4/20/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 2 01983 a q� FA0' X72 Mr. Davis emphasized that the estimated $90,000, based on appraisal figures obtained from the Property Appraiser, does not include any condemnation or legal costs, and those costs could be significant. Commissioner Scurlock reported that when these figures were presented to the Transportation Committee there was a good deal of discussion and concern evidenced about how close the path would be to people's yards. He believed there was some consideration given to acquiring 5' instead of 101, which might not only be better dollarwise but also make the individuals happier. Commissioner Wodtke asked if 8' paving is not required for bike paths, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that it would not be if we did not use the DOT funds. Although by acquiring only 5', we would lose the DOT money, and it would cost a little more, (about $4,000); he believed this difference would be more than offset by lesser legal costs. Chairman Bird brought up the liability question if we design and build a bike path that doesn't meet State criteria. He felt there is not a more difficult place to put a bike path or a location that is more. in need of one. Commissioner Scurlock noted that cities in some parts of the state, for instance, Gainesville, in lieu. of bike paths have merely marked off a lane in their highways for this purpose. He believed there are other alternatives we could check .on, but agreed that Attorney Brandenburg does need to check on the liability situation. Mr. Davis commented that at a seminar he had attended in Fort Lauderdale, he had learned that designating a lane on the highway for bicycle traffic is acceptable, but it was not felt this would be feasible on 16th Street due to the proximity of the canal on the south and the pole line on the north. He continued that he also got the impression from the seminar that if you construct a facility and sign it as a bike path and don't build 44 M 0 M