Searching for answers

Commission refuses to reverse decision at May 15 meeting

Questions remain.
In their 5-0 vote to give away the historic Blanchard Bridge, Traill County commissioners may have said “yes” too quickly.
Questions about the logistics of the bridge move and the wisdom of the giveaway have sparked a search for answers.
As things stand, the county has a “verbal agreement” in place allowing a Neenah, Wisc. contractor to move the bridge 560 miles to his home state, according to Scott Stammen, county road and bridge superintendent.
However, there is “nothing in writing” at this point, Stammen noted.
This verbal agreement has raised a few more questions — How will the bridge mover access the private land surrounding the old bridge? Why hasn’t the landowner or the renter been notified about the bridge move? Is the bridge mover willing to accept liability for damages the move might cause to crops or county property?
In posing those questions to the parties involved, the answers prompted even more questions.
The Wisconsin bridge lover — an experienced contractor whose company is known for excavation work involving everything from athletic fields to harbors — has not submitted a plan for removing the bridge or a schedule. He hasn’t spoken with the owner or the renter of the surrounding property. There is no written agreement with the county protecting the county in this transaction.
Is this business as usual?
At their May 15 meeting, Traill County commissioners were forced to defend their decision to give away the bridge when members of the Traill County Historical Society questioned the wisdom of sending a structure on the National Register of Historic Places to another state. They also questioned why the group charged with preserving local history was never informed of the request to give away a piece of history.
Commissioners refused to reconsider their decision and TCHS vowed to continue their mission to preserve historic structures in the county.
In an effort to bridge an apparent communication gap, Stammen met with Traill County Historical Society members Tuesday evening to discuss the fate of other historic bridges in the county.
The matter of the Blanchard Bridge had to be addressed.
“We should have contacted you. It didn’t happen. Now I’m getting beat up,” Stammen conceded.
TCHS curator Marilu Person offered, “We won’t kill the messenger.”
The highway dept. head explained that he has the difficult job of balancing the need to maintain quality roads and bridges with limited funding. Historic bridges cannot all be saved, he admitted.
“We don’t have a pile of money; it all boils down to money,” Stammen said.
He’s also faced with satisfying conflicting demands from all four corners of the county — all clamoring to be first in line for repairs and maintenance.
As the bridge keeper, Stammen noted that of the seven county bridges placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997 only one remains in service — Bridge 217 southeast of Mayville. The oldest bridge in the state, Bridge 370 aka the Viking Bridge, was closed to traffic last fall. The second oldest bridge in the county, the Caledonia Bridge – Bridge 48, has been closed for a number of years and is on the verge of falling in the Goose River, Stammen noted.
Stammen is convinced the county has “one shot” at saving an historic bridge. When the state historical society signed off on the Blanchard Bridge, Stammen said he was urged by state officials to pursue funding for restoring other historic bridges through a federal Transportation Enhancement Program.
Stammen said he’s willing to look for “free money” but wasn’t confident if it would be enough or come soon enough to save 100-year-old structures in dire straits.
He asked the TCHS members to “pick a bridge” to save — the Viking or the Caledonia. He would relay that choice to county commissioners, who would ultimately make the decision if a bridge can be saved. Stammen said he favored the Caledonia Bridge as “a better bridge to save; it’s more valuable.”
TCHS members wanted to thoroughly research the history of both structures before making a choice.
Stammen said he will research the Transportation Enhancement Program suggested by the state as a possible funding source.

Is the Blanchard Bridge
a done deal?
Historical society members were divided on whether to continue the fight to save the Blanchard Bridge.
Sad to see the bridge leave but reluctant to pick a fight, Dan Christianson offered, “It’s simply a landmark that nothing’s been spent on in the last 50 years. Now we’re giving it away and we get nothing for it.”
Marilu Person, TCHS curator, added, “I didn’t think we were into giving away history.”
TCHS president John Wright said, “The (county) commissioners won’t change their minds. I don’t think it’s worth the fight.”
Chris McInnes added, “I think we’re beating a dead horse. Instead we should put our efforts toward saving the Caledonia bridge or the Viking Bridge.”
“The Blanchard Bridge isn’t gone yet,” commented Michelle McLean.
Person noted that the state DOT’s historic bridge division had previously targeted the Blanchard Bridge for restoration. It didn’t make it to the top of the list, she learned. She’s heard second-hand that another Traill County bridge may be on the list this year. The Banner attempted to confirm that information but the DOT official in charge did not return repeated phone calls.
Wisconsin
connection
Jim Sykes, a retired contractor from Neenah, Wisc. inquired about obtaining the landmark bridge “a long time ago,” according to David Dornaker, whose family owns the farmland adjacent to the bridge. He didn’t own the bridge, Dornaker told Sykes.
According to Dornaker, Sykes had scouted the bridge for some time and planned to move it tp his home in Wisconsin. Sykes explained to Dornaker he intended to burn the rotten wood planks on site and leave behind the cement pillars, Dornaker recalled.
After Sykes’ inquiry, Dornaker said his first concern was liability — especially if the bridge was his.
The county wasn’t sure it was their bridge either, Stammen said. “No record of ownership anywhere,” he noted.
It hasn’t been on a county map for decades, Wright pointed out.
The state intervened and the matter of ownership was settled — it was the county’s bridge.
Once that matter was cleared up, Dornaker said he was concerned about “the ugly mess” that could be left behind if Sykes stuck to his plan to move the bridge.
Stammen told the TCHS meeting, “I guarantee you there won’t be a mess.” He noted that the state requires Sykes to sign a 10-year maintenance guarantee with the county. That paperwork has not been completed. The legal documents will be prepared by states attorney Stuart Larson, Stammen said.
Dornacker told the Banner he hasn’t had any recent conversations with Sykes. No one from the county has talked to him either about how the bridge will be moved — and if it will have to be accessed across his property.
Dornaker, a native of Mayville and now a business man in Burnsville, Minn., rents the land to local farmer Court Hanson. Hanson hasn’t met Sykes. He hasn’t heard from the county on the matter either.
Hanson’s wife, Arlene, said Sykes was suppose to visit their farm but “never had the courtesy” to talk with them, even though he stopped a mile away to inspect the bridge.
Mrs. Hanson is saddened to think the bridge will be erased from her neighborhood. “This is where the bridge lives.”