1/20/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ M M .UTERNATIVES kND ANALYSIS The agreements proposed for transferring each of the crossings contain the following provisions: 1) Grants right of County for road to cross FEC right-of-way and any facility placement requires a FEC Railroad Permit. 2. Any work by the County under/over/or across the right-of-way is to be paid for by the County, whether by reimbursing the Railroad or by direct payment by County: 3) The County will maintain the crossing unless the Railroad disturbs paving between headers or ties, in which case, the Railroad will patch. 4) If the Railroad makes changes that affect paving or County facilities, the County must bear the cost. 5) The County will not take action to prevent operation of trains over crossings. 6) If the County fails to comply with the agreement, it loses the privilege to cross the FEC right-of-way. 7) The agreement is for one (1) year, automatically -renewed unless 30 day notice of termination by Railroad is given. 8) If the County terminates agreement it must remove all improvements in FEC right-of-way. 9) Cost for maintenance of signals shall be the responsibility of the Railroadand the County. In the schedule of Annual Cost of Control Devices, it states that the Railway and Countv will share the.cost ona 50/50/basis. Alternative #1 As per Chapter 77-165 of the Legislature of the State of Florida, the County can approve the execution of the agreements and adoption of the resolutions. The financial impact this alternative will have includes yearly maintenance costs of $615.00 for the South Gifford Road Crossing and $490.00 for the Glo'ndale Road Crossing and Roseland Road Crossing (total cost of $1,595, per year). Also, improvements in the future to the Crossings may be billed to the County. This impact can be substantial, as some recent improvements to one crossing totaled $11,290.08. Also, we have been told by the DOT that two other crossing signal agreements will be forthcoming. The $10,300. cost for the reconstruction of SR 512 crossing is not recommended to be paid by the County until the County formally accepts this road. The County should pay the $11,290.08 cost for improving the Oslo Road crossing. Alternative # 2 Proceed with avenues to refuse acceptance of the Secondary System and cross- ings from DOT. This will involve much legal work and the County would consider not accepting the 800 of the 5th and 6th Cent Gas Tax in the future. Currently, the County receives approximately` $600,000 per year in revenues plus interest from this program. This alternative would be in direct conflict with the Boards action in October of 1978 when the Transfer Agreement was approved by the Board. In communicating with other Counties, any attempt to refuse acceptance of the Crossings would probably not be fruitful, and would be costly on the County's behalf. � , 16 Q004 41A PAfF 570