Story - The Meade County Messenger


Vol. 119. No.33	August 18 , 2010

Road leads to controversy at Fiscal Court meeting

During what would typically be a humdrum Fiscal Court session Aug. 10, the acceptance of one road into the county system caused temperatures to rise and one developer to threaten taking his money and business to other counties.

The controversy began over accepting Emmer Drive, – part of Gene Mc Gehee’s Forest Ridge Subdivision, – into the county road system. According to Planning and Zoning records, the road was inspected by the Meade County Road Department on July 13, 2010, and passed. The developer was notified and made an official request for a final inspection and acceptance.

During the final inspection on Aug. 3, by assistant road supervisor, Jeff Padgett, a minor fault was found: a storm had stirred up straw and matting over dirt. This was corrected, and the road passed Padgett’s re-inspection on Aug. 4 and he certified by signature that the road met all county standards for acceptance. McGehee, therefore, went to the Fiscal Court meeting expecting approval.

What he got instead was a denial. Then he got mad.

After looking over the paperwork provided to the court by Planning and Zoning Administrator, Tony Coletta, Magistrate Herbie Chism noticed it was signed by the assistant supervisor, rather than department supervisor, Mark Popham.

“Mark, did you get a chance to inspect this road?” Chism asked Popham.

Popham replied that he had been to Emmer Drive 15-20 times during construction.

“I’ve been on the road and it is an excellent road,” said Judge Executive Harry Craycroft. “It is a lot better than a whole bunch of them. What has been happening is the developer follows the plan they have, then they’re asked to make a bunch of corrections, then there’s another correction, then another one.

Going back and looking at the subdivision list, what’s going to wind up happening is we’re going to end up getting sued and wind up paying for a road. It’s that simple. It’s getting more and more difficult to get these roads in, and when a developer decides to pull out – there goes your tax base for the county.”
Chism said “I just want to remind you, Judge, that if you take in bad roads, you’ll spend a lot of taxpayer money bringing them up to standard.”

Craycroft said, “If the roads are engineered, and the plat is approved, and they’ve met that standard, then we have to take them. We’re going to get sued, and we’re going to lose.”

“We’ve been sued several times in the last four years,” said Chism. “We’ve got an ordinance that says it has to be signed off on by a road superintendent and this isn’t.”

Craycroft said that Popham wasn’t at the inspection because he was “off driving mules.”

Chism made a motion that Popham do a final inspection, which prompted Magistrate Thomas Goddard to say, “It’s costing these developers a lot of money to make these changes, and whoever is going to inspect the road, the standards need to be clear. I’ve got residents trying to get a road in and they’re told that the curve of the road is not centered. If they move it to the left, it would be the wrong way. If they move it to the right, it would be the wrong way. These inspection standards are as clear as fog. The road criteria on Monday is different, on Wednesday is different, on Friday and March is different than September.”

“There’s going to be days when Mark can’t be there and something has to be done,” said Magistrate Steve Wardrip. “Jeff is supposed to be able to do that. He’s an assistant and he’s supposed to be in charge when you’re gone.”

Coletta said “I respectfully submit to all the members that in any legitimate organizational structure that I have seen there, is an assistant who is delegated the authority to perform in the supervisor’s absence.”

The arguing continued with Coletta pointing out that the Court was forced by statute to adopt several roads into the system on April 6, because inspections were not done in a timely manner by the 45-day deadline per Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 100.277. He also stated that via the county subdivision ordinance, requests for inspection could be submitted by his office to the road department, a licensed engineer, or a state certified inspector.

“These are the conditions in the subdivision ordinance, adopted by this Court that I have been directed to follow by the Court and by the county attorney,” Coletta emphasized. “I don’t care who inspects it, I have a 45-day window to respond back to the developer in writing, by certified mail the detailed inspection results. I have never been able to get a detailed inspection report. This is as detailed of a report as I receive, and it says the road meets county specifications. If you deny acceptance the clock starts over and I believe the Court wrote it that way to specifically ensure that the bonds were protected, the residents were protected, and developers were protected from undue delays because right now I’m holding somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 of a million dollars of their bonds. That’s money that’s not being reinvested.”

The difference between bonds and letters of credit were debated.

A vote was taken to have Popham re-inspect the road and Chism’s motion passed. Goddard voted “no” stating “roads don’t stop working because the supervisor went on vacation.” Wardrip voted “no,” explaining he felt the assistant should be able to perform the inspection duties. Craycroft also voted “no.”

After the motion passed, McGehee addressed the Court.

“I told my contractors to be there, and if the inspector wanted one piece of gravel moved to do it. Just do it. I put $15,000 of channel lining in to make our certified engineer happy, but Meade County doesn’t want that so I removed it at the cost of another $15,000. I brought in topsoil and netting instead,” McGehee said, his voice rising. “I’m out $40-50,000 on this road, and this has been going on during every road. This sounds like a personal thing against me and if it is, just tell me. I’ll take my money and go to Hardin County and spend millions there. I’ve spent an enormous amount of money on this road. You keep moving the target on me. I’m shooting at a moving target. Your road department told me it was approved. Done.”

He went on to explain that Popham was there “every step of the way, through every plan, from the first shovel of dirt to the aggregate. The State Highway Department uses channel liner in their ditches, but suddenly Meade County wants dirt. If you want dirt, that’s what I’ll do. But Herbie, you’re giving the citizens of Meade County the impression that I build bad roads.”

Chism said that wasn’t his intent.

Coletta reiterated to the Court that if the road department supervisor signs off on the engineered plats for a subdivision, then that design is the “target,” and if the engineered standards are met, the road should be approved. He later produced a certification on the Clemons and Associates engineered plat for Emmer Road that was signed by Mark Popham, dated Oct. 1, 2008.

Before adjourning, Goddard proposed a motion requiring a specific and detailed road report checklist be developed. It passed, and Coletta had a detailed checklist done and e-mailed to all involved the following day.

McGehee, meanwhile, continued to defend his roads.

“I know that by the time it’s capped our aggregate’s at least a foot thick,” said McGehee. “I’m spending $70-$75 a running foot per road, and with 5,280 feet in a mile that’s $369,000 not even including waterlines and erosion control that meets the Kentucky Division of Water and EPA standards...In Hardin County, I know what the rules are and they stay the same. The engineers draw the plans, I know what it’s going to cost.”

He insisted that his roads far exceed Meade County standards, saying they are two inches wider and that his road shoulders far exceed the width required. McGehee went on to say he didn’t know why he was having so many problems getting roads accepted.

“I won a lawsuit against them awhile back, maybe this is a vendetta,” he said. “Maybe they’re afraid that BRAC is bringing all these people in here to these new houses, and new people mean new voters. Consistently, though, when I request an inspection I don’t get one or I get nitpicking. I think the county
attorney needs to help protect this court from itself.”

Ultimately, Emmer Drive was re-inspected on Aug. 11. As of press time, no date has been scheduled to reconsider the matter.

Click Here to Go Back