A bridge that replaced one destroyed. (File photo)

A bridge constructed earlier this year in Upton Township was demolished Friday after two officials of the governmental entity approved an agreement the previous evening to remove it, officials said.

The destruction brought criticism as news of the demolition trickled out. The board president said he was unaware of the meeting, and the township was to have instead met Monday, July 16. The Texas County Commission and the  Texas County Sheriff’s Department are investigating and consulting with the county prosecutor’s office.  Members of the commission and its legal counsel, County Prosecutor Mike Anderson, met Thursday evening at the Texas County Administrative Center.

The structure is the subject of one lawsuit, and the bridge sparked controversy in the western Texas County township, one of 17 in the county funded through local property, as well as fuel taxes distributed to the county seat of government from the state. In Texas County, those monies are distributed back to the townships based on the number of miles within their boundaries. Fewer than two dozen township governments are situated in Missouri.

After the bridge was built, the Missouri Department of Transportation assessed a load limit of three tons, which drew the ire of nearby property owner Clarence “Rocky” Dailing, who has been vocal about the bridge that he says was supposed to have a load limit of 10 tons.

Dailing is the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in March against two members of the board, William Brown and Virginia Austin. The lawsuit, entered in Texas County Circuit Court, alleges the township failed to obtain competitive bidding for the project, didn’t obtain a permit and dumped waste from the bridge’s construction on his property. The document also alleges violations of the state’s open meetings and records law.

On Friday, a crew furnished by Dailing, demolished the low-water bridge after he said he reached an agreement at the Upton Township meeting the previous evening from board members Austin and Robert Gladden. A third person, Naomi Campbell, secretary, cannot vote and remains on vacation.  Brown, the board president, was absent. Brown later filed a complaint with the Texas County Sheriff’s Department about the removal of the bridge that serves a customarily dry tributary of Roubidoux Creek.

On Monday, Brown said he wouldn’t have authorized the act and only learned of the decision when he received a call from a citizen the following morning. The township’s sole employee later confirmed the work, he said. Brown said plans were under way to make improvements to the bridge so that it could meet a 17-ton limit. He said MoDOT and a second firm were consulting on the effort, and the Texas County Commission was involved. 

Brown freely admits that improvements were needed, but didn’t warrant destroying it. 

Good riddance, says Dailing: A backhoe and bulldozer was at the Roubidoux Road site Friday afternoon. “Can you believe it? They built a $26,000 bridge, and now I’ve got a contract to destroy it,” said Dailing on Friday. Dailing said he paid $2,575 for the labor and gravel for a replacement structure that has no load limit. Fill from the old structure was used for the new one — including the three-ton limit sign, he said. Upton Township provided six culverts.

Brown and others in the neighborhood said heavy rains are capable of washing the new structure away — and leaving one household with no means to leave the area. With an upgrade, Brown said, the $22,500 bridge could have been upgraded to meet the higher load limit.  

Dailing was more vocal about the Texas County Commission’s method of distributing fuel and vehicle taxes back to the townships. “They took an oath to support the (state) constitution, and they are not doing it,” Dailing said. In 2011, Upton Township received nearly $40,000 from the more than $900,000 distributed out of the fund.

Presiding Commissioner Fred Stenger said there is an ongoing investigation into the Upton Township issue; “due to the threatened litigation it is in the best interest of the county that we not discuss these issues at this time.”

Dailing and a Summersville resident, Thomas Delavaris, say a provision of state statute requires the county to expend the funds not the townships: “In counties having the township form of county organization, the funds credited to such counties shall be expended solely under the control and supervision of the county court (commission), and shall not be expended by the various townships located within such counties.”

In 2010, Dalaviras, representing himself, sued the county commission alleging it was violating the law, but a judge appointed to hear the case ruled that the petition included a blank contract form and didn’t show evidence the presiding commissioner or a township president had ever executed it.

In Texas County, the 17 townships function for the purpose of road and bridge maintenance. They collect administrative and road and bridge taxes. Over the years, two offices — assessor and tax collector — have been eliminated by the Missouri General Assembly and operate from the Texas County Administrative Center. The Upton Township and funding controversies are among topics expected to surface at 7 p.m. Monday, July 23, when the quarterly meeting of a township advisory board meets at the Texas County Justice Center.

Dailing said the method of distribution represents a misappropriation of funds. On Friday, Dailing hinted he’d soon be targeting county commissioners Fred Stenger, Linda Garrett and John Casey through a court action that seeks restitution for Texas County taxpayers.

Delavaris, in a letter, offered his own thoughts, “Commissioners and townships are obligated to know their duty. ‘I did not know’ is a very poor excuse.”

For many of those attending the meeting Monday night with Brown, the internal politics of funding the townships is of little concern: They want a bridge back in place capable of surviving a flash flood.

Editor’s note: This is a developing stories with updates occurring. 

Controversy has developed on whether a meeting on Thursday was the agreed upon meeting date. The board president said the township was to have met Monday evening, July 16.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply