Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock was concerned about having a <br />consistent policy in these situations and wanted to be sure <br />that whatever vehicle was found to accomplish this task <br />could be applied uniformly to other applicants who wished to <br />do the same sort of thing. <br />Public Works Director Jim Davis thought they would not <br />treat any future projects any differently as it would be to <br />the Department's benefit to get roads off the maintenance <br />route. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted that this is a collector road <br />and believed the basic criteria required should be a <br />petition by the property owners, a cost determination, and <br />willingness by the property owners or the developer to pay <br />the extra amount resulting from having an outside firm do <br />the engineering. He felt that the County should not pay <br />more than its share, whatever the escalator price. <br />Director Davis confirmed that was what was intended, <br />but pointed out that many of our costs are indirect costs, <br />such as labor, etc., which do not deplete the petition <br />paving fund, and he was not sure that Mr. Schlitt would pay <br />the additional direct costs. If the project is going to be <br />allowed to proceed in this nature, i.e., designed by an <br />outside engineering firm and contracted out, Director Davis <br />believed some sort of commitment is needed that the County's <br />direct cost will not be more than if the County did the work <br />in-house. <br />Ed Schlitt agreed that the County needs to be <br />consistent in their policy, but pointed out that if this <br />project is delayed another year, the County would have some <br />on-going maintenance expense. Mr. Schlitt stated he did not <br />have a problem with the extra cost differential as long as <br />it did not exceed the estimated $10,000. He advised that <br />they have agreed to hire an design engineer at a cost of <br />$8,000-$9,000. <br />29 <br />SEP 19 1984 Boa 8 ?,,-N X51 <br />