Atchison County commission debates repair plan, cost-sharing for county bridge serving one property

Atchison County commissioners and lawyers for the Fung family discussed options for Bridge 29.8‑C‑5 on June 24, focusing on whether to replace the wooden structure with a like‑kind bridge or to install culverts and how costs and long‑term ownership would be allocated.

The discussion centered on both legal obligations and practical tradeoffs. Mike Koppelman, who said he represents the Fung family and WLF Hills LLC, told the commission the land behind the crossing is nearly 500 acres and “if this bridge is removed, it completely lowers the value of that land. It will be a taking of the constitution.” Koppelman referenced “statute 68‑11‑26” and a 1921 Jefferson County case that he said supports the family’s view that the county has an obligation to proceed with repair or reconstruction.

Pat Henderson, county counselor, told the commission the statute requires the county to “commence at once the proceedings necessary” but argued the law does not force a specific outcome. “The statute does not say you must build a bridge,” Henderson said, adding that the proceedings can result in a decision not to build a like‑kind structure. Henderson said the legal question is unresolved and that the matter contains both legal and policy components.

Commissioners and the family’s representative repeatedly discussed culverts as a lower‑cost alternative to a full replacement. Commissioners noted engineering work and a county engineering study recommended culverts as a practical option that would improve the weight rating compared with the deteriorated wooden structure. One commissioner observed culverts are “cheaper and more functional” and described them as a likely “win‑win.” Koppelman said the family would accept a culvert solution if it allowed farm equipment and recreational visitors to access the property as before.

The county’s staff advised that removing the bridge from the county bridge inventory so a culvert is placed in a new alignment can make the crossing ineligible for future state or federal bridge funding and could transfer long‑term maintenance responsibility to the landowner. Henderson and road and bridge staff discussed the state program that pays counties to remove bridges from the inventory and said state funds, if awarded, cover part of a county’s cost-share for other bridge projects, not a payment that the county can hand directly to a landowner.

Commissioners said they are divided on precedent and countywide fairness. One commissioner said the county cannot assume responsibility for structures that benefit only a single parcel, while another warned that repeatedly refusing to replace or repair such crossings could lead to litigation and county liability to compensate landowners for lost access.

The commission asked staff to develop written proposals: (1) a cost estimate and formal RFP/specification for installing culverts at or adjacent to the current crossing, (2) a draft cost‑share agreement that would remove the crossing from county inventory if both parties agree, and (3) documentation of the legal research on K.S.A. 68‑11‑26 and related case law. Commissioners scheduled follow‑up talks and agreed staff would work with the family’s representative to produce a proposal for the commission to consider at a later meeting.

The commission did not vote on a final replacement plan at the June 24 meeting and made no formal commitment to fund a full bridge replacement at county expense.