Laserfiche WebLink
Director Davis advised that Mr. Rodriguez has told him that <br />if we do decide to go to an administrative hearing process on <br />this, it could be a 3 -year process. <br />Chairman Scurlock explained that his Motion is to pursue <br />this matter on a basis of getting one crossing and giving up one <br />crossing, and if it comes down to something else, staff is to <br />come back to the Board <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion <br />was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING OPEN ROAD CUT MAINTENANCE BOND <br />AND NON -FRANCHISED USER FEES <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/22/90: <br />TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. <br />Public Works Director <br />and C� <br />Roger D. Cain, P.E <br />County Engineer /�—� <br />FROM: W.A."Bill" Meager gam <br />Construction Coordinator <br />SUBJECT: Resolutiono: 1. Open Road Cut Maintenance Bond <br />2. Non -Franchised User Fees <br />DATE: May 22, 1990 <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />ITEM #1: <br />With the current demand for expanded utility installations <br />within county rights-of-way, we are faced with the <br />maintenance problem of open road cuts. Currently the county <br />does not have a vehicle to offset the cost of emergency <br />repairs for open road cuts after final restoration where <br />pavement failure has occurred. <br />It has been our experience that it is very difficult to have <br />a contractor or developer respond in a timely manner to <br />perform emergency repairs when pavement failure occurs after <br />completion of a project. In any event, such a failure poses <br />a threat to the safety and well being of the public at large <br />and any such failure needs immediate attention. <br />JU 5 1990 81 poor 8 0 PAlu' �� <br />