Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-1997 Meeting I I I ENGINEERING SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE UNPAVED ROADS COMMITTEE ROOM - October 7, 1997 12:00 P.M. PRESENT: H. Brigham, Chairman; Beard, Bridges, Powell, members; R. Oliver, Administrator; J. Wall, Attorney; J. Adams, D. Goins, Engineering SerVices; Jack Murphy, Public Works. MR. OLIVER: The 'Public Works Department at my request had come up with some criteria to try to help the subcpmmittee prioritize roads and these were our initial thoughts as it relates to doing it. One of the things that we have determined from the analysis is, Commissioner Bridges district has the most unpaved roads and it would seem to me to be equitable to take the percentage on a pro rated basis and to allocate it around to the various districts based on the percentage of unpaved roads. And then to apply these various criteria. There are a couple of issues that I think we are going to have to deal with; one of them is the existing right-of-way, there are some, and Mr. Wall will be here a little bit later, there is some concern as it relates to paving very narrow areas because of the need for drainage at Utilities. The first criteria relates to the existing right-of-way, optimally, we are looking for 50 feet. We have some concerns, we have a lot of concerns as if it gets under 30 feet, 30 is doable. However, we have some concerns under that number from a safety standpoint because if we paid something and there is an accident, we create a potential liability situation because we are condoning that road in that particular fashion. But Mr. Wall can speak to that. The second criteria that we have is occupied parcels per mile. What this does is it gives a higher weight to smaller lots than bigger lots, for example, if you had somebody that has (inaudible) in a tract and you have a number of people that live on a 100 foot frontage or 75 foot frontage, those people all the factors being equal would receive a greater weight. Cost per linear foot, that takes into consideration for example, if you have a project where there is a lot of drainage improvements required, you have to build a small bridge over a creek or something like that, that maybe required that makes cost a factor. Again parcels per mile, we take it into account how many occupied parcels we have, this takes into account the number of parcels. So again, if we have 100% percent of the property occupied all things being equal, that would have the highest priority. Annual maintenance cost, this was something that we again felt like we ought to take into consideration and the next one also, distance from the maintenance depot. We have some areas where every time it rains for example, we have to go out and take a front end loader and scrape, perhaps dirt off the road or so"mething of this nature or the road tends to wash out over a period of time and we felt that ought to be a criteria. And the final criteria we've listed is whether school buses currently use that particular road. Because again, we think that adds to the decision making process. And then we left an opportunity to add any other items that you all may feel are appropriate. But that's something that we wanted to throw our for your consideration. MR. POWELL: One thing that I have been trying to push and for one reason basically only at the end of these dirts roads and on these last dirt roads, Jack, and we got them in, but lets put school bus turn around on any of these roads that go into a dead end situation, if we got a scope that they are dropping kids off and backing up, we just create a situation that just makes me nervous and I would rather have the school bus or fire truck come in and have an area to turn around at the end of these streets. I think that needs to be something that is very important when we start putting these roads together as far as our list. MR. MURPHY: We've made that our policy. If we've got a dead end it gets a cul-de-sac. MR. OLIVER: What's the acceptance of the home owners in doing that, have you had in resistance to doing that? MR. MURPHY: Well we have to buy right-of-way, you know that's a normal right-of-way endeavor. MR. BRIDGES: I'd looked at taking this list that Public Works had given me and what I'd done is I basically based it on the number of and I think that this is a good point here about the number of occupied dwellings per mile. I was trying to put a point system to everything we got so I went and I listed each of the roads and how many people that Public Works showed listed on those roads or how many businesses were there, what kind of occupied dwellings there were and basically gave it a point system for every tenth of a mile that there was one for every person on there for a tenth of a mile you got a point and trying to prioritize it that way. And basically what I found out is those in my district has some of the lowest numbers, those closer in the city come out to be higher numbers because there are more people per tenth of a mile. So I think this occupied parcels per mile should be something that we measure these roads by. Now whether we take a percent and I've calculated it up and you all can check my numbers, but by mileage I've got 73% of the miles in dirt roads, so if you want to do it by district I would like to do it that way. But I don't have any problem if you want to take the, you know come up with the rating primarily and I'm just right now leaving the occupied parcel per mile do it by district and take one out of each district and then go back and do it again, just keep going down until you get them all done, eventually I'll have them all. But that will get rid of the ones that are closer into the city. If you all want to do it that way, I think that'll be a way that we could do it. But I think eyery district should get some of it each time we do the roads, whatever the criteria is. Another problem I want to throw out, I've got some roads in here that I look at and there is no way that they should even be paved they're not even occupied, we might want to look at abandoning them or I've got some roads in here that are used roads but the private property owner wants to keep them, he doesn't want it used as a bus route, he doesn't want them paved or give it to the public. I've got one road, there's about 7 or 10 I I I I I I homes right at the entrance to the road, it goes back another mile, but there's nobody down there and my thinking is you straighten that road out for that tenth of a mile or whatever it is and pave it and leave the balance as dirt or maintained. Even though we come up with a weighted average or whatever, there is still going to be judgmental factors in there, that I think you will have to look at as to just how far you are particularly out in the country, how far you're going to pave down, what's going to be justified. MR. BRIGHAM: I think it's obvious that you have more roads that need attention, but I think you could do prioritize some where that when it gets started somebody in each district will have something, I think this will make the people out there a lot happier. MR. BRIDGES: I would like to give a point to for the age of the road an unoccupied road. In other words if you got a road that we built today and of course we're not taking in any more dirt roads, we're not suppose to be, but in theory, .if we had a dirt road that existed that 20 people went and built on today they might get prioritized over somebody that's been down a dirt road for 30 years just because you don't have the number of dwellings on it yet they have to put up with that road getting in and out during bad weather, so I think there should be some points given for the age of the road itself. My understanding is that we can't go back over 30 years because.. MR. MURPHY: I think it's 1966 when the county created what is known as a Road Book. So there's a lot of roads with that same age. MR. POWELL: Mr. Bridges, this is what has been brought back to us by the Public Works and Administrator. What areas of this is your motion or your intending motion going cover on this? MR. BRIDGES: Tell you the truth, I would like to see how the math works. MR. BRIGHAM: I was just about to ask if there was any numbers put to any of this? I guess it's hard to do. MR. OLIVER: We did some prototype if you will, we looked at some cases, because we wanted to see what was the best case worse based on expense, based on having 5 acre lots and having quarter acre lots to see what the sensitivity was. We have not run it through any kind of specific developments, we didn't think that would be appropriate, because then you would be accused of tweaking it' for a specific area. We did look at and however, to make sure that it worked conceptually from looking at different criteria. MR. BRIDGES: My thinking is it cost parcels per mile, really what I'm trying to do is get it so the people that live on that road can get in and out conveniently. To me that's not something that would be considered at this point. MR. OLIVER: Let me tell a primary example that, popular or I unpopular, Belair Hill Estates for example, the one road, the main road I don't know remember what it is, Carolyn for example would be a prohibitively expensive road, the reason is the drainage issues have got to be worked on and there's such a dip in that one area that it's going take a lot of fill and perhaps even buying two of the parcels. So we felt the cost ought to be a factor because that road will be obviously more expensive than one that was nice and flat. MR. POWELL: I would have no problem wi th accept ing the criteria that Mr. Bridges has set forth if he would clarify it for the record basically. I'll make a motion that we accept the criteria that you set forth with the amendment of the district consideration. MR. OLIVER: I'd like to know so we can have so Public Works can go put the numbers to what those criteria are. MR. BRIDGES: a tenth of a mile, I was giving a point for every person that lives units or businesses. MR. OLIVER: A person per one tenth of a mile got a point. MR. BRIDGES: A point for every year of age on the road and I understand that you're going back to 1966 according to the Road I Book, just about all of them have it. I think, Randy is talking about the cost of this, I think that should be something that when these criteria come back, I think that's something we should discuss at that point. Maybe this road cost too much, maybe it's not going to be the one we do, maybe we want to drop down and pick this one up. I think we need to leave some judgement room in there to do that. MR. OLIVER: Can we get this done, Jack 2 weeks from Monday to bring it back to Committee or will it take 4 weeks? We'll make it 4 weeks from Monday, October 13 to bring back to Committee, that will make it ... MS. BONNER: They want it back to the Subcommittee. MR. BRIGHAM: Jack, let's see how far you all will have gone then decide with the information you have. MR. GOINS: Can I get some clarification on the occupied parcels per mile, do you want that changed to per tenth of a mile? MR. BRIDGES: Or tenth. MR. OLIVER: Units per one tenth of a mile get a point and one point for every year of age. MR. BRIDGES: In other words if you have two units on a tenth of a mile then they get two points. I I I I MR. GOINS: Ok, but are we excluding the occupied parcels per mile in item 2, or we having an additional item? MR.. BRIDGES: the parcel per mile. Basically, that's what you're doing occupied Some of these roads aren't a mile long. MR. OLIVER: Just use these two criteria. MR. MURPHY: Ano~her point of clarification, you seem to be concerned about the cos't as a factor in a number of need, the need number. Do you want to stay in there or is that something the Commission ought to consider. You know you're out there and you have a big needs number over here and a small one over here and when you get down to comparing those two it may be one of cost. Well, all of the roads are going to have a need here, if we leave it where it is, take it out it'll be the Commissions decision. MR. BEARD: Well, I think its going to probably be the Commission since we're dealing a lot in district. MR. BRIGHAM: All in favor of the motion; 4-0, all agree. With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission bjb