Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 08�991 <br />GOOK PF'_ <br />Mr. Cain stuck by his recommendations to acquire sufficient <br />right-of-way to build clear zone roads, because he felt that if <br />you don't pave.them with clear zones, you are providing a <br />situation where the accidents will be more severe with vehicles <br />running off the road and hitting trees or concrete bridge <br />abutments. He believed that if we don't meet the standards, the <br />County eventually would have to pay in court. As a <br />professional, he didn't want to stamp and s.eal a design that he <br />doesn't feel is standard.' <br />Commissioner Bowman asked about the effectiveness of guard <br />rails, and Mr. Cain advised -that guardrails are necessary when <br />there really isn't any other choice, but they too are a hazard. <br />However, they do deflect when they are hit, and there are times <br />when they should be used. The problem with providing guardrail <br />protection along canals is that they hinder maintenance'of the <br />canals. <br />Director Davis noted that the present cost for guardrails is <br />$15-$20 a foot, and in many of these areas we can buy 15-20 feet <br />of right-of-way for $1 per square foot, so the cost of guardrails <br />could almost exceed the cost of right-of-way acquisition. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve staff's <br />recommendation at this time, with the understanding <br />that we will continue to look at doing the right <br />thing. <br />Under discussion, former commissioner Bill Wodtke, 6325 1st <br />St., S.W., wished to make a couple of comments since the Board <br />basically is establishing.policy today on right-of-way <br />acquisition. He felt it is equitable to take the value of the <br />property and include that in the cost of the project and split <br />that in the collector roads with 50% going to the County and 25% <br />to each property owner. Mr. Wodtke recalled that one of the <br />things that was instigated in the petition paving policy was the <br />incentive that if a property owner of a 5 or 10 acre piece of <br />land donated their ri-ght-of-way and J.ater wished to subdivide <br />into 2 or 2-1/2 acres, they could make that division, but could <br />riot if they sold the right-of-way or the County had to condemn <br />it. He asked if this new, policy would negate that practice. <br />Attorney Vitunac didn't think that policy was legal, but Mr. <br />Wodtke pointed out that whether or not it is legal, it has been <br />the County's policy and the policy that has been stated by the <br />42 <br />