3/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� ® r REQUEST BY JOHN CREWS FOR COUNTY TO MAINTAIN 122ND STREET BRIDGE (NEST OF CR -507 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/22/91: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request by Mr. John Crews for County to Maintain 122nd Street Bridge West of CR 507 DATE: February 22, 1991 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the February 12, 1991 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the Board tabled action on the subject item and requested the following additional information: 1) Estimated cost of repairs to correct existing maintenance deficiencies. 2) Research formal instrument by which County deeded or conveyed the ownership of the bridge to Carson Platt. T ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The estimated cost to repair the bridge, including construction of new guardrail at both ends of the bridge, is $4,925.06. In researching whether the County executed an abandonment resolution or other formal document to transfer the bridge to Carson Plat, Staff could not find any executed document, however, in the County files is a letter from Thomas Hamilton, Jr. indicating that the 12' wide roadway between CR 507 and the Park Lateral Canal Bridge (approximately 2,0001) is actually located outside of the Ditch 1 40' wide right-of-way and is on Mr. Platt's property. This road was constructed and maintained by Mr. Platt. The County Staff in 1985 saw no need to execute a legal abandonment of right-of-way where the roadway and bridge existed since no County right-of-way existed. Mr. Platt obtained a legal survey of the road from Carter and Associates to substantiate that the road was private. No County right-of-way or County owned land lies within 2,000' of the bridge. RECOIMNDATIONS AND FUNDING Since Mr. Hamilton, agent for Mr. Platt, substantiated the fact that neither the road leading to the Park Lateral Canal Bridge nor the bridge itself lie within public right-of-way via a legal sketch or survey, the County Public Works Department and County Attorney's Office is of the opinion that the County should not reassume maintenance of the bridge. If the County Commission would prefer to reaffirm this action, the attached proposed resolution could be adopted. ``' ,MAR 5 1991 Boor b� P, (GE �.