FAIRBANKS — State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities submitted a Section 106 notification asking the Special Historic Preservation Commission to review repairs to the Lathrop pedestrian overcrossing bridge. Commission staff and members discussed the DOT proposal, public comments, and whether the bridge should be treated as historic.

Why it matters: The project involves repairs to a pedestrian overcrossing that the DOT has evaluated and determined not eligible for the National Register pending SHPO concurrence; how the commission frames its response could affect future eligibility and any later requests to alter or remove the structure.

Commission staff member Katie presented DOT materials, reading the agency’s inspection findings: “Inspection of the pedestrian overcrossing bridge determined that the original bolts at the vertical roof support bases are no longer structurally sound, and they're too corroded to be safely removed without damaging the structure further.” The DOT’s proposed fix is to secure the steel vertical roof-support bases with welded joints using handheld welding equipment; the DOT said no heavy equipment or staging outside the structure would be required and anticipated no ground disturbance.

A member of the public, Samantha Kennett of North Pole, said she and some residents who do not drive rely on that covered crossing and asked that the bridge be repaired and preserved. “I just wanna make sure that the the bridge is gonna be staying and being repaired and maybe painted and going to live on,” Kennett said during citizen comments.

Commissioner Josh expressed a substantive concern about the DOT’s eligibility analysis. “I just would like to see a little bit more of the logic why it's not eligible being fleshed out a little bit more,” he said, noting the historic context described in the DOT materials and suggesting the bridge might have local associative value as one of fewer remaining covered pedestrian crossings in the city’s mid-20th-century buildout.

Staff recommended no formal comment; several commissioners discussed an alternative approach in which staff would summarize the commission’s discussion for DOT and direct DOT to the meeting recording for full context. Chair Recker noted that if the DOT repair is purely maintenance and does not use federal funds, Section 106 ordinarily would not apply; however, DOT had submitted the notice. Commissioners agreed there was not a need to submit a formal comment at the special meeting, though several asked that DOT provide clearer reasoning for a not-eligible finding for the record and that staff include the commission’s concerns in an informal summary.

Clarifying details from the meeting: DOT described the structure as originally built in the 1970s; the original plan called for plexiglass sides but chain-link was installed over time, in part because plexiglass was repeatedly vandalized; DOT intends to weld the corroded support base bolts on both sides of the covered walkway using handheld welding; DOT’s letter states a finding of “no historic properties within the APE” and “no historic properties negatively affected,” pending SHPO concurrence; staff recommended no official comment and commissioners accepted an informal summary plus reference to the meeting recording.

Ending: The commission did not file a formal comment at the July 25 special meeting but asked staff to document the discussion and to point DOT to the meeting record; SHPO concurrence remains pending and the commission noted it could revisit the matter at a future meeting if additional information is submitted.