My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/12/1991 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
2/12/1991 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:07:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/12/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BOOK: 1 F'Vi 6 e 5 <br />County Attorney Vitunac believed the safest thing to do is <br />assume there is some public liability associated with this bridge. <br />Commissioner Scurlock did not have too much problem with <br />taking it back if it is brought back to current standards but <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that if we had title all along we had the <br />liability all along and he did not know that it has to be brought <br />up to standard because apparently we owned it all along. <br />Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about other people in <br />like situations coming to the Board, but Director Davis noted that <br />in the ten years he has been here he has only known of this one <br />case. <br />Chairman Bird asked if there is a serious amount of money <br />involved to make the necessary repairs and Director Davis did not <br />feel it was that considerable. It would involve some bracing, some <br />corrosion, DOT guardrail, possibly a couple thousand dollars. <br />Chairman Bird asked if Mr. Crews wold be willing to make these <br />repairs and give the bridge back in the same condition as it was <br />received. <br />Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we make the guardrail our <br />responsibility and the couple thousand dollars worth of shoring up <br />and bracing his responsibility. <br />Mr. Crews had a problem with that because he felt when the <br />County came in and did some repairs and put in the bulkhead some <br />years back they only used four by eights and it is bowed out and <br />split and he would be hesitant to repair something that was not <br />done properly in the first place. <br />Commissioner Bowman expressed a desire to see the Minutes of <br />the meeting when Mr. Carson Platt came before the Board and <br />requested this and Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would like <br />to have more research done by our Staff as to our legal liability <br />and as to whether we are responsible for the bridge. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Crews has done any <br />maintenance of the bridge in the last five years and he replied <br />that he has not. Commissioner Scurlock, therefore, felt he should <br />participate at some level in bringing it back to our standards. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted if the roads are private then the <br />bridge has got to be private; we cannot take a private road. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to table <br />further discussion on this matter for two <br />weeks so Staff can research the questions raised. <br />50 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.