Consultant outlines short‑ and long‑term options to reopen Urbanna marina; temporary fix estimated near $300,000

Jeremy Slussle, a bridge engineer with Wimen and Recher and Associates, told the Urbanna council and attendees that the town’s marina access bridge has visible structural deterioration and an unknown foundation condition that make the site risky for traffic and complicate repair or replacement plans. Slussle said the present structure likely dates to the mid‑1970s, shows missing prestressing cables and concrete spalling, and was closed because it "fell through the cracks" of routine inspection.

Slussle presented four short‑term options to reopen the marina quickly: prefabricated modular (Bailey/Navy) steel bridges, highway‑rated portable bridges with railing, prestressed precast concrete slabs, and cast‑in‑place concrete. He said all temporary solutions will require some foundation or footing work and likely be configured as a single lane with ramps; the goal is to keep loads off the failing structure while restoring marina access.

On cost, Slussle provided ballpark figures for discussion. He said a used modular steel bridge could be purchased for "around $50,000" before freight and roadway work; rental rates he quoted were roughly $115 per day for an initial period and about $100 per day thereafter. For a fully engineered temporary installation he described a planning‑level example of roughly $100,000–$150,000 for engineering and a similar range for installation, adding that the combined work could be in the neighborhood of $300,000. Slussle cautioned these figures are preliminary, depend on contractor availability and hauling costs, and that asking for higher sums early in grant applications is common because it is difficult to secure supplemental funding later.

Residents and council members pressed on life expectancy and serviceability. Slussle said well‑designed concrete or metal solutions have lasted decades elsewhere, that temporary options can be designed to HL‑93 loading standards and Virginia legal emergency loads so fire trucks and school buses could cross, and that new bridges over 20 feet typically require routine inspections about every two years at an estimated cost of roughly $5,000 per inspection.

Long‑term replacing of the bridge, Slussle said, is more complex. Work in the water faces seasonal in‑water work restrictions (he cited a Feb. 15–June 15 window that commonly affects permitting), potential reviews by the U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, DEQ and NEPA if federal funds are used, plus utility relocations (Dominion Energy, HRSD wastewater, Verizon/BreezeLine) and right‑of‑way or easement acquisition because the road to the marina crosses private property.

On geotechnical risk, Slussle said piles for a permanent structure could be "anywhere from 80 to 100 feet" and that unknown foundation depth is the riskiest unknown: "If a foundation fails, the bridge will fail," he said, urging borings and survey work before committing to a permanent design. He gave planning estimates for ancillary work — a survey ($50,000–$75,000) and geotechnical borings (figure discussed in the meeting was unclear on transcript and treated as approximate) — and said bridge design could require thousands of engineering hours.

Resident Rory Kime urged a narrower scope. Kime told the council he was no longer willing to serve as project manager, called the access road "more like a driveway," recommended a single‑lane structure sized to carry a fully loaded fire tanker rather than a full DOT‑spec bridge, and said the marina produces about $25,000 in net income annually. Kime also cited a $750,000 design cost plus $150,000 in oversight in the contract under discussion and argued the town should form a council committee to explore less expensive alternatives.

Council members and attendees discussed whether VDOT would accept the road into the state system if rebuilt to state standards. Speakers clarified that although the road can remain private, the bridge itself must meet AASHTO/VDOT bridge standards if it is used by the public; VDOT adoption would require meeting right‑of‑way, subbase and pavement specifications. The group also discussed a bypass/canal idea to avoid a bridge, but Slussle said that too would need permitting and potentially land acquisition.

The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn. Council members did not take a final vote on a contract or select an interim alternative during the session; Slussle recommended the town consider a temporary engineered solution to restore access while pursuing state or federal funding for a longer‑term replacement.

Next steps reported: the consultant can prepare more detailed planning‑level estimates, the council may pursue a committee to evaluate alternatives and the town would need to commission survey and geotechnical work before committing to a permanent design.