After

church today, I conducted a special meeting of our

Administrative Board. The members there were all in

agreement. We would like to go on record that we want to

keep the wooden bridge on Bridge Street open by helping

to ensure it is safe for people who drive over it.

If this

desire on our part means partnering with the City and

other civic-minded organizations, we will do that as

well. If the bridge needs repairs in order for it to

continue to be used as a safe connection, we will offer

our services to the City if we can possibly help to raise

the necessary money.

Many of you

at this point may be saying, "What exactly is wrong

with the bridge?"

My

understanding of the situation from the council meetings

I attended on February 7 and February 21 and from

subsequent information that I have gathered and from

input provided by other governmental employees and the

legal community is as follows.

The Georgia

DOT has examined the bridge in question along with other

bridges in the state of Georgia and reported that the

bridge is "in fair condition with general

deterioration throughout the entire structure."

Their

report noted that there are "some deteriorated

sections left in the structure that we would recommend

the railroad schedule for repair."

It was

pointed out in their report that these

"deficiencies, if not corrected, could develop into

critical deficiencies within the next two years."

Finally,

instructions in the report stated "At the present

time, post this structure for 12 tons H-Truck; 15 tons

Type 3; 20 tons Timber Truck; 20 tons HS-Truck; and 23

tons Type 3S2."

Many of you

will probably remember that the Norfolk Southern Railroad

repaired the top surface of the bridge (rails, trusses

and planks) in 1997. At issue in the report are several

pilings that support the entire structure. Some of the

pilings have been found to have some deterioration.

In a

conversation February 21 with the DOT's State Bridge

Inspection Engineer (Bill Duvall), I was advised that the

DOT's report that was in the possession of the City is

actually from November 23, 1998.

The bridge

has since been inspected in August 1999, but the DOT�s

report was only mailed out to the counties on February

16, 2000. Mr. Duvall explained to me that the bridge is

not in critical condition and should not be closed based

on the DOT�s findings. He noted, too, that the City

presently has the bridge posted for a maximum load limit

of only 3 tons, which should even further preserve the

life of the bridge.

Since

Coweta County had only recently received the new bridge

inspection report and not had an opportunity to

distribute copies to the affected municipalities, I

requested and received copies Feb. 21 under the Open

Records Act.

The current

report states that it "is in the county letter for

information purposes only." As the previous report

had indicated, there is a statement that reads that the

structure is in fair condition with general deterioration

throughout the entire structure.

There is,

however, no reference at all to the earlier comment

whereby these deficiencies, if not corrected, could

develop into critical deficiencies within the next two

years.

I also

received further clarification on the weight limits as

prescribed in the DOT's reports (the specifications are

the same in both reports). The only vehicle that the DOT

does not include in their recommendation for using this

bridge is the "piggyback" tractor trailer truck

(two large trailers hooked together). The DOT's rating,

as noted above, does allow 23-ton tractor trailers to go

over the bridge.

Again, the

city's posting of a three-ton weight limit does seem to

be a practical way to preserve the bridge and also

restrict the type of traffic that goes through this

residential area.

The mayor

is currently opposed to any change to the city's previous

ruling, and she has indicated that the bridge will be

closed to vehicular traffic effective March 1.

An

understandable argument that she has deals with the fact

that the 1998 DOT report stated that these deficiencies,

if not corrected, could develop into critical

deficiencies within the next two years.

Soon two

years will have passed since that inspection, and no

subsequent repairs have been made to improve the bridge's

condition. Why then is the new report less critical of

the bridge?

Also, I

have not been able at this point to provide follow-up

documentation from the DOT to verify the comments that

were made to me during the conversation with that

organization's representative Feb. 21. (Our church's

pastor has since requested a letter from the DOT stating

that the bridge does not require closing, but so far the

DOT has not felt such a letter to be necessary since we

now have their newer inspection report.)

I can

easily see Mayor Trammell's desire to keep the bridge

closed until these issues are further pursued. Again, the

church is willing to assist the city in these matters.

There is

more to the story. At the Feb. 7 council meeting, I was

advised of the serious concern about the potential

deterioration that could be caused to the bridge by

drivers who speed on Bridge Street with the purpose of

hitting the bridge at a high rate of speed. Of even

greater consideration is the safety of the residents in

the area.

I share in

the concern of those who live on both sides of the

bridge. I have known many of these residents all of my

life, and I respect and share in their desire to live on

a safe street.

From the

minutes of the Nov. 15, 1999 council meeting, Mayor

Trammell stated that stop signs would be put up on both

sides of the bridge to prevent speeding. Whereas stop

signs were apparently not pursued by the council, I

recommended at the council meeting of Feb. 21 another

action that was suggested to me that may have even better

results: installing speed breakers or speed bumps on both

sides of the bridge.

I have

mentioned this idea to other area residents, including

other members of our church, and have received support

for the suggestion. We feel that the installation of

speed breakers, along with even greater enforcement of

speeding and reckless driving in this area, will provide

a safe area for Senoia's citizens while also helping to

preserve the bridge and leaving the road open.

A letter

dated Jan. 18, 2000 from the Norfolk Southern Railroad to

Leonard Thompson (Senoia Public Works) contained the

following comments: "Regarding the city's request to

convert the existing Bridge Street overhead bridge to a

pedestrian bridge only, we take no exception to the

city's request and will handle via our Real Estate and

Contract Services Department for an appropriate agreement

to cover the city's request as well as transfer ownership

and maintenance of the existing bridge to the city."

At the Feb.

21 council meeting, I went on record with a

recommendation that the city not sign the contract with

Norfolk Southern Railroad that would allow the railroad

to transfer ownership and maintenance of the existing

bridge to the city.

As a

concerned area resident whose mother still lives in town,

I personally would not like to see the city take on this

added liability and cost. Again, input I have received

points out clearly that the railroad is responsible to

maintain the bridge.

The Senoia

United Methodist Church is not at all out to sabotage the

city. We support the residents' desire to maintain the

historic flavor of the community and agree that the

wooden bridge should be preserved.

We are

willing to work with the city of Senoia as appropriate to

pursue having the Norfolk Southern Railroad repair the

bridge on Bridge Street. If this is deemed to not be a

viable option, we are also willing to partner with the

city to obtain funds as appropriate for replacing the

bridge's pilings that do have some deterioration. The

Senoia Home News recently reported that the cost for such

repairs has been estimated to be $30,000, although

feedback received from at least two council members is

that they are not sure what the cost would be.

This is my

first letter to the editor. I hope that everyone made it

all the way through my message. More importantly, I pray

that everyone in the Senoia area is willing to work

together on this issue so that we can resolve this matter

to the satisfaction of all who are affected.

Hal

Sewell

Senoia