Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Bridges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators approve self‑insurance coverage for historic Newfield covered bridge amid questions about replacement cost
Summary
The committee voted to extend county self‑insurance to the Newfield covered bridge; legislators raised concerns about the bridge's replacement value, inspection history and what 'self‑insured' would mean in practice.
Tompkins County legislators on March 19 voted to authorize the county’s self‑insurance fund to cover the historic Newfield covered bridge (resolution ID 1393), after a wide-ranging discussion about the bridge’s value and insurance mechanics.
Legislators representing the district emphasized the bridge’s cultural and economic value — one member said the town’s comprehensive plan placed the covered bridge second in local importance and estimated more than 3,200 visitors to the site last year. Several members questioned whether the $2.2 million approximate value in the packet would cover a true like‑for‑like replacement. Committee members and highway staff estimated a conventional modern replacement at roughly $3–5 million and said a historically accurate reproduction could reach $10 million.
Highway staff reported the state inspects the bridge annually and completed a set of repairs in 2015, describing the structure as monitored and maintained. Finance and administration staff explained the county’s self‑insurance approach: the county maintains an insurance reserve (reported as more than $1 million) and a deductible (cited as $1 million); catastrophic coverage beyond the county’s retention is handled through commercial insurance or other policy mechanisms.
Committee members sought clarity on scope: staff indicated self‑insurance would cover repair costs arising from damage (for example, vehicular impact) subject to the county’s deductible and existing insurance contracts; replacement in full with a historically reproduced bridge would require additional funding and policy decisions. After questions and discussion the committee voted to approve the authorization.
Committee members asked staff to provide additional historical inspection records and confirmation of the county’s insurance limits and fallback arrangements for catastrophic loss.
