|
| Save the Katy Bridge: Articles of Interest |
Bridge debate cites trail agreement
Ex-MKT officer, contractor dispute meaning.
By SARA AGNEW of the Tribune’s staff
Published Saturday, May 7, 2005
Most folks agree that the 72-year-old bridge that once carried trains across the Missouri River at Boonville is worth keeping. After all, there are few bridges like it left in the state.
The problem is that people who care about the bridge, which closed 17 years ago, can’t decide how it should be used - reassembled as a railroad bridge over the Osage River or restored as part of the cross-state Katy trail.
Worse yet, they disagree on who has the legal right to make that decision.
But a former executive with the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, which once owned the train line, has come forward to say she believes dismantling the bridge would be illegal.
Raye Reynolds, a former vice president of the MKT Railroad, said she signed the Interim Trail Use Agreement as well as the quit-claim deed in 1987 on behalf of the railroad. The agreement says the bridge must stay put, she said. She was shocked to learn anyone was considering its removal.
"I probably know more about the trail than most people," said Reynolds, who lives in Farmers Branch, Texas. "I think" plans to dismantle the bridge "are being pushed through without a serious look at the document."
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources recently announced that the state cannot afford to pay an estimated $2 million to restore the bridge as part of the Katy trail. DNR officials said they would relinquish the state’s right to the bridge and allow Union Pacific Railroad to dismantle it and reassemble it over the Osage River.
The railroad has already contracted with a Fulton company for the job.
However, in an open letter to the Tribune, Reynolds wrote: "The Deed to the Trail states that it is subject to and shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the Interim Trail Use Agreement and to the provisions of the National Trails System Act. This makes the Interim Trail Use Agreement the controlling or governing agreement."
Reynolds said the agreement shows that the railroad agrees to keep the bridge available for transportation and that DNR can use it for trail purposes.
"It also states that the MKT reserves the right to modify the bridge structure to improve trail transportation," she wrote, as long as those changes don’t disrupt the trail. Removal of the bridge would create a "severance or gap" in the trail, resulting in a disruption, she said.
"Does not the state have an obligation to protect its investment in the trail?" she asked in her letter.
But Ted Kettlewell, executive vice president and co-owner of OCCI, the Fulton company hired by Union Pacific to dismantle the bridge, said the documents cited by Reynolds prove the bridge was "specifically excluded" from the Interim Trail Use Agreement.
"The railroad owns the bridge and can do with it what it wants," he said. "The state under the agreement only had the right to use the bridge for trail purposes, and the state has said they do not want to use the bridge as part of the trail."
Meanwhile, supporters of retaining the old bridge delighted in Reynolds’ interpretation of the trails act.
"This is just what we needed," said Steve Johnson of the Missouri River Communities Network in Columbia. "This sounds like a breakthrough."
Sarah Gallagher, Boonville’s director of economic development, said several local attorneys are working without fees for the city, studying the documents.
"Who knew someone like this would come forward?" she said. "It’s amazing."
Kettlewell said Union Pacific plans to abandon a portion of the rail corridor with a notice to the Surface Transportation Board. As for creating a severance or gap in the line, he said documents will show removing the bridge is no problem.
Kettlewell said it would cost at least $8 million to refurbish the bridge as a pedestrian walkway, a cost he doubts the state could pay.
Besides that, he said Missouri taxpayers have already spent between $100,000 and $300,000 for a pedestrian walkway along the Highway 5 bridge at Boonville that connects to the Katy trail.
"I would be happy to debate this with anyone who doesn’t agree with me," Kettlewell said. "The state doesn’t want the bridge, and it doesn’t have the money to turn it into a pedestrian walkway."
Reach Sara Agnew at (573) 815-1717 or sagnew@tribmail.com.
Copyright © 2005 The Columbia Daily Tribune. All Rights Reserved.
|
Boonville rail bridge added to list of endangered
By JASON ROSENBAUM of the Tribune’s staff
Published Sunday, May 22, 2005
The controversial railroad bridge that spans the Missouri River at Boonville has been added to a list of the state’s most endangered historic structures.
Missouri Preservation said this morning in a news conference at Boonville that it included the bridge in the 2005 update because there is imminent danger to the property.
"Missouri Preservation does consider it a significant historical site, feels like it is extremely endangered and feels like it has the potential for demolition in the near future," said Barbara Fitzgerald, executive director of Missouri Preservation.
In 1987, control of the railbed and bridge was passed to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for use as a trail. Because the bridge would require expensive rehabilitation for trail use, however, the state detoured the cross-state Katy trail across a nearby highway bridge. Last month, DNR said it would give the 72-year-old span to Union Pacific Railroad, which plans to dismantle and reuse parts of it.
Friends of the Boonville Bridge, as part of a campaign to keep the historic structure in place, nominated it for inclusion on the list of endangered sites.
Paula Shannon, chairwoman for the Save the Bridge steering committee, said the bridge’s placement on the list would help her group’s cause.
"The designation alone doesn’t have any power to stop the dismantling," Shannon said. "I feel in our fundraising, by having this designation, it’ll make it a lot easier to attract donations."
Susan Gallagher, economic development director for the city of Boonville, said she was pleased with the announcement.
"I think at this point, we need all the help we can get," Gallagher said.
Estimates place the cost of rehabilitating the bridge at $2 million or more.
Fitzgerald said Jeff Brambila, president of Missouri Preservation, sent a letter to Gov. Matt Blunt objecting to the decision to give the bridge to Union Pacific. She said Missouri Preservation was heartened by Attorney General Jay Nixon’s pledge Wednesday to fight to stop the bridge’s demolition.
No places in Boone County were included on the list, which was created to increase public awareness about landmarks around Missouri in need of organizational and financial support.
Campbell Chapel A.M.E. Church in Glasgow and the George Washington Carver School in Fulton were carried over to the list from last year.
"They are still in dire straits, in need of stabilization and repair and still endangered due to their instability structurally," Fitzgerald said. "And also from an organizational point of view, they need funding to help them survive."
The Simmons Stable in Mexico, considered to be the oldest and largest stable in America still used as a horse facility, fell off the list after Fitzgerald said the structure found organizational and fundraising help.
Reach Jason Rosenbaum at (573) 815-1723 or jrosenbaum@tribmail.com.
Copyright © 2005 The Columbia Daily Tribune. All Rights Reserved.
|
KATY TRAIL Withdrawals from the railbank
Wednesday, Jan. 04 2006
Nearly two decades after it was created, Katy Trail State Park has come into
its own. The 225-mile trail runs along old railroad right of way from one end
of Missouri to the other. It has become an engine of economic development in
countless small towns, and a lush green escape from urban stress for the
350,000 people who use it every year.
Now is not the time to start undermining the trail's success. But that's just
what Gov. Matt Blunt's administration is doing. The Department of Natural
Resources has given away a key link in the trail, threatening its future and
alienating the surviving philanthropist who made the rails-to-trails project
happen.
The Katy Trail exists because of donated money and an obscure federal law that
spells out what's called "railbanking." That's a fancy name for a relatively
straight-forward process: Railroads can lend rights of way not in use to states
and local communities for use as trails - provided the land remains available
for future railroad use.
Now, with the governor's help, Union Pacific Railroad wants to make a
withdrawal from the railbank. It wants to remove an old lift bridge over the
Missouri River in Booneville, and recycle much of the steel to build a new
bridge over the Osage River.
The railroad had tried unsuccessfully for years to give the bridge away; no
takers. It will save millions of dollars by reusing the old bridge. But
allowing it to do so is a disastrous gamble for the state. In order for the
Katy Trail land to remain "railbanked," it must be connected to main rail
lines. Loss of the Boonville Bridge means the Katy Trail would be officially
connected to the main line in only two places. One of those tenuous
connections, in St. Charles County, has recently been demolished.
Will demolition of that connection, along with the loss of the Boonville
Bridge, mean the Katy Trail no longer meets minimum federal requirements for
"railbanked" land? Would that force the trail to close? Or trigger an uprising
among landowners who never wanted the trail built in the first place? At this
point, no one knows with certainty.
Still, Pat Jones isn't taking any chances. The 80-year-old widow of Edward
Jones, whose $2.2 million gift underwrote the transformation of the Katy Trail,
asked permission last month to join a lawsuit against the state DNR over how it
gave away the Boonville Bridge. The state's breaking faith with the Joneses
isn't just a slap in the face to them; it's a cautionary tale for future
philanthropists.
Contracts that created the Katy Trail permit changes to the bridge "so long as
(the state's) right to utilize the premises for interim trail use is not
adversely affected." It's hard to believe removing the bridge wouldn't
interfere with the state's right to use it as a trail. Why do it, then,
especially when the state takes all the risk and receives nothing for it?
Mr. Blunt should backtrack and instruct DNR Director Doyle Childers to re-open
negotiations over the bridge. He must ensure that the Katy Trail has the
strongest possible foundations.
Even if Missouri taxpayers win in court, they'll end up paying both to bring
the suit and defend against it. If things go poorly, citizens will lose
something more valuable: an irreplaceable green ribbon running from one end of
our state to the other.
_____________________________________________________________________
If you enjoy reading about interesting news, you might like the 3 O'Clock Stir from
STLtoday.com. Sign up and you'll receive an email with unique stories of the day,
every Monday-Friday, at no charge.
Sign up at http://newsletters.stltoday.com
|
Katy Trail donor joins lawsuit over old bridge
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer
JEFFERSON CITY, MO . Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. A donor who helped finance the Katy Trail State Park joined a lawsuit Thursday seeking to stop the removal of an old railroad bridge that preservationists hope could one day become part of the biking and hiking trail.
Pat Jones, of Callaway County, is the widow of investment company founder Edward "Ted" Jones. The couple donated $200,000 to purchase the old railroad bed in 1987 and gave an additional $2 million to develop it into a public trail.
She was added as a plaintiff in a revised lawsuit filed Thursday by trail users. The lawsuit seeks to block Gov. Matt Blunt's administration from relinquishing the state's interest in the bridge and prevent its dismantling by the current owner, Union Pacific Railroad Co.
It claims that if the bridge were removed, it could be construed as a severance in the original Katy Railroad route and could subject the very existence of the trail to legal challenges from private property owners.
A separate suit filed last May by Attorney General Jay Nixon makes a similar argument. Both cases are pending in Cole County Circuit Court.
Jones had previously sought to file a brief in support of the lawsuits.
"That the donor of the funds wants to step up her involvement shows just how important the issue is to the users of the trail and the citizens of the state," said Bruce Morrison, an attorney with the Great Rivers Environmental Law Center in St. Louis, which filed the suit on behalf of several bicyclists.
Attorneys for the state Department of Natural Resources had previously asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. The department's deputy director and general counsel, Kurt Schaefer, has said the plaintiff's claim to have ridden the trail shouldn't give them grounds to sue.
Adding the trail's financial donor as a plaintiff should strengthen the standing of the lawsuit, Morrison said.
But Schaefer, who had not seen the revised lawsuit Thursday, said Jones' donation doesn't provide grounds for her to sue in what is essentially a contract dispute. Officials from the department had been scheduled to meet next Monday with Jones to discuss her concerns.
"If her concerns are this is going to cause a severance, I think she may have a misunderstanding of the situation," Schaefer said. "Under no reasonable legal analysis will this lead to a severance."
The pair of lawsuits revolve around a 1987 agreement in which the state obtained 200 miles of rail line from the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad under a federal law that lets abandoned rail beds get turned into trails so long as they are preserved for potential railroad use in the future.
The deal specifically excluded the Boonville bridge from the sale. But it gave the state the right to use the bridge for the trail if it assumed liability on terms acceptable to the railroad.
Last year, DNR Director Doyle Childers reversed the decision of the previous administration and waived the state's right to use the bridge, so that Union Pacific could recycle the steel for a bridge elsewhere.
Nixon then sued, claiming Childers had no legal authority to do so without the Legislature's approval and even then could not do so without getting compensation for the state. Nixon's lawsuit also raises the severance issue and contends removing the bridge would be a breach of contract and public trust two allegations also cited in the lawsuit by trail users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
