School district, county discuss Wimbledon Avenue routing, land purchase and right‑of‑way vacation

District staff walked commissioners through a conceptual rerouting and paving plan for Wimbledon Avenue near a school campus, including recent land purchases the district says make a contiguous campus possible but complicate the alignment and funding.

Brian Reagan, presenting for the district, said the district acquired two parcels (a five‑acre and a ten‑acre tract) east of Wimbledon Avenue after the original traffic study was completed; those parcels change the feasible alignment and opened the possibility of vacating a county strip of right‑of‑way and dedicating a different alignment through contiguous district property. Reagan said county staff once estimated a paving cost of about $4,000,000 for the project. The district also described an option where it would accept a transfer of the county right‑of‑way and build an internal road across its property when funding is available.

County staff warned of an unresolved legal/consent issue. Reagan said county staff told the district the adjacent mobile home park must consent to the vacation or transfer of the right‑of‑way; district outreach to that park did not produce a response. Commissioners said they did not understand why the park would have a veto if the new alignment stayed on district‑owned land; county staff said a previous vacation application had been denied by a property owner in the mobile home park and that staff would review the prior record.

Commissioners discussed options: dedicate the entire strip to the district through a transfer, pursue a vacation process, or design an internal campus road that avoids affecting mobile home lots. Several commissioners expressed support for transferring/dedicating the county strip to the district with appropriate access reserved for affected properties, and cautioned the district that rezoning or future paving would likely attract neighborhood comment about added traffic.

Reagan repeatedly described the item as a discussion; there was no vote and no funding commitment from the county during the meeting. County staff noted the earlier $4,000,000 estimate had been tied to a sales‑tax package that failed; with that package gone the project is not in the county work program. Staff said a transfer to the district would reduce immediate county obligations while leaving the district responsible for construction when funding becomes available.

Ending: County staff said they would re‑review the earlier vacation application and return with options. The district and county agreed to continue discussions about transfer versus vacation and about approaches to secure consent or design an alternative routing.