Committee delays Veterans Memorial Parkway Bridge work over bat-season and railroad-permit concerns

Staff asked the committee to approve a development services contract for work on the Veterans Memorial Parkway Bridge that would cost $216,438 in total, but members pushed to delay formal approval because of endangered-bat seasonal restrictions and a complex railroad permitting process.

The matter was introduced as a request to approve the contract and a construction timeline. A staff presenter said the project would likely bid in late summer, with construction ideally starting in mid‑October, because “the window where we get all clear with no restrictions begins October 15, and wraps around till the March.” The presenter said the design, bid-phase and construction‑phase engineering work combined are “just under $75,000,” with separate line items for surveying, easement negotiation, construction observation and permitting, for a total project estimate of $216,438.

Why it matters: the bridge spans active railroad lines and lies in habitat where state‑listed or endangered bat species may be present. Staff and members discussed both the practical and cost implications of investigating habitat presence versus timing the work to the permitted season. The presenter warned that prior investigations into bat presence have cost municipalities more than $50,000 and often led back to the same seasonal constraints; given that, staff recommended aligning bidding and construction to the unencumbered window beginning Oct. 15.

Details of the recommended contract and cost breakdown were described in the meeting. According to staff, the fee package includes: preliminary and bid‑phase design plus construction‑phase engineering services (about $75,000); survey work and right‑of‑way delineation (about $20,000); an easement negotiation contingency (about $5,000); construction observation and contract closeout services (about $75,000); and permitting costs (about $24,000), which were said to include Norfolk Southern right‑of‑entry processing, additional railroad protective liability insurance and contractors’ right‑of‑entry permits.

Members questioned feasibility of an earlier start and whether investigations of potential bat habitat were necessary before bidding. One member summarized the staff recommendation as effectively saying to wait until the October window rather than spend water, time and money on species‑presence studies that might not change the schedule. There was discussion of the intensive permitting requirements over active rail tracks — staff noted that prior bridge work over rail required extensive containment (such as protective curtains and blast debris capture) and that obtaining railroad permits would be “quite a chore.”

Discussion versus decision: a committee member moved to postpone consideration to the next week to allow additional review of budget and schedule. The transcript records the motion to take the item to next week; no roll‑call vote or formal tally on that motion appears in the provided record.

Next steps: staff said they would provide an updated schedule and expected to have a bid package by mid‑summer for bidding late summer, subject to the committee’s direction on whether to await the October unencumbered window for construction. The item was moved for further consideration at the committee’s next meeting.