The RTK requests records showing how much Upper Allen Township has spent on Bishop Bridge / Bishop Road Bridge. That includes legal costs, any consultant or outside professional expenses connected to the bridge. It also asks for supporting records like invoices, billing statements, payment records, time records, project tracking, and related administrative or coordination work that was already documented.

A key concern surrounding Bishop Bridge is the difference between saying local tax dollars will be minimized and showing, through the public record, that Township funds have already been used on an asset Upper Allen Township does not currently own.

Bishop Bridge is not currently a Township-owned bridge. Public meeting records indicate that the bridge is owned by Cumberland and York Counties, and that the counties would need to initiate certain actions connected to ownership and historic designation. Because of that, any Upper Allen Township spending on legal review, engineering questions, storage planning, or ownership-transfer discussions should be viewed carefully. These are not expenses for maintaining an existing Township asset. They are expenses tied to evaluating whether the Township should assume responsibility for a county-owned bridge.

This matters because “minimizing local tax dollars” does not mean “no local tax dollars.” Once legal fees, engineering review, staff time, public meeting preparation, and potential future storage obligations are introduced, local taxpayer resources are being used. The March 13, 2026 Township Manager memo described one possible option where the counties would pay for careful disassembly, but Upper Allen Township would provide shipping containers for storage at Township expense and agree to reconstruct the bridge for vehicular use if funds were later raised. That proposal would move the Township beyond observation and into potential ownership, storage, and long-term responsibility.

The funding issue is also unresolved. Public records state that liquid fuels or $5 local-use fee funds could only be used if there were a definitive agreement that the bridge would be restored for vehicular use. If the bridge is not restored for vehicular use, those funding sources may not be available. County representatives also stated that neither Cumberland nor York County had committed funding at that time and that both counties were only considering the proposal.

For taxpayers, the concern is straightforward: Upper Allen Township began incurring legal expenses for a bridge it does not own, while the future cost, funding source, ownership structure, storage responsibility, and reconstruction obligation remained unsettled. That does not fully support the public claim that local tax dollars are being minimized. It shows that local resources were already being used to explore a project that could transfer ownership and long-term financial responsibility from the counties to Upper Allen Township.

Bishop Bridge Expenses After the June 2025 Vote

Based on the available Upper Allen Township Board of Commissioners agenda packets and invoice reports, Bishop Bridge continued to generate Township-related expenses after the June 2025 vote, primarily through legal research, legal counsel, public discussion, intergovernmental coordination, and review of potential ownership/funding options.

The June 2025 vote did not appear to fully end the public or administrative activity (pg 13) surrounding Bishop Bridge. Instead, the issue reappeared in 2026 after renewed discussion involving Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, York County, PennDOT, and the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office. The public record shows that Township officials continued reviewing whether the bridge could be carefully disassembled, stored, transferred to the Township, and potentially reconstructed in the future.

How the Expenses Occurred

After the prior vote, the matter resurfaced because Bishop Bridge remained under discussion as a historic preservation issue. At the February 18, 2026 Board of Commissioners meeting, an update was provided stating that PA SHPO supported transferring the bridge to the Township (pg 4-8), with the County potentially funding either careful disassembly or demolition costs toward rehabilitation. The same update noted that county liquid fuels and $5 registration-fee funds could only be used if the bridge were eventually reassembled for vehicular use. The Board also acknowledged public concerns and stated a desire to minimize local tax-dollar use, while describing a phased approach beginning with disassembly and storage, followed by a later phase dependent on grants and donations. That renewed activity led to additional review and legal work. The March 18, 2026 agenda included a specific item under Public Improvements: a request to Cumberland and York Counties for the careful disassembly of Bishop Road Bridge for storage.(pg 1). The supporting memo from Township Manager Keldeen Stambaugh stated that SHPO would require Cumberland County to consider alternatives to demolition to avoid or minimize the adverse effect of destroying the resource. The memo also outlined a possible proposal where the counties would pay for careful disassembly, the Township would provide storage at Township expense, and the Township would agree to reconstruct the bridge for vehicular use if funds were later raised. This created legal and financial questions for the Township, including ownership, responsibility for storage, possible future reconstruction obligations, funding eligibility, and whether the Township could be exposed to future costs. Those questions appear to be what triggered the legal invoices.

Bishop Bridge: March 18, 2026 Vote

At the March 18, 2026 Upper Allen Township Board of Commissioners meeting, the Board considered a proposal asking Cumberland and York Counties to carefully disassemble Bishop Bridge for storage.

The proposal also involved the possibility of Upper Allen Township taking ownership of the bridge, storing it at Township expense, and potentially reconstructing it for vehicular use if funding was later secured.

The motion failed 3–2.

Voted yes:
Eric Fairchild and Phil Walsh

Voted no:
Jennifer Clarke, Ken Martin, and Karen Overly Smith

The key is that Bishop Bridge was not owned by Upper Allen Township. While the proposal was presented as a way to minimize local tax dollars, the public record shows it could have created Township responsibility for storage, legal review, future engineering, and possible reconstruction costs.

In simple terms: two Commissioners supported moving the proposal forward, while three voted against taking that next step toward Township responsibility for a county-owned bridge.

Why This Matters

The public record suggests that expenses occurred because the matter was not treated as closed after the earlier vote. Instead, the bridge discussion continued through outside-agency involvement, preservation review, possible transfer of ownership, possible storage of the bridge, funding questions, and legal review of what obligations the Township might assume.