriber who had access to our previous wesbite, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you have not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print subscriber and did not have a user account on our previous website, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
A vote to pass an ordinance related to the Highway D reroute plan failed Tuesday night due to not having enough aldermen supporting the issue. The postponement is yet another failed attempt to get the signed agreement forwarded to MoDOT following several months of discussion on the issue. At Tuesday's meeting, aldermen voted 2-1 to approve the first reading of the ordinance authorizing city officials to sign the reroute agreement with MoDOT. However, as aldermen were prepared to vote for the second reading, city attorney Chris Graville advised them the majority of the elected four members had to vote in favor to pass the ordinance. With Alderman Jason Kober absent, the only way the city could approve the motion was if Alderman Jim Struckhoff changed his vote. Wanting to get the agreement finalized, city officials then scrambled to reach Kober by phone though attempts were unsuccessful. Later, aldermen withdrew their initial motion to pass the ordinance and decided to vote on the agreement at a special meeting to be held Dec. 2 at 7 p.m. After Tuesday's meeting, Struckhoff said he's not in favor of having a state highway run next to the crowded Marthasville Community Club or Wessel Park. "I don't think it will change a whole lot, but I don't like forcing people unfamiliar to the area there," he said. Struckhoff acknowledged his vote will be made in a losing cause. In previous meetings, the remaining board members have voiced their support for the reroute and expressed only safety concerns related to pedestrians crossing the street. The Route D reroute is part of a plan to replace the Toque Creek Bridge located on Highway 47 south of Marthasville. The reroute will serve as a detour for traffic during construction and permanently as part of the agreement between MoDOT and the city. MoDOT officials expect the bridge to be replaced in 2010, a process that shouldn't take more than three months. It's expected construction will take place in the summer so school traffic won't be affected, but also the same time when the community club is busy with various baseball and softball summer leagues. The detour is needed for 18-wheelers and other large vehicles that might have trouble navigating the current Route D consisting of several 90-degree turns on South, Five, Depot and One streets. Last month, aldermen voted 3-1 to reroute the highway inside city limits with Struckhoff being the lone aldermen in opposition. However, a formal vote on signing the agreement with MoDOT was delayed over worries about pedestrian safety and a dispute on whether a fence should be erected running parallel to the future Route D. After talking to MoDOT officials in the past month, Graville recommended allowing the state agency to determine what measures are needed to prevent a pedestrian from being struck by a motorist. In addition, a fence won't be erected, according to Graville. He did note that a painted crosswalk is one expected safety feature to be made. "My thought is rather than us taking a position that says this is what we want you to do, we will let their engineers evaluate it and decide what needs to be done," Graville said. "They are taking over responsibility for maintenance and liability so why would we mandate what they put in or not put in?" Alderman Leo Tobben agreed. "If we tell them what we want for safety, then we are putting our names on it for being liable," he said.