DPW COMMITTEE

Wednesday, November 15, 2006




Joyce Morency, Chairman

Robert Dobie, Vice-Chairman



           Vice-Chairman Dobie called this DPW Committee to order at 10:00 a.m. with the following Supervisors in attendance: Robert Ashline, Daniel Connell, Robert Dedrick, Robert Dobie, Randy Douglas, Dale French, Ronald Jackson, Michael McSweeney, Noel Merrihew, Gerald Morrow, Cathy Moses, Thomas Scozzafava and Shirley Seney. (Jeanne Ashworth, William Ferebee, Anthony Glebus and Joyce Morency had been previously excused). George Canon was not present.


           Department Heads present were: Fred Buck and Debbie Palmer.


           Also present were: Tony LaVigne-Deputy DPW Superintendent; Carl Schroder-Schroder River Associates; Town of Elizabethtown/New Russia residents.


           News Media present was: Lohr McKinstry-Press Republican.





DOBIE: I will call this meeting to order and ask that you all please rise and salute the flag.

Good morning everyone. Good morning Fred. We will begin with Highway.



HIGHWAY DIVISION:


BUCK: This past month many of our highway projects are winding down and we are focusing our attention on bridge work and maintenance. About 800 feet of concrete road panels were hammered out on the Caza turn in North Hudson, the area was then graveled, graded and paved. Over 6 ½ miles of the North Hudson Road was paved from Route 9 all the way through to the water trough, the remainder of the work into Moriah will be continued next year. The road was also stripped, all work was completed with county forces.

A large slide was repaired on the Delano Road in Ticonderoga, the earth that slid was removed and the embankment re-sloped. The ditches were rebuilt and rip-rapped with heavy stone, the area was then matted and re-seeded.

We have also been cutting trees on the Middle Road in Willsboro and the Boreas Road in Newcomb and Minerva.

Repairs have been completed on a double concrete box culvert on Windy Hill Road in the Town of Moriah, new wing walls had to be poured, part of the floor and center petition replaced. New rebar was pinned into the existing structure before the concrete was poured, slopes were then armored with rip-rap.

Due to a recent inspection by NYS DOT, the Greenough bridge in the Town of North Hudson will be replaced immediately. We built and launched a temporary bridge to carry all legal loads while the old bridge is removed and replaced. The new bridge will sit on stub abutments that will be formed and poured behind the existing ones. It will be all steel and will also be able to be erected and launched across the river saving time and money which will enable us to stay well within our budget.

Work is also progressing on the Jersey Bridge in AuSable Forks. The asphalt has been removed as well as the deck floor beams and stringers. The new floor beams and stringers are galvanized and have been set in place and are bolted up and torqed to spec. The new deck pans are currently being welded down to allow for concrete to be poured which will be the riding surface in place of the asphalt.

The work for resetting the camber for the Covered Bridge has been completed and the roof has been repaired from the damage caused by the power pole that fell on it. The siding and fascia have all been re-nailed and the bridge has been jacked up and set on dollies to begin its short but tedious journey back across the river and that bridge now is back across the river. The temporary bridge will be used to carry the Covered Bridge over the river. The Covered Bridge will then be slid sideways to allow removal of the temporary bridge, the Covered Bridge will slide back on it’s original alignment and be jacked down on to the rehabbed abutments. The old piers that are under the Covered Bridge in the river will be removed as soon as the permits are issued by DEC, the project has been a long time in the making. Any questions on Highway?


DOBIE: I would like to compliment you and your crew on an excellent job on the Ensign Pond Road, you did the paving and everything over there. Also the bridge on Greenough Road, you got the temporary in place and I think it will be ready for traffic tomorrow and I think you have done an excellent job.

Any questions for Fred on Highway?


MOSES: It is my understanding at the beginning of the Ensign Pond Road that there was possibly a failure in the blacktop and that maybe the shoulders are not up to standards? Is that something that is being addressed?


BUCK: We are going to have to shim one piece of it where it joins in with Caza Turn.


SCOZZAFAVA: I also, I believe it is on the North Hudson side and I am not interfering in your backyard but I also had a call in regards to the shoulders and I spoke to Tony about it - I have not been out there but there are no shoulders or you are waiting to install shoulders?


BUCK: Most of the time the sand that is put on the road will be enough for the shoulders.


SCOZZAFAVA: So there are no shoulders?


BUCK: Right now, no.


SCOZZAFAVA: Do we plan on putting shoulders on?


BUCK: We can if we need them.


SCOZZAFAVA: I am concerned because it is kind of like a prior notice, someone contacted me and asked about it and I spoke with Tony about it. I think you also received a call on it.


BUCK: Alright.


DOUGLAS: A couple of things just about bridges - one Jersey bridge, Fred has been having his eye on that as it has been going, it has been running very smoothly. We did have an unfortunate incident where the contractor, Reale Construction, his 20 year old son was seriously, seriously injured at the site over a week ago, it was a crushing incident and he almost lost his life. Because of the emergency response between the county agency’s and the town agency’s they were able to save his life and Mr. Reale is very, very thankful for the organization between the county and the town to do that so Fred you are to be commended for that also and so are my DPW guys who played a significant role in that. Thank you.

The Covered Bridge, nothing but positive feedback on the Covered Bridge. It looks beautiful back across the river and there again Fred needs to be complimented, he had his watchful eye on it as the whole thing progressed and I thank him for his efforts.

The next one is not going to be as happy here because I want to learn a little bit more about Otis bridge and I don’t know if now is the time to bring that up or if we are going to discuss that later in the meeting? I know that some people from Otis bridge have asked to speak here today and I don’t know if I am out of line at this point to bring up Otis bridge?


DOBIE: They are going to speak at the end of Fred’s presentation.


DOUGLAS: Thank you.


DOBIE: Anything else for Fred?


SCOZZAFAVA: As it relates to Highway, I would ask for a resolution from this committee, not county highway, but the State of New York, Dept. Of Transportation will be replacing the bridge down by Bezon Bait Shop and they are also going to be raising that section of highway and the Village Mayor and Board has requested a resolution from this body that DOT incorporate into their plans a sidewalk to go from that point up to the Bulwagga Bay campsite and they could do it within their right-of-way. I know they talked about doing that but I don’t know what their plans are at this time. If I could get a resolution from this committee to endorse that concept I would appreciate it.

 

RESOLUTION ENDORSING AND REQUESTING THAT THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INCORPORATE PLANS FOR A SIDEWALK, WITHIN THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY, FROM BEZON BAIT SHOP TO THE BULWAGGA BAY CAMPSITE.

This was offered by Mr. French, seconded by Mr. McSweeney.


DOBIE: Discussion? All in favor, opposed, carried.


SENEY: Fred, the temporary bridge in Jay - that is going to be available for us in North Elba for the Adirondack Lodge Road?


BUCK: It is going to be delivered Monday. I spoke with Norm yesterday about it.


SENEY: Okay, so Monday it will be here so we will have access over that?


BUCK: Yes.


SENEY: And everybody will be able to travel on it regardless of weight?


BUCK: Yes.


SENEY: Thank you.


MCSWEENEY: Just a question for Mr. Scozzafava, about the eminent domain, did that issue get resolved?


SCOZZAFAVA: Yes it did, they are not going to take the Bezon Bait Shop, they did change the plans so that they will no longer need to acquire that property and I do want to state that that was primarily due to the efforts of Assemblywoman Sayward and Senator Little who really worked hard to stop that eminent domain proceeding.


DOBIE: Anything else for Fred on Highway? If not, we will move on.



BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS DIVISION:


BUCK: Over the last month the maintenance crew has completed numerous projects. The conference room in the DA’s office was divided in half to create two new offices. All the old law books were removed and taken to the transfer station. Wiring and lighting was changed around to accommodate the new floor plan. A couple of new walls were constructed in the basement area of Public Health, they were also wired, taped and painted to create new work station. A new ceiling fan was installed as well as wall cabinets and bases. A number of new book cases were constructed, stained and installed at the County Clerk’s Offices.

One of the furnaces at the Mental Health building had to be repaired as well as a broken window. One of the roof top units on top of the Court House had malfunctioned and needed a compressor replaced. New book shelves were also built and installed for WIC. The maintenance crew also helped Scott at the Fairgrounds complete the wiring and finish the interior of the new maintenance building garage for Air One.

The grounds around the County buildings have been cleaned up and the grass mowed at the Veteran’s cemetery. A new single car garage will be built at the Veteran’s cemetery for equipment storage and that bid will come out on the 22nd of this month.

Painting has been completed around the outside of the building but the Jail needs extensive work on the fascia and trim. It is estimated that there is about $30,000 worth of work to be done replacing much of the trim and ornate work on the old jail building, much of it will have to be custom made to keep the original integrity of the building. We have to do something to keep the pigeons out right now.


CONNELL: On Veteran’s Day, we had a ceremony at the Veteran’s cemetery, it was partly a rededication and partly to honor a veteran who had been buried earlier when we could not get a color guard and all of that. I want to thank Fred and the crew, the cemetery is really looking nice. It is probably a lot more work than we thought it was going to be to keep it maintained but we there must have been at least 100 people there that day, Noel and Bob was there, a number of Supervisors. We do appreciate all the work that the Public Works Dept. has done to keep the cemetery looking very nice. Again, for people that don’t know, it is only the third County Veteran’s cemetery in the State of New York and people are really proud of it and we appreciate all the hard work that you are doing Fred and it will be nice when we get the building up.


DOBIE: Anything else for Fred on Buildings and Grounds?



JAIL / PUBLIC SAFETY:


BUCK: All phases of construction with the exception of the HVAC system and duct work that was being completed by Tougher Industries is on-going. Tougher defaulted on their bond and work is currently being finished up by J.V. Warren, a contractor that has been on-site since the project was started, they will take over the remainder of Tougher’s work and have most of the people that have worked for Tougher are working for them.

The permanent propane was piped and ready to provide fuel to the building. The temporary tank was removed and technicians from Trane came and started most of the roof-top units, this allowed the concrete to dry out and meet the moisture test for the flooring finishes. Final work is being done throughout the jail section and within a month to six weeks most areas should be ready to have jail personnel start their training.

The majority of the construction work force has moved into the public safety section. Sheet rock and painting is on-going in all sections, electrical and plumbing continues as does telephone and communications and data work. Floor finishes are being completed where possible. Exterior work is on-going with tree planting and top soil work being 85% to 90% complete. The exterior fence is also being worked on and should be finished in the next week or so. The pre-treatment sewage building is 90%-95% wired and is scheduled to be brought up on line the first week in November. Hot water heaters and boilers have been started at this time.

The jail commission has scheduled two visits for the first week of November after they tour the facility and see where all aspects of construction are, a firmer time line as to the timing and drills will be drawn up.


DOBIE: Any questions for Fred on the jail and public safety?



SOLID WASTE DIVISION:


BUCK: We have been rebuilding a couple of the large roll-offs at the highway garage, I did put money in the budget for half a dozen new ones, two of which will need to be placed at the jail and public safety building.

I had the concrete pads extended at the site to accept our larger containers. We will also be replacing three walking floor trailers and the older roll-off truck, all of which are 16 years old. Everything else seems to be operating with no problems.


DOBIE: Any questions for Fred on solid waste?



FAIRGROUNDS:


BUCK; As I mentioned before, the new maintenance building and garage for the Air One truck has been finished and the interior painted. The heat has also been hooked up, we are using a monitor heater just to keep the building at about 50 degrees. Most all the storage areas for cars and boats have been rented and several more horses will be boarded shortly. There is more interest in renting Floral Hall, we had a number of events this year including tool sales, a gun show and fund raisers and parties. We are beginning to realize some revenue from the storage, horse barns and also Floral Hall.


DOBIE: Any questions on fairgrounds?



HEALTH AND SAFETY:


BUCK: The health and safety officer spent most of the month working on PESH training and assisted the Town of North Elba with some PESH related issues.

A pandemic flu presentation in Jay was attended and helped in the planning of a flu clinic with Public Health. The health and safety officer also attended several safety meetings and investigated several accidents throughout the county. Belfry and Wells Mountain inspections were also conducted this month.


DOBIE: Any questions for Fred?


FRENCH: Under health and safety, I just want to verify that the safety officer is in your department and there are no plans to transfer him out of there, he is going to stay in your department, he is not leaving, correct?


BUCK: Not to my knowledge, no. He was put in my department.


FRENCH: There was a resolution to move him there so okay, I just wanted to verify that.


DOBIE: Any other questions for Fred? Any other business?


MERRIHEW: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to have this committee take the opportunity to address the topic that we discussed at the last Ways and Means Committee meeting, the issue of the Otis Mountain bridge here in the Town of Elizabethtown. We have here today representatives from groups, landowners, camp owners, supporters and other land owners on that side that access their property through Otis Mountain bridge. I know that all the Supervisors here have certainly been inundated with many, many emails from both sides. Recommending review and specific address to our consideration for the replacement of that bridge, I wanted to take the opportunity today and I talked to Fred Buck about it and fortunately Mr. Carl Schroder, our structural engineering consultant, was able to come here also. For the first step of the meeting I would like to offer the courtesy of the floor to Ms. Margaret Bartley, and she would like to make a statement on behalf of the Otis Mountain Camp Association. Also, I believe Ms. Judy Martin is here and she was going to submit for public record a petition in support of preservation of the present bridge that is there and if you could bring that up to Deb Palmer, please. We will have that entered into the record. Thank you.


DOBIE: Good morning Mrs. Bartley, the floor is yours.


BARTLEY: I want to thank the Essex County and Elizabethtown Department of Public Works for the excellent job that they have done over the years in maintaining the 1914 Otis Lane bridge. I doubt that any of us will be in as good a shape when we are 92 years old.

Because we are fortunate to live in a democracy, we as citizens have the opportunity to express our views to our elected officials. In the past month, 184 Essex County residents signed a petition supporting the preservation and maintenance of the historic Otis Lane bridge.

Today your committee has the responsibility of deciding the fate of this historic bridge. The choice you make today will determine what happens tomorrow. I and many of the citizens of this county ask that you choose cooperation rather than litigation.

I am asking that you chose to put on hold the decision to remove the Otis bridge in February 2007 as was indicated at the October 18th public meeting so that this committee has the opportunity to study other alternatives, to find a way to prevent the destruction of the oldest remaining functional bridge on the Boquet River.

Despite all the material that you have heard and read, I know there remains an alternative, one that could meet the needs of all the parties involved. I would like to share such a proposal with the committee and with the people who have come here today to learn the fate of this bridge. (I will pass these out).

I would like to read the proposal so that it is entered into the minutes of this meeting.

This proposal is offered to resolve the conflict between Essex County, the Otis Mountain Camp and Homeowners Association and the owner of the forest land on Otis Mountain, Therese Denton, over the replacement of the historic 1914 Otis Lane bridge.

The creation of the Albert Otis Denton Boquet River Park would be a joint project between Theresa Denton, Harry Otis Gough, the Otis Mountain Camp and Homeowners Association, the Town of Elizabethtown and the Essex County Board of Supervisors.

Point One - Harry Otis Gough would grant a right-of-way on the north edge of his land to the Town of Elizabethtown at no cost, to allow for the relocation of a new west Otis lane. He would grant an easement to Essex County for the construction of a new bridge, north of the existing historic bridge. He would also grant an easement for a public parking area for the park via the historic 1914 Otis bridge which will become a pedestrian bridge.

Point Two - Therese Denton would deed land along both sides of the original Otis Lane and land around the five historic Otis Mountain camps to the Town of Elizabethtown, at no cost, for the creation of the Albert Otis Denton Boquet River Park. The size of the parcel of land deeded by Denton, would be sufficient to create a visual, no logging buffer, around the park as determined by a landscape architect or other qualified land planner chosen by a park planning committee.

Point Three - Otis Lane would be re-routed to the north edge of the Gough property and run from Route 9 over the new bridge and connect to the original side of Otis Lane giving all vehicles access to the Otis Mountain camps and to Denton’s undeveloped forest land. The Otis Lane re-routing would be consistent with a design plan that maintains the environmental and visual integrity of the park.

Point Four - Elizabethtown would give up the old west portion of Otis Lane in favor of the new Otis Lane at the north edge of the Gough property. The Elizabethtown Department of Public Works would continue to maintain the new Otis Lane and bridge to the same degree as has been required in the past and maintain the 1914 Otis bridge as a pedestrian and bicycle access to the Albert Otis Denton Boquet River Park.

Point Five - The park would belong to the Town and the people of Elizabethtown. It would be available to the public year round for hiking, fishing, biking and skiing.

Point Six - The Albert Otis Denton Boquet River Park planning committee would be formed to help design and manage the park development, composed of - Theresa Denton, landowner; Harry Gough, landowner; an Otis Mountain camp owner representative; a member of the Elizabethtown Town Board; a member of the Essex County Supervisors Public Works Committee; Reverend Fred Shaw. Advisors to the planning committee would include - a representative from Adirondack Architectural Heritage to help with applying for funding grants; surveyor Kevin Hall; a landscape architect; a representative from New York State DEC.

Point Seven - Logging could begin on Otis Mountain after the planning committee identifies the buffer, no logging park area.

Point Eight - The Essex County Board of Supervisors and Dept. Of Public Works would put on hold the plan to remove/replace or abandon the current 1914 Otis bridge while this proposal is considered.

A year before Albert Otis Denton died, he asked me to write his biography because he wanted to leave behind some record of his life’s work. Over the course of several meetings I learned that Albert’s great grand-father, John Otis, for whom the mountain is named came to the Boquet Valley in 1864 and that Albert’s grandfather, William Otis, built the Otis Mountain camps. That Albert’s mother, Fanny Otis, grew up on the old Otis farm. When he was a boy, Albert earned 15 cents an hour carrying building supplies up the mountain for carpenters working on the Otis Mountain camps. In 1950, Albert bought all the forest land on Otis Mountain from his Aunt, Lucy Otis. Albert Otis Denton lived his entire life in this valley, it is fitting that to honor this mountain that bears his family name.

I want to invite Therese Denton, Albert’s widow, to work with Harry Otis Gough, Albert’s cousin, in creating a park in his memory. I would also like this committee to set an example for other Essex County communities that face similar situations and show them that community cooperation benefits everyone and in the long run can save public money rather than waste it.


DOBIE: Thank you.


MERRIHEW: I would just like to thank Margaret for that, I just think that is a wonderful and refreshing proposal. It seems to address the concerns and needs of all parties that have an interest or as you and I have talked about before, as Supervisors for the county being as it is a county bridge and town representatives because it is a town road, was the real issue and the need was certainly the liability issue of being able to access and giving equal rights to all landowners across that bridge. At face value this just seems like a wonderful compromise.

Mr. Schroder and Mr. Buck and I have discussed the possible consideration of this outline without certainly some of the other proposals about the creation of a park, I just think that is a wonderful addition as far as the overall proposal.

At this time I was prepared or we were prepared to have Mr. Schroder try to clarify some of the engineering or structural conditions of the bridge that seem to be at issue originally when we were having our correspondence back and forth as to whether to replace the bridge or whether to modify the bridge or put in a new bridge and remove the other one. In light of that and I will defer to Mr. Buck and Mr. Schroder, I don’t believe there would be a need at this point and time but again I would ask Mr. Schroder if he felt that it was necessary to give that incidental report on the bridge? In light of this proposal I am not sure if that is absolutely necessary at this time because it sort of takes that consideration off the table at this point for this junction but it would be up to you Carl if you felt that that would be an unnecessary addition? It sort of is taking a step backwards to me to talk about the historical, physical condition of the bridge. I am asking you I guess, I would offer you the courtesy of the floor.


SCHRODER: Thank you. Carl Schroder, Schroder River Associates. Yes, I would agree that it does cast a certainly different light on what may be necessary as a presentation at this point relative to the existing structure. I would note and this proposal certainly does sound like, again at face value, there is a reasonable compromise that could be offered.

Given a few issues that come to mind and please understand this is the first I have seen this or heard about this was five minutes ago, I guess the first caveat I would have is that the various parties that are noted in the proposal are actually in agreement. There should be some consideration to, and by agreement I mean in other words that this could actually go forward, there are several landowners that are noted in the proposal and I don’t know for a fact that that would be agreeable but let’s assume that that is. There will be some concerns still in renovating the existing structure to a pedestrian bridge although the constraints that we would have would be substantially lessened, the amount of load that this bridge would have to carry would be significantly reduced; however, that said the structure still would require rehabilitation and I think this board needs to understand that there will still be a cost to that. The current bridge has exhibited rusting, it has exhibited ice damage and those sorts of things that would need to be addressed, although again certainly within the realm of engineering feasibility, however, there would be a costs attached to that.

The last item I would note and just again quickly considering this proposal, would be that there is noted the maintenance of the responsibility for future repairs and future maintenance of the pedestrian bridge if that indeed were the case, that would fall back to the county. Just recognize that that is an issue that would bear a cost of course. I am not prepared to say what the cost implications of this overall proposal are. It would be rehabbing a pedestrian bridge, we would be constructing a new highway bridge and there would be ancillary development to the effect of constructing a park and the landscape architecture necessary therein, all of those things are cost estimates that I think this board should consider. However, as far as the intent in reaching a compromise I certainly think that the work is commendable and maybe those areas need to be looked at. That would be my only comment unless you would like me to go a little bit further.

I would note that there were many comments taken out of context on quite a few instances in review of this project by the public and really what I was intending on doing today was shedding some clarification and light on that. I would agree that if this bridge does not wind up being a highway bridge, some of those points are moot and maybe would need to be addressed in the future should this proposal not go forward.

Fred, would you agree with where I am standing at this point?


BUCK: Yes.


MERRIHEW: If I could offer this again to Carl, as he had mentioned at our prior meetings prior to this, this was an option of consideration of the possibility of leaving the bridge there intact the way it was and erecting a new replacement bridge downstream which is north toward Elizabethtown, they explained to me there was an additional cost consideration because of the abutments. The original cost estimates where the replacement of the Otis bridge was being considered, it was an extension of, a construction extension of the abutments that were in place. So this consideration would, and Carl can expound on this a little bit, would entail an additional cost because we would be creating new abutments instead of just extensions thereof. Also as a town representative and I would certainly have to have my town board involved in this, is the creation of a new town road to access that bridge would be a cost and we would certainly need some estimates on that but the bridge abutments, you could mention -


SCHRODER: Yes and it is not only the abutments, it is also, again if the proposal is taken in total, the rehab of the existing bridge which is something that we did not discuss previously, we were more thinking to the effect of the existing bridge would be essentially turned over to some other entity for that purpose. There would be additional cost in constructing a bridge on a new alignment over and above the costs that were estimated for the current replacement project that is basically on the table. The length of the bridge would probably be in the same general range as the length is currently. There would be additional permitting necessary in that we would be disturbing the bed and banks of the stream which would involve the Corp. Of the Engineers and the NYS DEC relatively extensively. There would be of course the cost to obtain those permits which could be significant, quite a bit of work on our offices end to be able to do that. There would be the cost of larger and deeper abutments, currently we were proposing putting a stub abutment if you will, which is a relatively shallow structure, behind the existing masonry abutment using the existing abutments as the stream channel scour protection for the new structures. If we relocate the bridge to another site and I would have to look specifically at where that site would be, assuming that the soils at that location are acceptable which they probably will be, one thing that will have to happen is that the abutments will need to get deeper because we will not have that scour protection from the existing structures.

So yes, the cost of a replacement bridge, absent the park, absent rehabbing the existing Otis bridge for historic purpose - just the cost of putting an existing bridge in another alignment would be greater than the cost for the project that is on the table. I am not prepared to say how much at this point but it is fairly intuitive that that would be the case.


SCOZZAFAVA: I think the proposal as it stands right now looks like a good compromise. This is certainly, this whole issue has done a complete 360 from what I expected here this morning because I thought we were just talking about trying not to expend taxpayers dollars for a bridge that supposedly did not need to be replaced, but on this proposal that was just submitted, I think one option that may exist is move the existing bridge in another location for the pedestrian crossing and put the new bridge where the existing bridge sits now. In other words, just reverse the proposal that is out there and that way you are installing your new bridge, you don’t have to replace the abutments and all that and you are going to keep the existing bridge for the pedestrian bridge and move that to - which I think may be less costly.


SCHRODER: We are engineering here on the fly; however, why not.


SCOZZAFAVA: That is the way we do things out here.


SCHRODER: There you go. You would still need an abutment for the pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian bridge still has standards, DOT standards actually that would need to be followed into the design and that would still require constructing abutments that would be scour proof. Now granted those abutments would be somewhat smaller but not a lot smaller.


SCOZZAFAVA: I took a ride over there on Monday morning and looked around and the first thing that stood right out is that it is a seasonal highway, so it is a substantial expense to replace a bridge that actually is for seasonal use. Looking under Highway Law and Fred you can correct me if I am wrong, the only option - it is a county owned bridge so we certainly have the responsibility to bring that bridge up to whatever standards are needed as it pertains to our responsibility for the bridge. The other option that we have would be to abandon the bridge and I don’t know what legal ramifications exist to do that process but from all the emails that I have received, to me at least, my interpretation was that it was very clear that the people wanted to continue to use that bridge and that currently you can get an ambulance over the bridge - am I correct? You can’t.


SCHRODER: Load posted is at three ton and most ambulances would weigh in higher than three ton.


SCOZZAFAVA: Is there any way that the existing structure can be brought up to a standard whereby you could put an ambulance over the structure? Could you beef it up where you can get it up to the three ton or above the limit that you need?


SCHRODER: Okay that question would turn toward my originally planned presentation, it would be appropriate based on that question.


SCOZZAFAVA: Okay, let’s hear it.


SCHRODER: I would like to go through a bit of the history of where we are now.


SCOZZAFAVA: I don’t want to drag it all out and I don’t want to interrupt you but I am just asking, can that existing structure be brought up to standards whereby you can get the emergency equipment over it?


SCHRODER: There are several caveats, it is not a simple question. Economically and from the point of view of historic restoration are the two points that we would need to look at. The economics of doing that would represent a cost that would be greater than the cost of the project that is on the table now. The extent of deterioration of the structure and the capacity of the members in the structure are such that, at least from what we know at this point, there is additional testing and there is additional review that needs to happen to verify this but the extent of work that would likely be required to bring this bridge to the highway standard of an HS 20 load which would be the typical standard that a county would replace a bridge to in Essex County, would likely require the reconstruction of many members within this structure from the point of view of the top cord and the bottom cord certainly, would require replacement of the bridge deck which will be a heavier member which will again - this is kind of like the tail wagging the dog - infringe upon the capacity of the trusses because now we have more dead load which in turn would require replacement potentially of more members in the trusses such that by the time you are done it will be a difficult sell to the State Historic Preservation Office that you indeed have a bridge that has utilized the original members and the original construction to the extent that I am certain to which they would like to see it. I don’t know if that project would be approveable. To the point of view of feasibility, vis a vie, the State Historic Preservation Office, that may be a stumbling block as would be the cost.


SCOZZAFAVA: Just one more question if I may, the other issue that I wanted to bring out, from some of the information that I received, there is other access into that area other than the bridge?


SCHRODER: I think I need to turn that over to a representative of the town. I have not done work on the alternative access.


MERRIHEW: I could maybe add some generic information to that - upon further review it was originally stated or suggested that there was a viable right-of-way access out south of these property’s for forest management on what is considered the Simonds Hill Road. Upon further review, there did seem to be some legal complications there, the specific address or legal language names property that has those specific rights to access Simonds Hill Road being of the old Great Lot #8. The two property’s that are accessed by the Otis Mountain bridge are not members of the old Great Lot #8 so there would be some clarification that would have to be gained but the initial investigation there shows that there could be certainly a problem by the access through these new people’s property’s on Simonds Hill Road so that does not at face value seems to be a viable alternative there.


DOUGLAS: Just a few things here, one- coming from a township that has seen its share of bridge controversy’s, I think a compromise would be a good thing. One point that I will point out, I know from the initial look here it looks like it would cost more to create a new bridge because of the abutments and so forth and that could create a lot of problems because it took us over a year and one-half to get the Army Corp of Engineers permit to do that and also the APA so that is going to take a long time to acquire. The second thing regarding that is the bridge was built in 1914 and it is of historic value. When we were going through the Covered Bridge issue in the Town of Jay, Congressman McHugh’s office secured over a million dollars to preserve the historic Covered Bridge and that is why it went back over the AuSable River last week. If the compromise, after your committee meetings to approve or disapprove this proposal, it would be in our best interest to submit some letters to Senator Clinton’s office, Congressman McHugh’s office, Senator Schumer’s office and Congressman-elect Kristin Gillibrand to say that we want to preserve historic value but we can’t afford it on a county level and that is just how we went about it and Fred was very instrumental in that also that if we want to do this could you help us? We want to save history here but we need some money and it did work for the Town of Jay and it did work for Essex County in the past and through Congressman McHugh’s efforts we were able to secure over a million dollars.


MERRIHEW: Not to say that we have to rush this along but Mr. Chairman, what I would offer would be a suggestion to set up an informal committee as named in the proposal at a time here in the near future between a county representative, a town representative, Ms. Denton, Mr. Harry Gough, members of the Otis Mountain camp and homeowners association and possibly Mr. Deming as he owns property there also with Mr. Buck and a representative, certainly yourself from this committee. I think then we can try and determine what would be the next viable step forward with more accurate consideration of costs at that time and time lines but certainly I do feel very positive about receiving this proposal today, it is very good.


MORROW: I have a quick question and then a comment - I would like to ask the question of how many years has that bridge been down to a three ton limit?


MERRIHEW: Two that I know of, I think it was about 2004 we received that Fred?


BUCK: I would have to look but I think it has been longer than that.


MORROW: The reason I ask that is because we had a bridge in Keeseville that was a three ton limit just for passenger cars only and it went on for years and years and years. My comment is - I think this is a wonderful solution here to the problem of the Otis Mountain bridge and my first thought was when I am hearing this and looking at it today was to preserve a historic bridge in its place, not to take it and put it someplace else as it was mentioned before, to take it and put it at the fair grounds, that doesn’t do it justice but to keep it in its original place does. There is grant money out there, since this is a historical bridge you can get 85% reimbursement to rehabilitate a historical bridge so that is grant money right there, 85% and the other 15% which you would go for with the Congressman and the Senators and stuff like that from the government, it would cost you nothing to rehabilitate this bridge. It shouldn’t, it has been done in the past and somebody should be brought in, Steve Englehart, from the Architectural Heritage and he will even make the application out. I have heard this before in the past and I still don’t understand it but the bridge is three ton and to have to do all kinds of repairs and renovations, I do realize about the rust and everything else but to make it a pedestrian bridge and I have been told that to me about some bridges in Keeseville that were vehicle bridges and they were closed down and as a matter of fact that is why I would never support - one of the reasons I would never support the removal of this bridge and a new bridge in this position because we have three bridges in the Town of Chesterfield that are currently closed and I have people, residents, taxpayers that are crying to get at least one or two of these bridges back open and we can’t do it because of the money.

But, I think this proposal here and to put it as a pedestrian bridge I think is a wonderful solution and I do understand about the new bridge costing more money but sometimes that has to happen to preserve your heritage and to work out a solution for everybody. I would support this right now at face value whole heartedly.


JACKSON: First I would like to congratulate Margaret for doing a whole bunch of work. She obviously was doing more than just sending out emails and you should be commended for that.

I know known Albert Denton since I was a little boy, I never knew Mrs. Denton’s name until today, it was always Mrs. Denton while I was growing up, but my father use to work winters there and did plumbing and electric for Mr. Denton and I use to tag along when I was a little kid. He was a tremendous asset, not just to Elizabethtown but the whole area around here, he did a lot of things that a lot of people may not even know about over the years helping people and he was a wonderful person and the idea of a park in his name I think is very, very fitting and appropriate and I certainly support that part.

My biggest concern from day one was liability and you have addressed that issue. I was not happy with the fact that no fire trucks or ambulances could be over there and even if people are willing to sign off that may well be but if your cousin is up and has a heart attack then we are liable to be sued because we can’t get an ambulance over and whether that contributed or not is irrelevant because the liability issue is there, you have addressed that, that was my biggest concern. I agree with Mr. Morrow that certainly there are funds available and I think between us and the Town of Elizabethtown, your group and ARCH as has been mentioned, they are great at working for this and I think we can get funds a) for the bridge; b) for the park which I think is a great tribute for who I considered a great man; and I just think it is a great thing. Certainly there are some question, it is not a final thing, we need written from everybody involved that they are willing to do this but as far as I am concerned you have solved the issues, you have preserved the original bridge, you have created a park for a person who certainly deserves to have a park named after him so I see it as a win/win/win and I congratulate you on doing the work and hopefully we can dot the i’s and cross the t’s and get from here to there. Thank you very much for your work.


DOBIE: I would like to thank you very much, it was very enlightening and informative and I really think it was a very good presentation.


CONNELL: I would like to offer the floor to Mr. Pratt who has been trying to get our attention for a while, if I may?


DOBIE: Okay, yes.


PRATT: Thank you for this opportunity. On behalf of Mrs. Denton, this is a total surprise. No one has mentioned this in the past, we are totally unaware of it. We would like time to study this, see if it is an alternative. She has a lot at stake here, perhaps as much as everyone put together on the other side so thank you.


DOBIE: Thank you.


DEDRICK: What Noel mentioned earlier I think we should be moving on right now. I think this is a tremendous proposal. I think this is a tremendous compromise. I think a committee has to be formed and researched and a plan has to be developed so I would like to - I am not on this committee but I would like to see a committee moved forward to study this a little bit more in detail.


DOBIE: I would agree with that, we should appoint a committee.


DOUGLAS: I will move that resolution if you want Mr. Dobie.


CONNELL: I will second it.

 

RESOLUTION NAMING A COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE ALBERT OTIS DENTON BOQUET RIVER PARK PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED ON 11/15/06 BY THE OTIS MOUNTAIN CAMP AND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

This was offered by Mr. Douglas, seconded by Mr. Connell.


DOBIE: Discussion? All in favor, opposed, carried. I think we should move ahead with a committee and I will act as the representative from DPW.

Is there anything else to come before this committee? We are adjourned.



           AS THERE WAS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS

           COMMITTEE, WE ADJOURNED AT 10:49 A.M.



Respectfully submitted,



Deborah Palmer, Clerk

Board of Supervisors