Laserfiche WebLink
r- <br />I P 'f 2 0 1983 <br />BOOK 153-PAU274, <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve <br />Alternate #2 (purchase 5' R/W north of 16th <br />St. & construct a 5' sidewalk from 29th <br />Ave. to 20th Ave.) at a cost of $69,285.50. <br />Engineers Darrell McQueen, of Lloyd and Associates, came <br />b9fore the Board and questioned what the County's liability might <br />be if the project is built as a sidewalk but continually used as <br />a bike path; he felt that bicycles are not usually allowed on <br />sidewalks. <br />The preceding discussion of all the problems and various <br />alternatives were reviewed with Mr. Lloyd and Mr. McQueen. <br />Attorney Brandenburg felt that the main issue is that the <br />path must be designed safely. If it appears to a normal <br />individual to be a bicycle path and they ride their bicycle on <br />it, no matter what you call it, if it is not designed safely, you <br />will be sued. As to design standards, it can be argued either <br />that the current DOT standards -apply or that it meets standards <br />developed over the years. The Attorney emphasized that the rule <br />for negligence is the reasonable expectation of a reasonable <br />person. <br />Mr. McQueen noted federal criteria requires that a bike path <br />be a minimum of 5' from the edge of the existing shoulder. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed that most sidewalks -in the <br />community are used as bike paths. Discussion continued at length <br />re 5' opposed to 81, liability, alternatives, etc., and Mr. Davis <br />noted that the path will be outside of the pole line and will be <br />at least 5' away from the street. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to adopt <br />Alternative #2. It was voted on and carried <br />3 to 1 with Commissioner Wodtke voting in <br />Opposition. <br />46 <br />