Elkader Council, engineer discuss Keystone Bridge project
By Willis Patenaude, Times-Register
The Keystone Bridge project once again dominated the April 12 Elkader city council meeting, as IIW engineer Julie Neeble discussed the rejected bid and the future of the project.
It was previously noted the bid was rejected due to cost, which ended up being double what was estimated. What led to the high bid and there being only one bidder was fully addressed at the meeting and in a separate interview with Neeble.
One issue, touched on by Neeble, was how the idea behind bundling projects through the Every Day Counts Initiative, which is where the funding is coming from for the bridge project, was because it would work as a cost saving measure. However, as the project bid showed, and as Neeble stated, this simply hasn’t been the case.
“It is my understanding the Iowa DOT is asking the Associated General Contractors why it is not working out that way,” Neeble said.
Beyond that, there were other issues that led to the project receiving a single bid. Neeble said that included the lack of a pre-bid meeting, the staged construction, the length of time to complete the project, space constraints and pedestrian access.
City Administrator Jennifer Cowsert stated one issue was the timing of the bid, as well as the number of work days allowed, the complexity of the project and, again, pedestrian access.
This issue promoted a discussion at the meeting about allowing contractors to implement a shuttle service if they deemed it was more cost effective. There is also hope this would allow contractors more flexibility, could increase the number of bids and might speed up construction.
“Traditionally the more flexibility a contractor is offered, the better bidding environment is present. Allowing a shuttle to be used gives the contractor more flexibility to perform the construction operations in an area that does not have much space,” Neeble said in an interview.
The idea of a shuttle prompted debate among council members, as Peggy Lane said, “Close it down, use a shuttle, get it done.”
In an email exchange, Lane clarified, “If closing the bridge entirely is the only way we’re going to get affordable bids, then we have to do that but provide shuttle service for pedestrians.”
Council member Tony Hauber argued safety versus the use of a shuttle, but added, “I’d like to keep it open as much as possible.”
In a separate interview, he said, “A shuttle is not my favorite solution to this problem because the guidelines stated it had to arrive within 15 minutes of being called. That means something as simple as walking to the rec center is now a much longer journey. I do believe [council member Bob Hendrickson] expressed some important points too, though, about public safety and the consideration for that.”
Mayor Josh Pope noted, “I think the important thing is to get the project done as quickly as possible in the best way possible. If that means providing a shuttle, although not ideal, I support it. I think everyone would prefer it get done quicker.”
Aside from this as an option to generate more bids, council member Daryl Koehn asked if every pat of the project needed to be done. If some could be eliminated to reduce cost or complexity, why not do it? However, due to several factors, Neeble said none of the project could conceivably be removed.
“When construction is being performed, components must be brought up to current design standards for both roadway and sidewalk elements. More specifically, during the data investigation phase, we found out the initial walkway was installed in 1924, and at the time it was repaired in 1972, not all the tie rods going through the bridge and supporting the walkway were replaced. It seems prudent to replace these prior to placing a new deck,” she continued.
Cowsert added it does not comply with the width required or is considered “structural deficient. Part of this is due to its age…and the age of the structure is part of the formula for the structural deficiency rating.”
Another major issue, consistently brought up by Koehn, is the rising engineering costs.
“I just see costs going up, up, up, and I don’t see any work getting done,” he said.
The statement prompted a contentious back and forth between Koehn and Neeble, who stated some of it is due to a shortage of available contractors and rising material costs.
According to Cowsert, “Right now it is estimated to spend $653,000 on engineering—we have spent $298,877 so far. It may go up if the number of work days is extended. Their fees for inspection services is based on number of work days, so if work days increase, their fees will too.”
Neeble addressed the issue further via email, stating, “As more was known about the structure and precise structural calculations were performed along with implementing requirements due to the funding and State Historic Preservation Office, the project scope expanded from what was envisioned in 2015 when those elements were not known. The city spent $63,400 on the data collection and structural load rating component; $70,438 for the preliminary design, which also included coordination with SHPO and creating renderings to illustrate the concept; $165,000 for final design and bid documents. There will be additional costs for the re-bidding efforts and the required monitoring during construction in order to meet funding requirements and confirm compliance with the bid documents.”
Regarding the rising cost, Pope said, “I am worried that it has increased and it might continue to increase. But I also know that this project is a major rehab that we hope will buy us 30 maybe more years.”
