JEFFERSONVILLE — Critics of the slimmed-down $2.9 billion Ohio River Bridges project have offered that removing a tunnel on the Kentucky east-end approach to the planned bridge could garner enough savings on the federally approved project to eliminate the use of tolls to cover a funding gap.

Although the hope is that cutting more cost out of the price tag to build an east-end bridge, downtown bridge and reconstruct Spaghetti Junction would eliminate the need for tolls, the project’s planners have said a funding gap would remain and tolls will still be a part of the project’s financial plan.

The other impediment to the proposal of removing a tunnel from the east-end portion of the project is the Drumanard Estate’s inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and an effort to see it removed from the designated list.

HISTORICALLY INACCURATE

Although it is admitted in the supplemental summary that building the tunnel under the Drumanard Estate is a major cost element in that portion of the project, it has been deemed necessary to avoid disturbing the historic property.

“The 2003 record-of-decision included a commitment to construct a tunnel in this location as a means of avoiding the use of the Drumanard Estate Historic District, which is protected under ... the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, a federal law that protects historic properties and parklands,” according to the appendix of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

But the fact that the property has been deemed historic at all has some area residents upset.

Denis Frankenberger, a managing partner of Charlestown Landing — a development near Ind. 62 and Ind. 3 in Charlestown — said “the fact is, the Drumanard property does not meet any of the criteria required by the National Register of Historic Places to be designated historic, and officials of the Kentucky Heritage Council have acted in violation of codes of conduct of the organization as well as the national register of Historic places to get it designated as being historic.”

He offered support in the form of several letters sent between the Kentucky Heritage Council and the then property owner, Mary Peacock Fitzhugh, when the historic designation was granted in 1992.

Frankenberger explained that he became interested in the property after he discovered that Fitzhugh initially objected to Drumanard being included on the National Register of Historic Places. He subsequently hired several researchers to collect documents related to the process the property went through to be added to the historic register.

Among the letters was a correspondence from Leslee Keys, former administrator with the office of historic preservation, after Fitzhugh filed her objection.

“To give you full knowledge of the owner objection provision of National Register listing, you should be aware that an affidavit is required for that objection,” the letter read — a claim Frankenberger said is false. “Also, the property will still be reviewed by the National Park Service and, if determined to meet prescribed standards, will be officially designated as ‘determined eligible.’”

Frankenberger added that the purpose for adding the property to the National Register was not valid.

“The problem is ... the [Olmsted landscape] plan was never implemented. My petition’s going to point out a lot of those inaccuracies. My intent is to get Drumanard delisted from the Historical Register,” he said.

But Frankenberger’s attempt to delist Drumanard will not be the first try to remove the property from the Historic Register.



DELISTING DRUMANARD

Steve Wiser — a Louisville architect who has offered a plan of several local access bridges as an alternative to the approved bridges project — submitted a petition to delist the property in September 2010.

He claimed, in a letter to former Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Mark Dennen, that the historical designation was incorrect, again citing the “Olmsted landscape plan was never implemented.”

The request was denied by the National Register.

A letter from Carol Shull, interim keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, to Wiser read in part, “records found in the Library of Congress’ Olmsted collection ... suggest that the Olmsted firm did have a hand in the design of the Drumanard property.”

It continued, “we have concluded that the information provided in the petition does not demonstrate that the property should be moved from the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore the property will remain listed.”

But Frankenberger contends the property should have never been included in the register in the first place.

“It should have never been nominated,” he said. “They did, in fact, do exactly what they hoped to achieve. To get properties designated historic for the sole purpose ... of restricting progress of Interstate 265 to Indiana.”

He alleged in achieving the designation, members of the Kentucky Heritage Council violated numerous codes of conduct. Frankenberger contends that the “violations” are supported in the correspondence between Fitzhugh, her nephew and attorney Lawrence Jones and Keys.

Among the letters were a correspondence from Keys to Jones on Oct. 31, 1988, that outlined why the designation was considered a priority.

“The potential for highway construction ... initiated the scheduling and prioritizing which resulted in the Drumanard nomination,” the letter read.

In addition, it discussed protection offered, if the property was designated historic, from being taken through eminent domain.

“Two of the proposed routes slice sections near to or north of the gardener’s cottage,” according to the letter. “This might weaken the case for taking the entire property. With the proposed nomination ... the mitigating of impact on any portion of the property becomes more complicated and costly. The consultants who conducted the bridge/highway feasibility study for the state of Indiana mentioned this situation. They noted that the costs may preclude the use of these routes and force another location to be considered — entirely away from your aunt’s property.”

Because of the property’s inclusion in the Historic Register, the land could not be taken through eminent domain and Frankenberger said the cost to run a tunnel under the Drumanard property has been subsequently inflated to carry the road 1.4 miles to the river.

“For every 10 feet, that’s $1 million; that’s $100,000 a foot,” he said.

A message left with Keys, who now works for a university in Florida, was returned by email, but she directed questions regarding the Drumanard Property be made to the Kentucky Heritage Council.