A publicized tiff over the long-planned rehabilitation of a pedestrian bridge near the Iron Bridge Corporate Campus appears to be moving toward resolution, despite a flurry of emails between a partner in the multimillion-dollar office complex project and city officials over who was to blame for bridge work delay.

The email exchanges between Spokane Mayor Mary Verner, Iron Bridge LLC managing partner Kent Hull, and city council members took place late last month and earlier this month, with both sides disputing the other's version of what factors caused the delay.

The project sparking the disagreements involves an effort to turn an abandoned railroad bridge that crosses the Spokane River in the University District into a pedestrian bridge. The structure is located northeast of the Spokane Falls Boulevard-Hamilton Street intersection and next to the Iron Bridge Office Campus.

Hull contends the project has been delayed by the city—which owns the bridge—for almost a decade despite efforts by the office complex's owners to fund some of the project's engineering work and other related site work.

In a Nov. 17 story published in the Journal about the bridge's rehab, Hull said that because of the city's lack of cooperation to move forward with the project, he and his partners now are holding off on developing the remaining 9 acres of vacant land on the Iron Bridge campus, located at 1401 E. Trent. Currently there are three office buildings at Iron Bridge with a combined total of 135,000 square feet.

The construction of two new envisioned buildings there Hull estimates would be around $25 million.

The most recent conflict surrounding the bridge's rehab was sparked after the low bid for the project, from Spokane-based Max J. Kuney Co., came in $200,000 over the $830,000 budget. The city then had to reevaluate the project's feasibility.

On Nov. 29, Verner sent a letter via email to Iron Bridge partner Hull that claimed several of his assertions reported in the Journal's Nov. 17 story were incorrect, including his claim that the 10-year project delay was due to city actions.

In her letter to Hull, Verner contends that during most of that decade-long period, the effort to rehab the structure was pursued privately by Iron Bridge. The city only became involved, she says, when it was discovered that the project was eligible for state funds.

At that time, she says the city offered Iron Bridge's partners assistance with the bridge's design and to serve in the role of the project's construction manager. Verner says, though, "Our absolute assertion, and mutual agreement, was that this project would not place any demand on the City for any financing, period."

On Nov. 30, Hull responded to Verner's letter, reiterating his original claims that the project's delay was caused by unnecessary changes the city's engineering department made to the project's initial design, which Iron Bridge funded, that raised its total cost. Hull asserts that the city's decision to alter the bridge design from the original plan for a wood deck to a mixed asphalt-and-concrete deck significantly increased the project's cost and led to the bids coming in over budget.

"We understand the city's desire not to incur a capital outlay to see the bridge work done, thus we don't understand why the city then tolerated throwing out the original design, which has been agreed to by all parties, and then expending tens of thousands of dollars to redesign the deck," he writes.

He adds, "Iron Bridge stands by its assertion that delays caused by the city have increased costs."

The next letter in the correspondence, dated Dec. 2, from City Councilman Bob Apple supports Hull's assertions. In his response to Hull and Verner, Apple says, "We have a simple solution. Go back to the wood deck plan for the bridge as originally proposed and approved ... "

A fourth email followed Apple's response and was sent the same day by Mike Taylor, director of the city's engineering department.

In that email, Taylor says that Max J. Kuney Co. was able to offer some suggestions on how to change the scope of work and bring the project's cost within budget.

"After reviewing the submitted suggestions, we believe that a combination of adjustments will nicely bring the project into alignment within the approved budget," Taylor says. "We anticipate having those details sorted out by next week. Our expectation is that we will then be able to quickly move forward to Council with approval for construction and notice to proceed."