Century-old Church Street bridge to be replaced
By Erik Pekar, Town Historian
The Church Street bridge is one of Granville’s landmarks. It serves an important purpose, as it is one of two bridges allowing vehicular traffic to cross the Mettowee River. The present structure was built in 1920. The bridge was set to be replaced this last summer, but at the present time the project has been delayed. In the meantime, the bridge surpassed the centennial milestone this fall.
This crossing of the Mettowee River has been an important one since the early 19th century. At that time, it served as the crossing for the end of the “shunpike,” today’s Church Street. The shunpike was the bypass for the north end of the old Northern Turnpike, which went from Lansingburgh (northern part of city of Troy) to Granville.
Eventually, a covered bridge was built across the river here. An iron bowstring truss bridge replaced the covered bridge in 1881.
At its Feb. 24, 1920 meeting, the town board moved to have the town clerk write to the county superintendent of highways, requesting him to act towards condemning the Church Street bridge.
At its March 3 meeting, the town board moved to request the county superintendent of highways to submit preliminary plans prior to April 1 of a reinforced concrete bridge on Church Street, with an 80-foot span and 20 feet wide.
A petition concerning the bridge was read to the town board at its meeting of May 7. It was signed by more than 25 taxpayers of the town of Granville and it advised the town that the bridge over the Mettowee on Church Street was “unsafe for public use and travel and that it is advisable, in the interest of the town, to construct a new bridge in its place.”
The clerk offered a resolution and called for a vote on June 1 for a proposition to build a new bridge to not exceed $30,000 in cost and to borrow the necessary money and issue bonds. New York deemed the bridge obsolete in late May and condemned the bridge.
The proposition was put forth by the town on June 1, and passed, 95 to 13; most voters were village residents.
At the June 10 meeting, the board was shown the proposed plans by the county engineer. The board approved the plans and approved the printing of a public notice soliciting bids for constructing the bridge.
Two bids were received and opened at the July 3 meeting. Sigmund Weinberg of Granville bid $38,872, and William M. Bronk and Company of Hudson Falls bid $27,900. The bid of the Bronk company was accepted. The terms of the contract stated that the work on the bridge had to be completed by Nov. 1, 1920.
The Washington County Board of Supervisors at its July 7 meeting authorized the town to issue the bonds to pay for the bridge.
At a special meeting on July 12, the town board looked over some specifics of the Bronk company, particularly to make sure they had an indemnity bond as the contract specified, which they did, and afterwards approved of the company building the bridge.
The bridge was designed by Orson C. Richards, then the Washington County superintendent of highways. The bridge would have a span of 80 feet, with a road width of 20 feet and sidewalks on each side. It would be constructed of concrete reinforced with steel. Construction started in late July. The new bridge was also designed to be built at a higher level than the previous bridge, by about 10 feet. This meant that approaches had to be built for Church Street to stay level with the bridge. For unknown reasons, the bridge’s approaches were not initially thought of in costs; this oversight was not discovered for some time.
At the September meeting of the town board, the issue of paying for the construction of the sidewalks on the bridge was discussed. The village board attended the meeting. It was eventually decided to have the town and village attorneys bring the issue to the Attorney General.
At the Oct. 5 meeting of the town board, the county superintendent of highways brought up the matter of building retaining walls for the bridge, as well as the cost and liability of the walls. It was decided to direct the highway department to seek out an opinion on this matter from the Attorney General.
The issue of retaining walls for the bridge was discussed at a town board meeting on Oct. 14, with the village board present. Further discussion was delayed pending information relating to liabilities of building retaining walls from the Attorney General.
The village board moved at its Oct. 19 meeting to have the village president (mayor) notify the town supervisor that the village wanted the town to build the approaches in a professional manner.
A letter concerning the retaining walls was received from the State Department of Highways, dated Oct. 22. Its writer recommended that due to the classification of the wall as a retaining wall, for protection of the street, it was not part of the bridge itself, and would therefore have the construction cost borne by the village.
The prospect of the village building the approaches and retaining walls at its expense did not sit well with the village board. The village board wrote to the Attorney General on Nov. 3, asking for advice. The reply from the Attorney General’s office came in mid-November, dated the 12th. In the letter, Section 14 of the village law (as it was in 1920) was cited; it advised that the “the expense of constructing and repairing such bridges and the approaches thereto is a town charge, unless the village assumes the whole or a part of such expense.” He added that unless the village board had agreed to share some of the expense of the bridge, the completion of the approaches would be a town matter under the authority of its commissioner of highways [now called highway superintendent] and in turn the cost of building the bridge would also be the responsibility of the town.
The village board sent a notice to the town board, dated Nov. 15 and signed by clerk Thomas E. Stanton, noting that the village had taken legal advice and considering that they had no part in anything thus far relating to the bridge, and noted that the village “refuses and declines to assume any part” of anything to do with building the bridge and approaches.
The town received the notice from the village board. The town clerk and commissioner of highways went to Albany themselves to discuss this matter directly with the Attorney General’s office and the State Department of Highways. They were told basically that the town should finish the bridge approaches so vehicles could drive across, but leave the sidewalks to be finished by the village.
The town supervisor read a statement at the Dec. 9 meeting that the total cost of building the Church Street bridge was $33,230.45. This was over the bond issue by $3,230.45, but due to technicalities with the bond, $155 of this was already covered. To pay for the remaining $3,073.45, $100 was transferred to the Bridge Fund, and $3,000 was borrowed from the Farmers National Bank on a certificate of indebtedness.
The Church Street bridge likely opened in November or December of 1920.
At the March 1921 meeting of the town board, Eugene R. Norton appeared and requested the town finish the retaining walls. The board told Norton that they would discuss the matter with the village when they so desired. No further discussion of this matter was recorded in subsequent meeting minutes of the village or town boards after this meeting, but the retaining walls were ultimately built.
The bridge was refurbished in 1987. The original concrete railings were removed and replaced with steel railings. Another refurbishing project was done in 2015. The southern approach wall had a new decorative facade added.
The decision to replace the bridge came in 2017. Properties around the north landing of the bridge, near where Church Street meets Water Street, were purchased by the county in December 2017. One of the properties, 3 Water Street, was sold off and the building demolished in January 2020.
The county announced in April 2019 that the Church Street bridge would be replaced in 2020. An information night was held in late October of 2019. At that time, it was planned that the bids would be opened in June, construction would start in July and would finish in September. The bridge would be an arch bridge like the 1920 bridge; the cost was projected at $4,300,000.
In February 2020, the construction of the new bridge was delayed to the spring of 2021. The county cited the need for a utility pole to be moved, and the work scheduling and time for the utilities to each move their service lines to a new pole. It was projected at the time that this would happen sometime this year, bids for the bridge would be made in the fall, and the bridge would be replaced in the spring of 2021.
As of November 2020, the utility pole in question has not been replaced. No new timetable for the bridge project has been released.
The Church Street bridge has been used for a century. Over that time, many from the area and beyond have crossed there. The bridge is a landmark and an important part of Granville. When the time is ready, this venerable structure will be replaced with a new bridge that will allow people to cross the Mettowee at this spot for years to come.