By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Board approves decommission of trail bridge

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

madmacs

Didn't the trail opponents insist that the bridge be sized to provide access for firefighting services? Now it suddenly isn't an issue? They were lying about that too I suppose.

David S. Wall

The following article appeared in the News Register...Here is part of it.

"By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • April 23, 2021

Commissioners say ODOT should help repay grants

County staffer questions Berschauer’s motives over trail funds impasse
Yamhill County commissioners on Thursday heard a demand from the Oregon Department of Transportation that the county repay $687,000 in trail grant funds in either a single lump sum or a few payments spread over just a few months.

However, commissioners said neither option is acceptable, and instructed staff to tell ODOT it should bear the cost of half the repayment, and that the county should be given three or four years to repay the rest.

“They were essentially cheerleading the county on in this process, so it’s my feeling we should push back on this because they were complicit in this,” County Commissioner Lindsay Berschauer said.

“I don’t know that we are going to get out of repaying the grant altogether, but it’s my belief they are on the hook for it, too … I just feel like this is a horrible, horrible first offer and there’s no accountability from ODOT as to the role they played in this.”

Commission Chair Mary Starrett said she agreed.

Starrett said the county should tell ODOT to “sharpen your pencils and … let’s see if we can come to a more mutually agreeable offer.”"

Is there still anyone in the blogosphere who continues to espouse the administrative competence of the dubious dynamic duo?

Good work News Register!

David S. Wall

Charlie

Since it seems that the majority of people want this trail, maybe the commissioners that are voting for this needs to be recalled!!!

yupjoe

This was an issue of land-use process that was being ignored by county advisors Todd Sadlo and Ken Friday under direction of the then-commissioners Kulla and others. It went to "LUBA-COURT"and was overturned 5/5 times. I think two of those were directly related to this bridge because the county began construction without land-use approval, and used ODOT funds obtained on false pretenses (they lied to LUBA in emails and other documentation, all FOIA'ed.

yupjoe

And so now the county has to reverse everything, including returning the $1.4 million or so for the bridge design and construction to ODOT. So moral of the story is, "if you are going to lie, don't write it down." That is why Sadlo is in trouble now. Just don't lie.

yupjoe

The current "bridge" is only a frame. You cannot traverse it. Its big I-beams across a creak. The bridge-picture that you may have seen Mr. "madmacs" was just to get their excavator and other equipment across without touching the water and getting into trouble with the EPA for killing fish that don't exist. It is called a "construction bridge" and was only temporary. Its a common practice to do that.