State nudges Cascade rehab
By MICHAEL ANDERSON manderson@thehawkeye.com
When it comes to Cascade Bridge, the city of Burlington always has been free to make one of two choices, according to the Iowa Department of Transportation: Tear it down or rehabilitate it for future generations.
A statement issued June 18 by IDOT in consultancy with the State Historic Preservation office puts the choice squarely in the hands of the Burlington City Council while leaning toward rehabilitating the bridge as the most desirable action.
A $1 million federal grant remains on the table no matter what the city does, according to IDOT historic preservation specialist Libby Wielenga, but the two options are not equal in terms of consequences.
The IDOT statement refrains from making a concrete recommendation, but it does make clear tearing down the historic bridge would constitute an "adverse effect" under standards set by the National Historic Preservation Act.
If the city decides to demolish and replace Cascade Bridge with a modern concrete structure, it will trigger the involvement of state and federal regulatory agencies.
Before action could be taken, the city must submit input from the Federal Highway Administration and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation along with IDOT and State Historic Preservation office, all of which would help determine measures to counteract the "adverse effect" of the bridge's destruction.
The city would be required to undergo an IDOT-mandated study to direct the decision-making process under the guidance of the agencies involved. The study would ensure the city's action will not neglect any "feasible and prudent alternative" and will seek to minimize harm to the historical nature of the property.
Wielenga would not say how long such a process would take, only noting it can take longer based on the scale of a project.
The other option is to keep the bridge and more aggressively pursue rehabilitation, which is labeled as "no adverse effect" in the IDOT statement.
"And the Department of Transportation Act will be satisfied with little additional requirements," the statement reads.
Though the statement doesn't spell it out for the city, Wielenga came close: The city should seriously consider saving the bridge.
"There's a lot of other cities across the state that would value something like this," Wielenga said.
The Burlington Public Works Department closed Cascade Bridge to vehicle traffic in 2008 after an informal inspection revealed crumbling concrete at its base and rusted joints and bearings along its frame.
The question of what to do with the bridge likely comes down to cost. The city's finances are tight, and with a proposed 3 percent franchise fee in danger of being rejected in an Aug. 6 special election, the $4 million budgeted for the Cascade Bridge in the upcoming fiscal year may fall by the wayside.
The city has budgeted $3 million in general obligation bond funds for the project, with the rest coming from federal grants. If the franchise fee fails, City Manager Jim Ferneau has listed a Cascade Bridge project in any form as one of the first items to be cut from the city's budget.
With Burlington's financial woes in mind, historic preservation representatives have suggested the city look into additional state and federal grants to further mitigate the cost of rehabbing or replacing the bridge.