Georgia County Government-August 2008

RISK continued from page 23 of life, medical bills, etc. for 13 deaths and 145 injuries, which is capped at $38 million. Third, Minnesota will pay the contractor $200,000 for each day they finish bridge construction before Christmas 2008 – that’s about $20 million given their current schedule. Therefore, the total non-insured impact of losing the I-35W Bridge is currently estimated at $220 million dollars, about the same cost as the bridge replacement, which was funded by the federal government. The takeaway from this story is that Minnesota’s taxpayer risk from owning transportation infrastructure was hard to understand, not easily quantified, not transferred to a third party (insurance carrier), and certainly not trivial. Minnesota’s taxpaying citizens have to bear the risk of economic loss, victim’s restitution and other impacts. Its sovereign immunity statutes only reduced the financial risks, it didn’t eliminate them. The state undoubtedly lost some governance reputation, which is difficult to quantify, but all too real when the next Fortune 500 company is choosing its new headquarters location. Could It Happen in Georgia? What happened in Minnesota with I35W could happen in any state. Do states and counties have the tools in place to mitigate this risk? No. Should we be doing something about this risk to benefit our state and county bridge owners, the taxpayers? Absolutely. Advanced condition assessment technologies, commercially available to bridge owners, allow bridges to “speak” in an objective, accurate and timely manner, supporting their active participation in the diagnosis of a bridge’s “health.” With an accurate diagnosis, bridge owners are in a position to work with insurers and reinsurers to develop risk management programs that are rational, objective and have premiums that reflect the risk transferred, not simply what the market will bare. A project funded by the Georgia DOT is now under way to demonstrate a more precise means of assessing bridge condition (safe load carrying capacity) and how the owner’s risks can be better managed. LifeSpan Technologies is currently working with the Georgia DOT on this project, which will have long-term risk and financial implications for all bridge owners in Georgia – and hopefully across the nation. The two principal project objectives are: • Load testing 10 posted, countyowned, short span (less than 200 feet) bridges across the state to determine their “health.” Results may allow increased weight limits, removal of weight restrictions altogether, or, it could show the risks to be much greater than prior visual inspection indicated. Bridges selected for load testing are located in Barrow, Cobb, Coffee, Columbia, Dawson, McDuffie, Paulding and Warren counties, and two in Charlton County. • Evaluate the risk aspects for owners of defective (structurally deficient) bridges with regard to liability, property/casualty and other exposures. We’re hopeful this project – to be completed in 2008 – will set the stage for continued use of advanced condition assessment technologies by state and county bridge owners. In addition, we expect the use of advanced condition assessment technologies will allow owners to better quantify their risks in owning transportation infrastructure, which is the starting point for designing and implementing improved risk transfer mechanisms. With today’s advanced assessment technology, there’s simply no reason to blindly assume risk, especially that risk not covered by sovereign immunity statutes. There are currently about 1,000 structurally deficient bridges in Georgia owned by counties and cities, and about 100 structurally deficient bridges owned by the State on the National Highway System. While Georgia’s bridges, especially those owned by counties and cities, are not the size and don’t carry the impact of an I-35W, the financial resources of a county or city aren’t as big as the state’s either. Losing a bridge in a Georgia county could be just as devastating for that county as the I-35W bridge was to the state of Minnesota and city of Minneapolis. It comes down to this simple question: “Do you want to understand this exposure and plan for appropriate risk management?” ■ 24 GEORGIA 373759_HNTB.indd 1 COUNTY GOVERNMENT 3/31/08 8:46:26 PM http://www.hntb.com

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.