From: Ron Martinek [rdmartinek@kansas.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:19 PM

To: dilaker@embarqmail.com

Subject: Fw: Supplement to east bridge information

I would like to thank everyone for their email responses to the east bridge discussion. This email will make an effort to answer some questions that were raised by some of the members of the public. At the last count, I received over 60 emails and my best estimate is that those emails represented in excess of 130 people. The two to three folks that would be in favor of a new bridge indicated they would be fine with the old one as long as it was structurally safe. Frankly, that is the operating basis from which this effort has always been directed. We all want a safe bridge; that is priority one.

The bridge construction consultant I spoke with was confident that repairs to the bridge would maintain its safety. Bob Chambers, the County’s retained engineer has submitted cost estimates regarding repair. Given his professional responsibility to the County and liability exposure, I would suspect he would not provide a repair estimate if he felt repairs would not make it safe. At the meeting on October 19, he indicated a 30 year life expectancy with repairs and admitted that was conservative. Keep in mind a repaired bridge would still have load restrictions, albeit with some improvement.

Mr. Chambers has not prepared a structural report. His estimates are based on visual inspection.

Maintaining access from the east is also a priority. To this point, the discussion has been directed to repair versus replacement. No one with the County has suggested simply closing the bridge; leaving access only from the west. Understand, if it is repaired or replaced, it will be closed for that time period. I have not been provided with any time estimates to complete repair or replacement.

The two three-arch bridges are on the agenda for consideration to be placed on the National Historic Register. The meeting is scheduled for November 7. It will be two to three months after that before an announcement is made. Being placed on the National Register will not restrict or limit the County’s ability to demolish the bridge. The County owns it and would only need to file for removal. Mr. Chambers indicated it merely creates an extra step for him once replacement becomes the only option. Repairing would have to be done consistent with guidelines established by the Secretary of Interior. Again, Mr. Chambers has indicated he is familiar with these guidelines.

Most of you should have received Mr. Chambers cost estimate. The estimated cost of building around the old bridge does not take into consideration the cost to repair the bridge. Needless to say, the County will not incur the cost to do both. Therefore, that option seems less probable. (Unless someone has a few hundred thousand dollars they aren’t doing anything with.)

The east bridge recently had its two year inspection. It scored a 3, which I understand to mean it stays open with its present load restrictions. At the October 19 meeting, we were told the bridge is still in the five year plan, but closer to the bottom of the list than to the top. The five year plan is for replacement rather than repair. So until it moves up the list, the County will do little, if anything regarding the bridge. If nothing is done between now and the next two year inspection and it scores lower than a 3; it will be closed.

Some of you may be wondering why is the discussion regarding the bridge escalated at this point in time. When the LWABC was formed, its goal was to engage in a cooperative dialogue with the County to explore options to save the bridge. It was decided, with the County’s consent, to seek placement on the National Historic Register. The feeling was this might open up funding opportunities. The County’s ability to use KDOT money would come with the requirement that the bridge repair would have to bring the bridge up to KDOT specifications, essentially dooming its present appearance.

Once the Historic Register application paperwork was submitted, Mr. Chambers suggested it would be a good idea to try to find out what kind of money was out there. The grant programs ranged from $10,000 to $90,000 and in everyone’s estimation would not generate the necessary funds to adequately rehabilitate the bridge.

The bridge construction consultant I spoke with directed me to the Baldwin city manager. Baldwin had rehabilitated its historic women’s bridge. In speaking with the city manager, he indicated their project was funded on an 80/20 split with KDOT using Transportation Enhancement program funding.

This led me to a workshop in late September that was put on by KDOT regarding the Transportation Enhancement (“TE”) program. The TE program is a transportation specific program that is funded by the federal government. The east bridge would be eligible under the TE historic category. It is an awarded funding source based on review of the applications that are submitted to KDOT. It is competitive. But if awarded, there is no requirement that repairs or rehabilitation meet KDOT specifications. It would be a fund to rehabilitate the bridge based on its historic preservation, 80% paid by the TE funds and 20% paid by the County.

The TE application is due on or before December 30, 2009. This is for TE funds to be awarded for the calendar years 2011 and 2012. Hence the urgency to get the County to make a decision. The application has to be sponsored by the County. It requires a detailed cost estimate, with a substantial amount of supporting documentation. Work that I have volunteered the LWABC to do, but for the cost estimate, which Mr. Chambers will have to do.

Essentially what I have presented to the County is that there is a “potential” for funding to rehabilitate the bridge on an 80/20 basis. (This is the same split if the County uses KDOT money to replace the bridge.) Moreover, the rehabilitation efforts would be to preserve the bridge historically, without the need to bring within KDOT specifications.

That was the LWABC’s goal when this process started over a year ago. Now it is up to the County Commissioners to determine if they were ever serious about saving the east bridge.

I would like to thank everyone for their support and comments. If anybody should have any further questions, comments, or suggestions, certainly please email me or give me a call.

Ron D. Martinek
PARKER & HAY, LLP
400 S. Kansas Ave, Ste 200
Topeka,KS  66603
Phone:  785-228-5736
rmartinek@parkerhaylaw.com

Please direct all responses to rmartinek@parkerhaylaw.com.  Thank you.