Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County commissioners begin process to vacate Bridge 153 and adjacent one-mile road due to flooding, cost concerns
Summary
After staff detailed frequent flooding, high replacement costs and safety issues at Bridge 153, commissioners voted to initiate the statutory process to vacate the bridge and approximately one mile of roadway and to notify adjoining landowners for a public hearing.
Adams County commissioners voted to begin the formal process to vacate County Bridge 153 and about one mile of adjacent roadway after county staff described repeated flooding, high replacement costs and public-safety concerns.
County staff (Speaker 4) presented a detailed engineering review of Bridge 153 and the roadway section between US 27 and roughly 670 feet west of County Road 25 West. Staff described the bridge as a single-span 55-foot structure with a 1930 spread footer and noted box beams were added during a 1985 rehabilitation. The roadway is inside a floodplain and is regularly impassable during flood events. "The roadway proposed for vacation is subject to regular flooding and is made impassable to the public during flood events," Speaker 4 said.
Staff told commissioners a replacement bridge in that location would likely require a much longer span (staff estimated a minimum 160-foot span in one comparison), complicated permitting, right-of-way acquisition and possibly eminent-domain actions, with preliminary construction-only estimates north of $2,000,000. For those reasons, staff recommended closing and vacating the roadway and bridge and negotiating potential private easements with adjoining landowners.
Legal and property implications were discussed. Speaker 3 explained the statutory vacating process and noted that, by default, title typically reverts one-half to the adjoining owner on the north and one-half to the adjoining owner on the south unless otherwise negotiated. Board members asked whether adjacent property owners (including RedGold and a Dr. Brinkley Foundation trustee mentioned in the transcript) would retain access and whether the county could be required to maintain parts of the roadway; staff said those questions will be addressed during the statutory process and direct negotiations with property owners.
On the motion floor, Speaker 2 moved to initiate the process to vacate the specified areas; Speaker 6 seconded and the board approved the motion. Staff estimated the process and notice period could take roughly 60 days and that a public hearing will be required.
Provenance: Presentation and motion appear throughout the transcript in two core spans: the initial recommendation and technical description (SEG 325–SEG 447) and the subsequent statutory discussion and motion to begin the process (SEG 448–SEG 621).
