Georgia County Government-August 2008

Transportation 2008 Bridge Infrastructure and Risk Georgia currently has about 1,000 structurally deficient bridges, owned by counties and cities, and another 100 owned by the state on the National Highway System. Understanding the exposure and planning for appropriate risk management are crucial. By Peter J. Vanderzee President and CEO LifeSpan Technologies Atlanta, Georgia I magine going to your doctor with a serious problem, entering the exam room, and just standing there, silent. Then imagine your doctor trying to conduct an exam without your active participation. We all know that won’t work. Doctors follow a diagnostic protocol, which includes talking with the patient to identify symptoms, etc. As doctors learn more, their diagnostic path becomes more focused, sophisticated and costly as they order more expensive test procedures to accurately define your medical problem. If your doctor does their job well, their diagnosis will be correct, and your treatment can be ordered and implemented at the minimum possible cost. Given that, your risk of premature death or disability is reduced and you’ve probably extended your life span. For more than three decades, highway bridges stood silent while inspectors tried to diagnose their condition. The primary method of diagnosing bridge condition is visual inspection – a process the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) readily admits is subjective, highly variable and not sufficient to optimize longterm management, including financially, operationally or risk. Now, imagine the difficulty of owning many bridges that are inspected (diagnosed) with visual protocols (subjective and highly variable), and then trying to fashion an insurance program to cover the risk exposures. In practice, it’s nearly impossible, since owners and insurers can’t accurately define the risk for structurally deficient bridges without using advanced condition assessment technology – much like your doctor uses an MRI. Most readers will remember last fall when State Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration officials told the public a bridge classified as “structurally deficient” didn’t mean the bridge was going to fail. Yet, many of us watched video of Interstate 35 West’s collapse on Aug. 1, 2007, in Minneapolis, Minn., a bridge classified as structurally deficient. Was Risk Underestimated? Did the Minnesota DOT underestimate its risk? Was the risk quantifiable for I-35W? Could the State of Minnesota, working with insurers and reinsurers, have crafted an insurance program for this bridge and other similarly structurally deficient bridges around the state? The short answer: not really. The long answer: even if they tried, without using advanced condition assessment technology, they had no basis to objectively quantify the risk, monitor the risk, mitigate the risk or transfer the risk. Bridge owners were either stuck with assuming an unknown risk exposure, whatever that turned out to be, or pay a premium for cover more related to what the market would bare than their actual risk exposure. So, you may be wondering, doesn’t Minnesota, like every other state, have sovereign immunity protection for liability exposure? Isn’t that sufficient? By the way, Minnesota was and remains self-insured, meaning it retains all liability and property/casualty exposure not covered under its sovereign immunity statutes. But what’s not covered under the sovereign immunity statutes is theoretically not an issue – the plaintiffs simply have no legal recourse to collect restitution for negligent acts by government employees. Sounds like great protection against risk exposure for the taxpayers, right? Not necessarily. Financial Fallout Here’s the current financial tally for Minnesota’s I-35W legacy. First, Minnesota DOT estimated the local “economic impact” to be $400,000 per day for about 400 days of accelerated bridge reconstruction – that totals $160 million. That bill was paid by businesses, shop owners, commuters, truckers and ordinary citizens who used I-35 West. Second, the State Legislature crafted a victim’s restitution fund to pay for loss RISK continued on page 24 AUGUST 2008 www.accg.org 23 http://www.accg.org

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Georgia County Government-August 2008

Georgia County Government- August 2008 Contents President’s Message County Matters Georgia’s Transportation Issues More Critical to Counties than Ever Expanding Rural Airports: Partnering for Economic Development in Upson County Meet DOT Commissioner Gena Abraham Bridge Infrastructure and Risk Counties and the Law: Georgia’s Fair Employment Practices Act Georgia’s Grand Old Courthouses: Coffee County Extension News: Infrastructure Investments Save County Funds Research Corner: Getting the Most Out of Your Research Discover the New Georgia Encyclopedia NACo News Staff News County Parade Index of Advertisers

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.