Jennison Road Bridge Project Estimated At $550,000

Engineers told the Board of Selectmen Monday they anticipate the project to replace the bridge on Jennison Road will cost about $550,000, of which the town would be responsible for 20 percent.

The state will share the entire cost of the bridge project, including the cost of engineer work, at 80 percent.

Town Administrator Guy Scaife said although the town was able to fix the bridge after it suffered an emergency closure because the culvert’s walls were breaking down, the solution was only a temporary one.

“Culverts are, unfortunately failing around the state around the 20-year life cycle,” Scaife said. “We have our share of a statewide problem here in Milford.”

The project’s hefty price tag is due in part to the size of the stream crossing, and in part to environmental guidelines and regulations for construction of the bridge.

The Department of Environmental Services (DES) requires “open bottom” structures that facilitate wildlife passage underneath, according to Matt Low, president of Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc., the firm the town hired to complete engineering work for the project.

However, poor soils under the bridge would make installing an “open bottom” culvert very expensive.

Low told the council his firm’s proposal for a 28 ft. long silt box culvert with a “natural bottom” rather than no bottom was approved by the Department of Transportation (DOT); and that the DES agreed to a waiver from constructing a “no-bottom” culvert.

The cost of construction for the culvert is expected to be about $489,000.

Scaife said if some construction services are fulfilled by the town rather than contracted out; it could save the town substantially.

“I have seen towns save in the six digits by doing much of their own construction,” Low confirmed.

Unless funding sources for the project change, Scaife said he expects the project will most likely be completed in 2016.

Low said to keep the project on track for 2016, the town should talk to local state legislators about increasing funding for the program.

“Moving forward with the design phase was a very smart choice because it allows us to get plans prepared,” he added, explaining the state takes into account whether or not a project is “shovel-ready” when determining which projects to fund each year.