Scribd
Upload
3K views8 pages

Menasha Racine Street Bridge Letter

The City of Menasha is requesting support from State Representatives regarding the Racine Street Bridge, which has unresolved issues following its reconstruction. Menasha seeks clarity on the ownership transfer process for the bridge and requests state funding for its maintenance and operation. The city emphasizes the financial and operational burdens it faces due to the bridge's current condition and the lack of formal procedures in the ownership transfer process.

Uploaded by

Jonathan Krause
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
3K views8 pages

Menasha Racine Street Bridge Letter

The City of Menasha is requesting support from State Representatives regarding the Racine Street Bridge, which has unresolved issues following its reconstruction. Menasha seeks clarity on the ownership transfer process for the bridge and requests state funding for its maintenance and operation. The city emphasizes the financial and operational burdens it faces due to the bridge's current condition and the lack of formal procedures in the ownership transfer process.

Uploaded by

Jonathan Krause
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8
2 ity of Menasha | Office ofthe Mayor Menasha January 22, 2028 ‘Asm.DeanKaufert Sen. Kristen Altheim ‘Assembly District 83 Senate District 18, Room 223 North Room 106 South State Capitol State Capitol .0. Box 8962 P.0. Box 7882 Madison, WI53707 Madison, WI53707, Subject: Racine Street Bridge (8-70-24) Project 4992-03-71 Dear Representatives Kaufert & Atfhelm, ‘The City of Menasha would Uke to extend its sincerest appreciation for your willingness to dedicate your valuable time considering and addressing our concerns regarding the Racine ‘Street Bridge, alt bridge over the Fox River in Menasha (hereinafter, the “bridge"). The purpose ofthis letters to seek your support: 1) Torectity current and past issues withthe bridge; 2) To obtain clarity trom the State (and a change in Law) regarding the transfer of ‘ownership procedure of an existing "84.10 bridge”; and 2) To obtain funding from the State for maintenance and operation of the bridge pursuant to Wis, Stat. 820,395(3}(¢q) and (eq), ‘As you know, the bridge underwent complete reconstruction beginning in 2021, The reconstruction project wes managed by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisOT), the owner of the “84.10 bridge.” According to WisDOT, per Wis. Stat. § 84.10, “Menasha is mandated to take ownership ofthe new bridge. WisDOT indicates this transter of, ‘ownership takes place upon “substantial completion” and without any formal transfer or acceptance of ownership process. While the bridge has been open to traffic since April 2023, ‘Menasha firmly objects to WisDOT's assertions that “substantial complation” has occurred ‘and that “reconstruction” is complete given the significant unresolved issues. Therefore, sven these significant unresolved (and costy) issues, Menasha rejects the assertion that bridge ownership has already been transferred ‘Currentand Past issues with the Racine Street Bridge ‘Menasha has encountered a myriad of problems pertaining to the operation ofthe bridge and ‘Unraveled questionable decisions made throughout the construction process. Menashe 4100 Main Sect, Suita 200 | Menasha, Wisconsin 54952-2151 Phone (320) 97-9608 | Fax (920) 967-5272 | menashaw gov ‘recognizes WisDOT has been helpfutin addressing some concerns. However, W'sDOT has also dettected several concerns, particularly when the responsibilty to provide a remedy ‘could not be placed on the primary contractor, Lunda Construction Company. Given the ‘observable detects ofthe bridge and WisDOT's haste in offloading ownership onto the City throu winat fly ke un wibtrary declaration, Mernashas Consteniation stat completion fof the project was valued over ensuring longevity ofthe bridge. Consequently, Menasha is ‘concerned costly premature mitigation measures and repairs will necessary due to decisions made inthe design and construction processes Menasha had ne control over. Thus, we ask for your assistance in working with WisDOT to find reasonable solutions to our concerns. Below is a summarized list of key remaining concerns regarding this project: 1. Girder deflection. Through an open records request, Menashe learned the contractor brought forward concerns to Wis0OT prior tothe deck construction thatthe design of the dock would place excess forces on the outermost girders (support beams under the roadway deck of the bridge). After some consideration, WisDOT ordered the contractor to pursue construction of the deck as planned. The girders deflected differently than WisDOT anticipated and ina manner that seemingly substantiates the contractors concems. The constructed deck ended up being steeper than design, also creating accessibility concerns pertaining tothe sidewalx cross-slope. The contractor atibuted the citferonce in deflection with the design concerns it brought forward, whereas WisDOT attributed ito the contractor's construction practices. WisDOT ordered the contractor 0 remedy the sidewalk cross-slope issue and approved a concrete overlay, which added \Wolght placed on the outermost girders. Not having structural engineering staf and also not being privy to any structural analyses that were performed by WisDOT, Menasha blieves this series of decisions ~ all of which occurred without Menasha’s input~poses @ risk to shorten the lifespan ofthe bridge. Furthermore, Menasha is concerned about the implications relating to the severity and timing of future maintenance 2, Condition of elastomeric bearings. Initial routine inspections ofthe bridge indicate that the elastomeric bearings (pads between the girders and the piers which disperse load and allow for minimal movement ar already in poor condition. Menasha is concerned replacement of these bearings willbe necessary in the near future and that this maintenance work wil be costly. For such a new bridge, Menashe questions the rapid wear of these bearings, and seeks to understand why so many bearings seem to be falling ‘80 800n. It does not seem tenable for this burden to be placed on Menasha. 3, Exposed footings. Long before the bridge opened to traffic, a dive inspection found ‘substantial scouring around two of the footings anda sizable delamination (formed hole in concrete that separates from the rest of the structure) of another pier. WisDOT ignored these findings, never having recognized them in any communications shared withthe City. Monasha is concerned these issues need to be remedied and should have been ‘addressed prior to WisDOT declaring “substantial completion” ofthe project. 20h? 4. Bridge Noise. When the bridge was fist opened to traffic, Menasha was flooded with complaints fram neighboring residents about banging noises resulting from the trafic crossing the bascules (the spans that can be raised and lowered). WisDOT made some adjustments tthe seating ofthe bridge, which did lesson the noise; however, the noise ‘a8 atill unacceptably burdensome to residente, particularly given their experience with ‘the previous lit bridge. Atter extensive correspondence resulting ina lack of action and continued uncatisfactory conditions, Menasha hired a third-party contractor to ‘Youbleshoot te iseue. With relatively minor adjustments, Menasha's third-party contractor resolved this issue. Given the simplicity of the adjustments and the insincerity 10 investigate the iesue after repeated concerns were brought forth, Menashs is isappointed with WisDOT's response inthis regard. On principle, Menasha believes WisDOT should have been willing to cover the costs ofthe third-party fi 5. Machinery brakes. Ator having been identified as an issue in May 2026, the spring assemblies (the springs and theie housings) for the machinery brakes (a safety feature ‘which holds the tension and rotation of the bascule shafte) have yet to be replaced. While ‘the replacements have now been ordered and are currently scheduled fr this February, the process tc get to this point has been frustrating. After intialy stating replacement parts were in process of being fabricated, WisDOT late claimed the issues were resolved by adjustment to the bridge seating (how the bascules re-assemble after opening) and that there would be no replacement of parts. Consequently, WisDOT declared “substantial completion” ofthe project and downgraded the issue to a gauge reading adjustment on the corresponding punch lst (list of outstanding work tobe completed), Teno aval, Menasha verbalize its concerns with this standpoint, citing contradictions withthe current setup and the manufacturer's specifications. Only ase result of tre lack ‘of action on behalf ofthe contractor and manufacturer and ofthe conclusions brought {orth in Menasha's third-party investigation, did WisDOT agree to reconsider replacement ‘of the machinery brake spring assemblies. To WisOOT's credit, despite the contractor ‘and manufacturer recommending simply adjusting the gauge reacing per WisDOT's punch ist, WisDOT ordered the contractor to replace the spring assemblies with more capable equirment. While this work is scheduled, thas been delayed and remains to be completed, 6. Warranty schedule. The contract between WisDOT and Lunda requires @ 30-day break-in period prior toreaching "substantial completion” ofthe project. WisDOT indicatec to Menasha thatthere was an issue with the machinery brake spring assemblies, suspending the 30-day break-in period and assured thatthe break-in period would not be resumed untilthis issue was resolved. After adjusting the bridge seating, “substantial completion” cf the project was apparentiy issued by WisDOT on September 5, 2023. Menasha asserts WisDOT violated its own Standard Specifications by issuing the substantial completion” declaration, as the machinery brakes are a sefety appurtenance ‘and the work involving the brakes is not minor corrective work. Consequently, WisDOT also improperiy declared the apparent transfer of ownership as it did not keep its ‘assurances that the spring assemblies would be addressed prior to issuing substantiat 3087, completion. Assuch, Menssha's stance is that WisDOT should alsornat have triggered ‘the 12-month warranty per its contract. Requsal for Clarity Regarding Transter of Ownership Procedure or “84,10 Bridge” Menasha seeks clatcation on Section 84.10 concerning the transfer of ownership of an ‘existing “84.10 bridge" from the State to the City, Specifically, we seek to understand when {and how this transfer occurs and the statutory authority under which ittakes place. In what foltows, the City wit demonstrate the absence of such procedure inthe current statute, and the necessity for logislative action to define this process. Section 84.10 provides: (1) The amounts allocated under s. 20.395(3)(¢q) and (eq) for the purposes described in this subsection shall be expended by the department for the ‘maintenance and operation of bridges not on the state trunk highway system which were constructed, reconstructed, or purchased under s. 184.11 before August 9, 1989, and under 8. 4.12 and free bridges located in ‘comecting highways in 4th class cities, and towne, which have a length, not inckiding approaches, of 300 feet or more, ora swing or lift span. Except as provided in a jurisdictionat transfer agreement under s. 84.16, al matters ‘relating to maintenance and operation of such bridges shall be under the control of the department, Maintenance and operation shall notinclude the roadway lighting system and shall not include snow and ice removal and ‘comtrot for bridges located on connecting highways. Notwithstanding any ‘other provision of law, the department shall designate and mark the bridge specified in , 84.1024 in the manner and under the conditions specified in s. ‘84.1028. The department may arrange with any county highway committee oF with any city, village of town for the operation or maintenance or Both of any ‘such bridge; and any county highway committee, city, village or town may center into such arrangement. This subsection does not apply to sub. (2). (2) Thejoint committee on finance may transter moneys to s. 20.395(3)(cq) trom ‘any other segregated revenue appropriations of the department for state ‘operations from the transportation fund, upon request of the department, for the purpose of supplementing moneys allocated under s. 20.385(3}(¢q) for the rehabiltation of a local bridge for which improvement is a state responsiblity and which has been posted with a weight Umitation as provided ins 249.16(2) Prior to the ongoingRacine Street Bridge project, the bridge was designated an “84.10 bridge,” owned and maintained by the State (excluding snow and ice removal and costs _associated with roadway lighting systems), since itis not on a state trunk highway systam and ‘was constructed prior to August 8, 1989. See $84. 10/1). Once the projectis completed, it aot? ‘appears the bridge will lose its “84.10 bridge® designation, resultinginthe City assuming responsibilty for such maintenance and ownership. {As cetlected in theplain tanguage of the statute above, section 84.10 lacks any procedures for the transfer of ownership or removal ofthe “84.10 bridge” designation, Moreover, there is no mention of @ procedure forthe transfer of ovnership out ofthe "84.10 bridge” status, aside trom a jurisdictional transter agreement under 8.84.16. However, WisDOT has indicatedthat 2 jurisdictional transfer agreement does not apply under these circumstances. Menashe respectfully requests clarity on why this agreement was not required inthe case of the Racine ‘Street Bridge project and why itwas not addressed betore the project began. Despite the lack o stated or impliod statutory procedure per section 84.10, WisDOT has relied on this statute to suggest that no formal document, agreement, oF acceptance on behalf of Menashs is necessary for the transfer of ownership or the removal ofthe "84.10 bridge” designaticn, WisDOT asserts that the completion ofthe bridge reconstruction or replacement automatically triggers the transfer of ownership tothe City. However, Menesha {questions both the statutory basis ofthis assertion and the timing of when reconstruction or replacementis censidered complete, especially in ight of the above-listed outstanding end ‘costly issues withthe bridge. The City maintain that the bridge's outstanding issues ‘evidence thatthe oridge reconstruction project is yet to be complete, \WisDOT has also declared thats issuance of “substantial completion” to Lunda ‘automaticaly triggers the transfer of ownership tothe City. Menasha finds this unilateral {determination of “substantial completion” by WisDOT problematic, asthe City was nota party to WisDOT'scontract with Lunda, Furthermore, there is no provision in section 84.10 ‘hat supports the idea that ownership transfers upon the issuance of “substantiat completion” by WisDOT. Section 84,10 does not provide a statutory basis for WisDOT to declare that ownership has been transferred tthe Cty. Without clear guidance in the statute, WisDOT has assertec that ro formal agreemant or acceptance is needed to transter ownership or remove the "84.19 bridge” designaticn, This tack of clarity eaves municipalities exposed to potential financial ‘and operational burdens, which is both unreasonable and unfair. Given the absence ofa clesr process for ownership transfer in section 84.10, ifthe legislature is unwiling to amend section 84.10 to exclude lit bridges not on state trunks such as the Racine Street Bridge in order to maintain ownership and maintenance responsibilities with the State, the Cityrequests that the legislature establish a formalized procedure for the ‘transfer of ownership of “84.10 bridges" including this bridge. This procedure should ensure ‘that municipalities ae provided with adequate protections and a clear process for addressing these ‘ransitions. At a minimum, this process should require formal documentation and agreement, 9 that municipalities are not unfairly burdened with financial responsibilities without lear statutory authority or due process. Sot? ‘Request for Funding from the State for Maintenance and Operation of the Bridge In light of the anticipated transfer of ownership and responsibilty ofthe Racine Street Bridge upon project completion, Menasha seeks your supportin respectfully requesting substantial retroactive and ongoing funding from the State for maintenance and operation ofthe bridge. Menasha seeks this funding under Section 20.395(3)(cq) and (eq), the same funding sources allocated tothe State for an "8.10 brige.” The bridge has encountered numerous ongoing issues, including delays in project completion and unresolved concerns as previously noted above, These challenges have placed persistent strain on the Menasha’s resources and Nave hindered its ability to adequately prepare for the maintenance and operational responsiblities twill assume upon the transter of ownership. ‘As the bridge project nears hopetul completion, Menasha continues toface a range of Unresolved issues, some of which question the bridge's overall integrity. These ‘complications have required considerable time, efor, and financial resources from the Menasha to address, particularly where WisDOT has not taken action. Given these circumstances, Menasha respectfully requests retroactive funding to cover expenses already incurred in addressing some of these above-listed issues as well maintenance and ‘operations costs to date. Furthermore, in ignt of these ongoing challenges, itis critical thet the State provide continuous financial support to Menasha for bath immediate maintenance ‘and operation costs upon completion, and forthe long-term upkeep and future operational needs of the brig. Conclusion In conclusion, Menasha respecttully seeks your continued supportin addressing the critical issues surrounding the Racine Steet Bridge. The City seeks not only to rectify the ‘outstaning problems and clarity the process forthe transfer of ownership under Section £84.10, but also to secure necessary funding to ensure the longterm maintenance and ‘operation ofthe bridge. Menasha values your attention to these concerns and appreciates your commitment to working together in resolving thase complex issues. We are confident that with your support, we can achieve a fair resolution that enaures the integrity and sustainability of this vital transportation tink for our City of Menasha and regional Fox Valley ‘community ‘Thank you or your time and consideration. Please contact my office for any adaltional information you may require to more fully understand this issue, Respecttully, ok He ‘Austin Hammond Mayor Got? Enclosure ‘Supplement ofthe Current & Past Issues with the Racine Street Bridge Inomized Summary of Concerns ‘Additional Background Information Kristina Boardman, WisDOT Secretary ‘Tom Buchhol:, WisDOT Northeast Region Director Bill Bertrand, WisDOT Project Manager Kyle Witte, WisDOT Senior Transportation Civil Engineer James Lawman, Lunda Construction Company Project Manat Cart Woitekaris, Northeast Wisconsin Regional Director forthe Ottice ofthe Governor Matt Mugerauer, City of Oshkosh Mayor John Fitepatrck, City of Oshkosh Interim City Manager ‘Anthony Penterman, City of Kaukauna Mayor Fat?) = Menasha SUPPLEMENT OF CURRENT & PAST ISSUES WITH THE RACINE STREET BRIDGE ciy of Menasha | Department of Public Works temized Summary of Concerns 1. Girder deflection. The girdors (support beams under the roadway deck of the bridge)

You might also like