Clay County approves U.S. Army Corps memorandum for replacement of historic Northeast 172nd Street bridge

Clay County commissioners on Thursday approved a three‑party memorandum of agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer to remove and replace the Northeast 172nd Street Bridge over Muddy Fork Creek.

The commission approved the measure, listed as item 2025‑244, on a 5‑1 vote after a presentation by Tom Dagenhart, the county’s road and bridge director. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the agreement.

Dagenhart said the bridge is listed on the federal historic registry and was built in 1919. “It’s on the federal registry. It was built in 1919,” he said, and described the structure as a two‑span reinforced‑concrete arch with a reinforced concrete deck, 103 feet long and a 17½‑foot roadway; he said it currently carries a 15‑ton weight limit and has a sufficiency rating of 32.6. He said the replacement is part of an ARPA‑funded project approved by resolution in January 2024.

Commissioners and staff discussed detour routes — Dagenhart outlined a detour of roughly 5.92 miles along 172nd Street, Ragsdale Road, Jesse James Farm Road and Bishop Road — and the practical limits of preserving the bridge. Dagenhart told the commission the concrete‑arch bridge cannot be relocated if removed and said the county is required under the memorandum to photo‑archive the structure and to notify appropriate tribal authorities if artifacts are found during construction.

Commissioner Worthington raised concerns about removing a historic structure and asked whether preservation options — such as retaining the bridge for a trail — had been explored. Dagenhart and county staff said previous design work and the ARPA project timeline limit the county’s ability to redesign the replacement or to add an adjacent trail without additional right‑of‑way and easements, but staff agreed to take another look at whether preservation options were feasible. Commissioner Worthington said he would not vote for replacement without exploring preservation options; he voted no.

The commission’s roll call on the motion was recorded as: Yes — Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Lawson, Commissioner Wagner, Commissioner Thompson and Commissioner Carpenter; No — Commissioner Worthington. The motion passed 5‑1.

The memorandum requires the county’s design professional to photo‑archive the bridge before construction and to notify tribes and halt work if cultural artifacts are encountered. The county’s road and bridge director told commissioners that, because the bridge is a concrete arch, it cannot be relocated elsewhere.

No further formal instructions to staff were enacted at the meeting beyond approval of the memorandum, though staff said they would revisit preservation options and return with any findings.

The bridge replacement is slated to move forward under the terms of the approved memorandum of agreement; construction timing and contractor selection follow the project’s procurement and ARPA project schedules.