The first step toward stabilizing the riverbank located just north of Highway 6 on the west side of the Thompson River is being taken following a meeting Tuesday morning of the Grundy County Commission, representatives of the Grundy County Industrial Development Corporation and other stakeholders.
This photo from Google Maps shows the area north and west of the Thompson River Bridge that is eroding and threatening the roadway on Highway 6.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
Find out how to advertise here –
Email us! [email protected]
The meeting drew more than a dozen interested parties and was moved to the third-floor courtroom to accomodate the crowd. The concern is that the roadway on the west end of the bridge may be damaged from the erosion of the bank on the northwest corner of that area. The bridge itself is in good shape, but could eventually be affected. If the road is damaged, it could take a decade or more for the Missouri Department of Transportation to get the project on its priority list and do the work. Commerce in Trenton and Grundy County would surely be affected if that occurred. While funding is available through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and MoDOT to help with the stabilization, the county commission has been concerned that the county will be stuck paying for a project they can’t afford that should be paid for by the state since the road and the bridge are both state properties.
When all was said and done Tuesday, the county agreed to remain in the NRCS Streambank Stabilization Program for the time being, with the IDC to repay MoDOT for engineering costs for the project.
Background
The issue involves an area on the northwest side of the bridge that is eroding and threatening to eventually affect Highway 6. Commissioners began discussing the issue with the IDC in late September and in October voted to enroll in the Missouri Department of Transportation cost-share program, which had been presented by the NRCS. The commission planned to request funds from other entities to help pay for the project or withdraw from it at a later date, if need be. While planning the 2021 budget, the issue again was discussed and on Jan. 5, according to unofficial minutes, the commission was told by John Dwiggins of Howe Company, an engineering firm that has been utilized extensively by the county, that the approximately $350,000 price tag that had been estimated would not cover the cost. Under the program, the county would be on the hook for 25 percent of the cost, as well as engineering fees and at least 10 years of maintenance costs. The funding for the project was ultimately not included in the budget, which was approved on Jan. 26. On. that day, Dennis Speichinger from NRCS and Michael Marriott of MoDOT spoke with the commission and explained that the county would be responsible for any costs over the $350,000 that had been estimated. It was also explained that MoDOT would not reimburse the county for any engineering costs. Commissioners said they didn’t feel the county could or should be spending taxpayer dollars on private property, a state road and a state bridge, especially with the uncertainty of what the actual cost would be.
On Feb. 2, Presiding Commissioner Phillip Ray presented correspondence from MoDOT asking for a two-year payback from the county to stay in the grant to repair the bank and it was reiterated that the county would be responsible for any costs over the estimated $350,000. Commissioners discussed Dwiggins’ earlier opinion that the cost would be more than that. The minutes stated that the commission agreed to opt out of the project completely. As was pointed out at Tuesday’s meeting however, there was never a motion made to that effect nor was any vote taken.
On Feb. 9, IDC representatives Chris Hoffman and Jackie Soptic met with the commission. Minutes of that meeting show that the cost was now estimated at $353,815 to be paid for by the NRCS grant, with $120,980 to be paid for by MODOT and the county to pay $43,625. Hoffman and Mrs. Soptic said they do not want the county to be out any money for the project and would attempt to secure donations from other entities to pay for the costs that would fall to the county.
Tuesday’s Meeting
The most important revelation of Tuesday’s meeting was the issue with the Feb. 2 minutes, which, while unofficial, show that no vote was taken to opt out of the program, therefore, the county remains in it. Ray said he would be confirming that in writing with the relevant parties.
Another development included Hoffman and Mrs. Soptic indicating that the IDC had met and unanimously approved paying for the engineering cost of the project. MODOT will pay the upfront cost, with the IDC then providing the $43,000 in funding to pay it back over a two-year period. The county would not be committed to moving forward if the cost comes in over what has been anticipated and could walk away from the project, if desired.
The fact that the county could be held liable as the permit holder if landowners or the IDC do not come forth with funding for costs such as maintenance, was definitely a sticking point for the commission. Much discussion was held on what may or may not happen in the future and how commissioners might be obligated financially. Associate Commissioners Don Sager and Brad Chumbley ex-pressed their reservations in paying for something that affects a state road and state bridge, with Mrs. Soptic reminding those in attendance that it is not a bridge project, it’s a streambank stabilization project – a preventive measure to ensure the road is not compromised. Commissioners also discussed the fact they just approved a nearly $1.2 million deficit budget and there are multiple bridges in the county that need repair or replacement.
The Next Step
At this point, the next step will be to begin the engineering process with Howe Company and find out how the bids for the project come in. More information will be needed to determine the long-term financial liability of the county and how the work on the bank would be maintained. The commission will still have to decide if the county is willing to be the permit holder for the project, meaning the issue will continue to be on the agenda for county commission meetings for months to come.
“It’s going to be a long road,” Sager cautioned.