Laserfiche WebLink
F, <br />5e SSU <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />The alternatives are as follows: <br />BOOK ig,j <br />Alternative No. 1 <br />Repair the existing bridge at a cost of $8,000 for <br />materials plus labor. The bridge would still not meet <br />geometric standards. <br />Alternative No. 2 <br />Replace the bridge with a large culvert at a cost of <br />$31,512. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING <br />It is recommended that Alternative No. 2 be approved. <br />funding to be from Road and Bridge Account <br />111-214-541-035.39(Balance $153,981.) <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked for an explanation of the <br />geometric standards and the significant difference in the costs <br />between Alternate #1 and Alternate #2. <br />Director Davis explained that basically the current bridge <br />is 24 feet wide and there is no adequate shoulder area. The <br />railings on the bridge are inadequate. The shape of the bridge <br />is not up to current geometric design standards. The road is <br />also 24 feet wide. The 60 -ft long culvert will be a permanent <br />solution, and it will provide adequate intersection clearance. <br />The intersection of the road to the Landfill is very close to the <br />bridge, and that is another geometric problem because vehicles <br />have a hard time making the radius on and off the bridge from the <br />Landfill road. This also includes paving. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved <br />Alternate No. 2, to replace the bridge with a large <br />culvert at a cost of $31,512, as set out in the above <br />staff recommendation. <br />58 <br />(. <br />