Gerrard to Paterson: New Castle needs its bridge

Supervisor Barbara Gerrard is cautiously hopeful about Governor’s response to her plea to resume bridge construction.

May 28, 2010
by Christine Yeres

Editor’s note:  On Wednesday, May 26, New Castle Town Supervisor Barbara Gerrard wrote to New York State Governor David Paterson pleading with him to release funds to allow the Route 120 bridge project to be completed as expeditiously as possible.  NewCastleNOW.org received a copy of the letter from the Supervisor’s office for publication.

On Thursday, May 27, Supervisor Gerrard called NewCastleNOW.org with an update. She received a call from a staff person in Governor Paterson’s office who said that the State would pay the back fees owed to Conti Construction.  She stressed that she is viewing this communication in a hopeful way, rather than counting in it yet as a success.

Gerrard’s letter to Patterson is reprinted in its entirety below:

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT

May 26, 2010

The Honorable David Paterson

Governor of New York

Executive Chambers

Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Paterson:

This is a plea on behalf of the Town of New Castle, Westchester County, to address what could be a looming safety hazard.

An unintended consequence of the protracted budget negotiations has been an indefinite halt to the re-construction of the Route 120 Bridge that spans the Saw Mill River Parkway and the MetroNorth tracks at our hamlet of Chappaqua. The project was undertaken to address the deterioration of this 80 year-old structure, and we are concerned that stopping it in middle could make the previously identified safety hazards even worse.

We recognize the hardships that all New Yorkers are enduring because of this impasse, but we do not believe the entire situation has been made clear to the relevant decision makers in Albany concerning this project.

The Construction Project Itself

Our bridge was first built in 1930.  For over 10 years it has been the subject of extensive New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) review based on its rapidly deteriorating condition.  In 2007, the DOT pronounced our bridge one of the 10 most “deficient” bridges in Region 8 (which encompasses Westchester as well as several other counties).  With that designation came the realization that one temporary measure the DOT could utilize is putting a weight limit on the bridge such that no truck traffic – including fire trucks and school buses – would be permitted on the structure.  Currently, all traffic is cramped onto two narrow lanes occupying the old structure, further accelerating the rate of deterioration.

This bridge is the life’s blood of New Castle.  It is the only non-grade crossing of the MetroNorth Rail Road and the Saw Mill River Parkway in all of New Castle.  Our community is divided by the MetroNorth train tracks and the Saw Mill River Parkway – one-third is on the east side – the side with the Chappaqua Train Station and our police department, our volunteer fire company and our volunteer ambulance corps, while two-thirds of the residents live on the west side of the bridge.  The DOT fully understood that the construction of the bridge needed to be done as expeditiously as possible, while keeping two lanes of traffic open at all times to permit emergency responders’ access to both sides of Town.  Construction began in September 2008 and is being funded 80% by the Federal Highway Administration and 20% by State DOT. The construction, being done by Conti Construction Corporation, was to take approximately 24 months, and was anticipated to be completed by sometime near the end of 2010.

Disruption to the Community

On April 1, 2010, the first day for which no budget was in place for the new fiscal year, Conti Construction Company ordered their employees off the work site after their weekly meeting with the DOT.  On April 5, 2010, the DOT delivered to Conti Construction a letter (copy attached) saying, “ There is no directive to stop work on this contract, and you may elect to continue working with the understanding that timely payment for work completed after April 1, 2010 cannot be guaranteed.”  With that, New York State gave its blessing to the abrupt termination of work that is essential to restoring New Castle’s economy and vitality.1

It is impossible to quantify the economic hardship this construction has been to the entire community.  In these particularly challenging economic times, the merchants have seen their businesses suffer from decreased public attendance, to the point where several have simply gone out of business, leaving Chappaqua with many vacant store fronts where once we were a thriving community.  Our residents have spent hours in traffic tie-ups – especially during morning and evening rush hours trying to reach or leave the MetroNorth station.  Because of the dreadful condition of the road surface over the existing portion of the bridge – which was to be bypassed this April with the re-pouring of the new deck surface—we have multiple cases of severe vehicular damage, including broken axles, blown tires, bent rims and ruined wheel alignments.  But because we were assured over and over that our bridge was a number 1 priority for safety reasons – especially given the significant risks to the MetroNorth tracks directly below should some of the debris which was falling off the underside of the bridge land on the tracks, the community has gritted its teeth and tried to endure these conditions for the past 20 months what was to be a temporary situation.

Funding for the Route 120 Bridge

The bridge project as finally bid came in at about $19 million, to be shared 20% by New York State (both the bridge and Route 120 are New York State assets), and 80% funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  The Town of New Castle is not a party to the contract among Conti Construction, the DOT and the FHWA.  Pursuant to the terms as we understand them, when New York State signed its agreement with the FHWA, NYS was bound by financial reporting requirements to segregate its 20% obligation of the funding as a dedicated capital expense.  We wonder how problems with the State’s operating budget could affect what is clearly a capital expense that would most likely have to have been bonded, especially where the funds should have been previously dedicated to an existing and under –construction project.  We note that generally accepted accounting rules would require New Castle to segregate capital funds if we accepted State or Federal funds for a local project, and by copy to the NY State Comptroller’s Office, we hope to receive an explanation of how and where that 20% appears on New York State’s 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 budgets.

To add to our level of frustration, we read with interest the front-page story in the Journal News, Sunday, May 23, 2010, concerning the $1.4 billion in contracts New York State has approved, including funds for “tapestry programs” and a Kennel Club dog show.  Mr. Eric Kriss, your budget office representative, stated that, “[T]he state is legally obligated to pay for contracts and grants that were adopted in prior budget years. [ours]. And some of the money is to reimburse groups for upfront costs the state agreed to pay back. [Conti claims they were owed $942,000 as of April 1, 2010, and that as of May 25, 2010, they had only received less than 15% of that outstanding and undisputed amount.] Liabilities that were incurred in ’09-’10 which we are legally obligated to pay and for which there were budget appropriations in place because of the enacted ’09-’10 budget, we’re paying.”  [Emphasis supplied].

Conti has represented to New Castle that they will come back on the job site as soon as all back payments are received.  How can some of the projects being funded take precedence over a “deteriorating,” half-finished bridge separating 2/3rds from 1/3rd of a population?

And of additional interest and concern to New Castle is what has become of the $282,259.41 of Town funds that were paid to the DOT to proceed with the installation of a water line and utility conduits under a “betterment” agreement. Funds for that portion of the work have been on deposit with the State for about two years.  Why has the DOT not ordered Conti Construction to at least proceed with those installations?  We have already paid the State – those funds are presumably held in escrow on our account, yet even those funds have not been released to get some of the construction moving forward.

Our Local Representatives

We acknowledge with appreciation our local representatives, Sen. Suzi Oppenheimer and Assemblyman Robert Castelli, for trying for the past seven weeks to have the extender bills provide funding for this already-under-construction project to be completed.  As everyone knows, demobilizing and then having to remobilize are costly procedures; we presume that Conti will have additional expenses given the magnitude of the project as well as the multiple constraints put on it by MetroNorth.  Thus, from a strictly economic standpoint, unlike some delays in payment that have been proposed that might save New York State some funds, this delay will cost and continue to cost taxpayers extra funds to complete.  We note that (1) this is the first time extender bills denied funding to “in progress” construction projects; (2) the second extender bill provided funding for projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus funds), but not our project which received federal funding before such ARRA projects; and (3) budget discussions have provided that projects can proceed where the New York State funding is to be bonded (please see above – how is New York State funding its 20% share if not by bonding?).

Our Respectful Request

With due respect for the frustration all of New York feels for the resolution of the 2011 budget issues, we must emphasize the extreme hardship the Town of New Castle has endured thus far, the potential for tragedy should the bridge fail, the potential for disruption and possible injury if the bridge condition interferes with the MetroNorth tracks or service, the fact that the State’s portion of the bridge project’s funding should have been bonded and therefore could not be used for any other purpose.  We implore that you specifically authorize resumed construction of the Route 120 bridge.  We, the Town Board of the Town of New Castle, as well as the approximately 18,000 residents we represent, hope that you will agree to our entreaties expeditiously.

Should you or someone from your office require any verification or substantiation of the contents of this letter, we stand ready, willing and able to accommodate any requests you should make of us.

Respectfully,

Barbara S. Gerrard, Supervisor on behalf of the entire Town Board