Those darn bridges. Why is it that things tend to get confusing when it comes to who and what is supposed to take care of them?
I recall a column from about 20 years ago when no one could figure out who was responsible for plowing the Ashland Avenue Bridge. It was truly a standoff between the village of Montgomery, the city of Aurora and Aurora Township, and even when the Illinois Department of Transportation got involved, it seemed to add to the confusion.
Only when it became a serious safety issue – drivers were spinning around on the neglected thing – did the city step in to clear the bridge. And that only added to the confusion because Aurora officials still insisted it was not their responsibility and that maintaining it could make them legally responsible from that point on.
It was enough to send heads spinning as well.
This time the angst has been over the Hankes Road Bridge over Route 56 in Sugar Grove. And as was the case with the Ashland structure, when asked who is responsible for maintenance over the years, replies seem to come straight from a children’s book: “Not I,” says the village of Sugar Grove. “Not I,” says Sugar Grove Township or its road district. “Not I,” says the Illinois Department of Transportation.
Turns out the narrative goes back to 1965 when IDOT built the bridge. Because this was prior to the development of Bliss Creek Golf Course or Prestbury and only Sugar Grove Township roads existed, an agreement was signed with the township to maintain the bridge’s road surface. And all was well until 1988 when the village annexed the golf course, which caused a “three-way dispute over jurisdiction that has gone on for 37 years,” said current Sugar Grove Village President Sue Stillwell.
In other words, for nearly four decades officials at the state and local level have all been declaring “Not I” when it comes to who is responsible for the road surface of the bridge.
As the story continues, around the same time a lawsuit by the village to distance itself from jurisdiction was dismissed, an agreement in 2016 between the village and Sugar Grove Township Road District split the responsibility of maintenance. But township officials contend the village did not uphold its end of the bargain, and that it is using this past aid against the township and road district to bolster the village’s denial of responsibility.
Making matters trickier, IDOT needs permission from Sugar Grove, which it considers owners of the road surface, “before (the state) can go ahead with a $2.9 million plan in 2027 to replace the bridge,” noted 70th District State Rep. Jeff Keicher.
In an email response on Friday, IDOT stated “we have made several attempts to reconstruct the bridge and the road at no cost to Sugar Grove. But the village has been unwilling to acknowledge jurisdiction and agree to the maintenance needs on Hankes Road going forward.”
All of which has turned “the bridge into a piece of crap,” declared Ron Barbel, president of one of eight homeowners association organizations in Prestbury, a community of more than 940 homes that uses this road as its main thoroughfare.
After a trip on Wednesday to see for myself, I wholeheartedly agree – as does the driver, no doubt, whose hubcap was lying against the concrete wall. The entire structure – including substructure, culvert and guard rails – is in need of an overhaul. But the immediate safety concerns are the many gaping potholes that, as Prestbury resident Bob Scanlan described it, “are so big you could sink a basketball into them.”
Fortunately, a stalemate was broken that same day, albeit a temporary one.
According to Stillwell, “I attempted for nearly two hours to compromise on a long-term maintenance agreement. If our village board approved, I would accept jurisdiction from that date forward, not because we agree that it is our jurisdiction but to work out a compromise” so the village, township and road district “would share maintenance costs moving forward.”
That 60-day partnership resulted in those asphalt craters getting filled on Thursday. As a few residents pointed out, the patch job isn’t pretty but at least it will keep someone from losing a front axle, or worse, a motorcyclist fatally hitting a pothole. Even Sugar Grove Township Supervisor Tom Rowe calls it a “Band-Aid” fix that does not solve the long-term problem of who owns the bridge’s road surface.
In a statement posted on its website Friday, township officials insist they are trying to stay out of the dispute that “is between IDOT as the owner of the bridge and the village as the owner of the road over the bridge,” adding that the township receives no money, tax dollars or otherwise, “for the village’s road.”
All three governmental entities – as well as some residents – expressed appreciation for the co-op patchwork and are hopeful a permanent solution can be reached at some point, even if it has to be in front of a judge.
But as more than a few pointed out to me, “the can is getting kicked down the road” yet again, with a good chance it will see more potholes on its way.
dcrosby@tribpub.com
