Interview with Simcoe County Warden Gerry Marshall regarding Collingwood Street Bridge in Creemore

Simcoe County Warden Gerry Marshall spoke to the Enterprise-Bulletin by telephone April 29 regarding the Collingwood Street Bridge in Creemore. An offer of $934,000 by Simcoe County to let Clearview take ownership of the bridge and complete a restoration of it was rejected April 29. This interview has been edited for clarity-sake.

E-B: Could you tell us more about the background of this bridge and how it relates to Simcoe County?

Marshall: It’s a county-owned bridge. During our asset review, we found the bridge to be in such a state that it made sense to have it assessed and see what it would take to get the bridge whole, safe and usable. That happened probably in 2009, 2010 … we looked at the bridge, we identified through the environmental assessment the options for the bridge to be run up to standard.

One of the options was rehabilitation, that came up. It was an early and very, very preliminary investment of about $970,000 and that’s in 2010 dollars. But that was not deemed to be the appropriate recommendation to the professionals involved. A two-lane bridge, fully-constructed, meeting today’s standards is what was approved. It was approved by county council and supported by the Clearview council-of-the-day.

Then, over the course of time, as information became public, the citizen’s group and public in Clearview looked at the bridge and brought up the fact that it had some historical significance. They wanted the bridge to be considered historical and (see) what could be done to consider that fact. The county council last term looked at that situation. The group presented to county council, I was a member of that council, we saw the presentation and we listened. What we agreed to was to actually take some of the historical features off the current bridge and have them installed onto the new bridge once it was built, and that was a $400,000 commitment by our county council. Again, that was supported by county council and supported by the Clearview council-of-the-day … The mayor, Ken Ferguson and deputy mayor, Alicia Savage.

The election’s now come and gone, and we now have new members in Clearview council. They reached out very early in the new council term and wanted to engage in conversation to see what it would take to have this bridge be one-lane, have the township take it over. The deputy warden and I met with Mayor Chris Vanderkruys and Deputy Mayor Barry Burton, and we had some informal chats. Our recommendation was to let Clearview council review the situation and put an offer forward for our county council to consider on how the bridge can be transferred.

E-B: That was the request from Clearview council for $1.5 million?

Marshall: (Yes), for $1.5 million was the one that finally came to the council floor (on April 28). We had to decide what was fair not only to the citizens of Clearview but to all the citizens of the county that we represent, the other 15 municipalities where the bridge doesn’t reside. One of the things we could have done, under the Municipal Act, we could have simply downloaded the bridge to the Township of Clearview with no money whatsoever and said ‘here’s your bridge, look after it yourself.’ We never entertained that for one second. We thought it would be totally unfair. While it was an option it was never discussed or considered.

But the first motion of the day that came through county council was an offer to supply the bridge or give the bridge to the Township of Clearview with $740,000. County council, you could tell, wanted to work with Clearview but we felt $740,000 was simply not enough money. So that motion got defeated … Then I turned to deputy mayor, or county councillor Barry Burton and asked him ‘what would be the absolute bottom-line offer you could take back to Clearview township for consideration?’ His suggestion was $1.3 million dollars. We debated that. County council looked at that as, you know, about $500,000 more we’d spend on the bridge, and that burden would fall on the residents of 15 other municipalities.

Again, in the sense of fairness our council said ‘we really can’t do that.’ That motion got defeated. Finally, the motion that did get through was a motion to give them the bridge for $934,000. That didn’t increase the taxes on any other citizen in the county, it spent our entire budget, we transferred all that over to Clearview. We actually forgave the $200,000 in work we’d already done on the bridge.

E-B: Could you specify what work that is?

Warden Marshall referred this question to Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Engineering, Planning and Environment with the County of Simcoe who provided the following information in an e-mail to the E-B.

“The county evaluated restoration of the bridge along with five other alternatives as part of the Class Environmental Assessment. Preliminary cost estimates were provided for each alternative. Further detail was provided to compare the life cycle costs of restoration vs. reconstruction over a 75-year period. These cost estimates were provided in the Environmental Study Report which is part of the public record. The cost estimates in any Environmental Assessment are considered preliminary, with a level of accuracy of +/- 50%. They are done for the purpose of comparing alternatives only. It would not be reasonable or cost effective to prepare detailed cost estimates for every alternative – as long as all alternatives are evaluated with the same level of accuracy, it is a reasonable basis of comparison. Accurate costing is available only after a project is tendered and contractors have submitted their bids.

Through the EA process, the county did a thorough evaluation of all reasonable options. Reconstruction of the bridge to two lanes using current design standards was selected as the best option for a number of reasons, including cost effectiveness, the ability to bring it up to current safety and design standards, the ability for the bridge to meet future traffic projections, and the ability to include a pedestrian sidewalk. In addition, the county included remounting the old trusses on the new bridge to preserve the historic character of the bridge at an additional cost of approximately $400,000.”

E-B: Earlier today at their council meeting to discuss the county’s offer, Deputy Mayor Burton of Clearview said he disliked the proposed two-lane county bridge not only because he doesn’t feel it preserves heritage but because it would be lower than the current bridge which he feels would make it susceptible to extreme weather. He also believes the proposed two-lane design may cause school zone speeding hazards. How do you respond to his concerns?

Marshall: Certainly I’ve heard those arguments and certainly our staff and council would never permit a bridge to be built that was substandard. That bridge will be built with all the sight-lines considered, all the weather storms and weather considered. From an engineering perspective, this bridge will be state-of-the-art and meet every standard that we have to meet. With our staff, we tend to go a little bit more than less. It will include some extra features we’re bringing to the table such as those historic trusses. So I get that the bridge will, in some ways, look different, but in some ways look very familiar. In all ways (it) will serve the citizens in Clearview township and anybody else traversing that road.

[Ed: Korolnek provided supplementary information regarding the bridge design by e-mail as follows: “The bridge design includes lowering it by about a metre to improve the sight lines (right now, the bridge has a “hump” in the middle that makes it difficult for a motorist approaching the bridge from the north to see a car already on the bridge). During the design and approval process, the county’s consultant did hydraulic modelling of the river passing through the lowered bridge to ensure that all flow could pass underneath. That work is submitted to the conservation authority for approval. All necessary steps and precautions have been taken to ensure that the bridge meets current design standards and provides a safe and durable piece of infrastructure designed for a 75-year life.”]

E-B: Regarding the statements made by Clearview councillors during discussions about the bridge’s future, are there any which stood out to you that you’d like to present the county’s perspective on?

Marshall: Having been here for five years now and being part of the discussion from very early days, I personally believe the county council and staff have gone over and above. We’ve engaged with the citizens, we’ve engaged with both the previous council in Clearview and the current council. When they were looking for changes from the last council to add historic elements and spend more money we were amenable to that. The new Clearview council came in and said that ‘we want to consider under what conditions the bridge can come to us,’ and the county council was trying to find a way to provide that request by the current Clearview council. What it came down to is, our very best offer that we could put on the table was $934,000 and hand the bridge over and forgive the costs that we spent (which was turned down by Clearview). We put our best foot forward. I can tell you that the deputy warden and myself met with councillors Burton and Vanderkruys. We had early-morning meetings, we had our staff engage in casual conversations, documentations, we met with the CAO of Clearview just a week or two back. We were fully-engaged, we were listening and we were trying to find a way to be fair to one and all. The $934,000 was, by far, the fairest offer we could put on the table, and I appreciate the offer falling short in Clearview based on the financial implications to the Township of Clearview to pick up any cost over and above the $934,000. We’re aware of that.

That burden really does fall on the council of Clearview. It’s their budget and they’d best manage and spend the taxpayer’s dollars. If their wisdom is they can’t spend money on the bridge, I respect that wisdom.

I recognize the rock and a hard place that every small municipality has of managing budgets and I get that it’s tough.

I’m sure it’s a tough position for that council to say ‘hey, you know what, we can’t afford to take this bridge on.’ I think it must have been a hard decision for them.

E-B: At this point, what is the next step looking forward regarding this bridge?

Marshall: Our council provided clear direction to our staff that at the close of business tomorrow (April 30), if the Township of Clearview rejected our offer that they are to proceed with the tender, award the tender, proceed with public notifications, public meetings and construction work.

E-B: So their decision is their decision?

Marshall: Exactly. County council gave staff no latititude whatsoever, nor myself as the warden. The instructions were clear: if the offer is accepted, proceed. If the offer is rejected, award the tender and build the bridge.

E-B: How would you respond to Clearview councillors and residents who still have concerns?

Marshall: They (should) recognize that everybody’s had their voice in this. It’s been a long discussion, a decision has been made, and I think what we do is we support and embrace that decision. We make good things happen for a bridge that’s going to serve the community well for the next 75 years.