Council reminded of need for truck turnaround

Promise of previous council included building a turnaround for trucks entering McKee Foods

Trucks using this Arkansas Highway 59 spur sometimes are blocked by a train parked on the tracks and back out onto the main highway. Being discussed is the purchase of land to the left of the spur for a truck turnaround.

Trucks using this Arkansas Highway 59 spur sometimes are blocked by a train parked on the tracks and back out onto the main highway. Being discussed is the purchase of land to the left of the spur for a truck turnaround.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

— A turnaround area for trucks attempting to enter the McKee Foods plant from Arkansas Highway 59 on the Highway 59 spur (East Grant Street) on the north edge of the city was again discussed at the July 11 city council meeting, with the matter referred back to the street and alley committee for more information, study and a recommendation.

Alderman James Furgason reminded the council of an earlier promise to McKee Foods to build the turnaround, calling it a safety issue which shouldbe placed before issues such as feral cats. Furgason said trucks backing blindly across the highway could easily cause a fatality accident which, even though it wouldn’t be the fault of McKee Baking Company, could reflect badly on the company.

The need for a truck turnaround was presented to the council as an issue of public safety because common carrier trucks delivering to the plant turning there are at times blocked by trains parked on the tracks across the roadway and drivers attempt to back out blindly across Highway 59.

The safety issue is caused, not by McKee trucks, but by the numerous common carrier truckscoming to the plant whose drivers sometimes attempt to back across the highway when a trainis parked on the tracks, saidLarry Smith, transportation supervisor for McKee, adding that more than 100 such trucks come to the plant each week, in addition to the approximate 200 loads carried each week by McKee company trucks.

Smith called the turnaround a “matter of public safety.”

Former mayor Wes Hogue reminded the current city council of an agreement made by a previous council when McKee Foods was deciding at which plant to add a new production line, and adding about 450 jobs. Hogue said the council agreed that, in exchange for the company providing the additional jobs, the city would improve the railroad crossing, support the company’s application for grants, assist with the development of a wastewater treatment facility at the plant to pre-treatwaste water and build a truck turnaround.

The city has greatly benefited from the additional jobs the plant provided and has fulfilled its commitment except for providing the turnaround, Hogue said. He called the lack of fulfillment of this final item an issue of the “highest likelihood of causing the death of a human being,” and urged the city to move forward and fulfill its obligation.

“It’s an agreement the city made with McKee Foods. Anyone who says we shouldn’t move ahead is wrong. We have an agreement (even if not in the form of a written contract),” Hogue said.

Under Hogue’s administration, the council had authorized Ron Homeyer of Civil Engineering, Inc., Siloam Springs, to do a study to determine the “footprint” and design of the needed turnaround. With that done, the city is in a position to authorize its mayor to negotiate a purchase price for land to accomplish the project, Hogue said.

Hogue explained that he had, when he was mayor, discussed a purchase price with the land’s owner but didn’t have the footprint needed to negotiate a price to bring before the council.

“No money is in the current budget for this,” councilwoman Janice Arnold reminded council members, indicating such a project may have to be a future expenditure.

Councilman Todd Wagner made a motion to have the mayor speak to the land owner and negotiate a possible purchase price for the land needed for a turnaround. His motion passed unanimously.The matter was referred back to the street and alley committee for further study and a recommendation to the council.

When the matter was last brought to the council in late 2009, no action was taken, in part, because some council members wished to consider other options to the problem, including the possibility of a second railroad overpass.

News, Pages 1 on 07/20/2011