The completion of work being done on a city street using county workers and equipment has hit another bump, and the road is going nowhere.
During Monday’s Board of Supervisor’s meeting, a discussion began regarding road construction work initiated on Lucille Street, inside the Indianola city limits.
Supervisor Riley Rice had instructed county road manager Kirby Chambers to stop the work being done on the street, pending clarification of who is supposed to pay for the project.
Board President Glenn Donald wanted to know why the work was ordered stopped.
Rice said he had spoken to several people including the city inspector and was told the city was not going to spend any more money on the street. Donald argued that there was a board order for the work and the city has obligated itself for $1,200 and that he had just completed a call to Mayor Steve Rosenthal who assured him, in the presence of Chambers, that the city was going to pay for the completion.
Donald questioned the other board member’s trust in him and Chambers because they wouldn’t accept his word that the mayor had okayed the work.
He maintained that the supervisors have never scrutinized the procedure with any other cities.
“We have never started a project and brought it back and revisited it. That’s picking because it’s Lucille Street,” said Donald.
Donald further stated that the city inspector is not the one who makes those decisions, but Rosenthal does. He explained how every city that the county assists, pays for its own materials. Donald said he didn’t understand why Rice was picking on Lucille Street to cause controversy.
At some point, Donald, Rosenthal and Gloria McIntosh (county administrator) met with a representative from the attorney general’s office and according to Donald, Rosenthal presented emails verifying that he gave the project his blessing.
Supervisor Gloria Dickerson then asked that they get clarification from the mayor so any questions could be cleared up and as a result McIntosh sent an email to Rosenthal requesting that he specifically ask for assistance for Lucille Street and agree to pay up to $1,200.
Rosenthal replied that he originally committed to two loads of gravel or $1,200 for the project and the city is willing to pay up to that amount. But he specified that the current street ends at the concrete pavement and the city has no plans or responsibility to extend the street further or maintain any portion beyond the concrete unless a developer steps in and brings it up to the acceptable city code.
Donald explained that the county has already spent more than $470 on the project and questioned how they intended to recoup the money already spent if they didn’t conclude it and bill the city.
“Finish the darn street with another $600 and be done with it, and we won’t even get into that anymore,” Donald retorted. Chambers said afterwards that his crew has already put two loads of clay gravel and a load stabilizer on the road plus cut ditches to aid in drainage.
He said the completed work extends about 300 feet west from the existing concrete road and ends about 10-20 feet past the driveway of a newly constructed home. He said it would cost approximately $600 to $700 to complete the work, which would involve applying CRS-2 tar and a number seven seal rock but he has been told not to do anything else.
But even that wouldn’t bring the road up to code where the city would agree to maintain it. Rice said the developer, which is the Temple of Deliverance church that owns the lot and several others in that area, would have to bring it up to code and it doesn’t make sense to put more money into it if it can’t be brought to code. Donald is the pastor of the church, and according to court records is one of the trustees who sold the half-acre lot that the house in question sits on.
Rice contends that although there was a board order, it did not specifically name that city street, which is in his district, and that’s why he called for the work to be halted. Attorney Johnny McWilliams agreed Lucille wasn’t named and reminded them that was the reason they voted to make sure the streets were spelled out in future requests.
Rice stated there is a lot of controversy associated with the whole affair including a pending lawsuit involving the city and the property owner due to the issuance of a building permit with no access to the property and because of that, the city’s intentions needed to be spelled out in writing.
Donald continued that he didn’t think it was fair to revisit the issue when there was already a board order on it, just to please Rice.
The initial contention arose in June when a Lucille Street resident complained that county equipment was on his property building a road at the request of a county supervisor. Melvin McClinton told the board then that he had spoken with the mayor and city inspector and both said the city didn’t have anything to do with constructing a street there.
The initial board order supposedly read that the request was to repair certain streets and fix drainage issues, which McClinton maintained had nothing to do with constructing a street.
