Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Bridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council leans toward repairing 22nd Street bridge after engineering proposal
Summary
City manager presented a Gemini/Ayers proposal that estimates roughly $400,000 in construction costs and $48,000 in CEI fees; councilists pressed about the bridge’s age, life expectancy after repair (15–20 years), and alternatives before expressing consensus to pursue the repair plan.
City Manager Kyle Riefler told the council the engineering team (Gemini with Ayers & Associates) submitted a repair proposal for the 22nd Street bridge and that the package includes $48,000 for construction engineering inspection and an estimated $400,000 for construction work. He said the proposal’s professional-services total is about $173,000, higher than a slide that showed $130,000 because of added CEI/post-design costs. "They still believe that the construction cost will be roughly $400,000 for the bridge repairs," Riefler said.
Council members pressed engineers’ assumptions and the bridge’s age. Council member Frank Banker raised archival and aerial-photo evidence suggesting the bridge may predate 1960 and told the council he had "no faith in Gemini Engineering" citing past errors. Riefler responded that engineers noted the structure could have been built as early as 1955 but that the uncertainty does not change the proposed repairs or scope. When asked about expected service life after repairs, Riefler reported engineers expect at least 15–20 years of additional service life.
Members discussed the cost of full replacement versus repair. An engineer’s replacement estimate of about $5,000,000 was cited during the meeting; some council members urged seeking alternative bids and prefab options. Council member Mark Beam and others pressed for geotechnical verification of pile depths and scour conditions before committing to design choices. Riefler said the geotechnical work is budgeted (about $20,000–$25,000) and that a site investigation would refine scour-mitigation design and could modestly change the repair approach.
The practical outcome of the discussion was not a formal vote but a council consensus to pursue repair: the mayor summarized that the council’s current preference is to repair and directed the manager to bring the proposal back for formal approval at the next meeting. Riefler said he would include the proposal on the next agenda and fold it into the capital-priority list.
The next steps the council asked for are: (1) confirm geotechnical findings on scour and pile condition, (2) seek competitive bids or alternative solution estimates for replacement vs repair, and (3) present a funding recommendation and schedule when the item returns for formal action.
