Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wright County supervisors debate guardrail removal on Taylor Avenue bridge, insurer urges documentation
Summary
Supervisors and county staff debated the removal of a trailing guardrail end on Taylor Avenue bridge after the county removed a guardrail blister; the county insurer raised liability concerns and urged documentation showing compliance with DOT standards.
Wright County supervisors and staff spent a lengthy portion of their May 4 meeting debating the recent removal of a trailing guardrail end section and associated shoulder "blister" on the Taylor Avenue bridge in Belmont. The discussion centered on safety, compliance with Department of Transportation standards and insurance exposure.
Wright County Engineer Adam Clemens described the options considered for the northeast corner guardrail: leave it as installed, move the end section two feet for a cost estimated in the minutes at $6,000, or remove the trailing end section. A motion recorded in the minutes (mover: CL; second: Luke) to remove the trailing end section carried, with two supervisors recorded as voting nay in the minutes.
Insurance concerns: the county’s insurance representative raised concern that the bridge had been constructed and approved under DOT plans and that removing a previously installed safety feature could increase the county's liability exposure. "The main concern being the bridge was originally designed to DOT standards... If we're outside compliance, we most certainly have created additional liability exposure," the insurer said during the meeting (transcript identifies that concern as raised by an insurance representative on Zoom). The insurer said they would be "more comfortable if that rail was reinstalled as it was installed to begin with and then taken away," and emphasized the need for documentation explaining why the alteration increases, or at least does not reduce, safety.
County engineer and supervisors pushed back that the trailing end section was on the inside curve and that leaving the blister in place could create a traveled portion of road near an unshielded bridge end. One supervisor said removing the blister eliminated a location vehicles might use as a travel lane and that, in their view, removing the guardrail improved roadway flow. Supervisors also discussed whether signage (for example, one-lane-bridge warnings) or moving the rail would be less expensive alternatives.
Next steps and follow-up: IAP (the county’s insurer, as referenced in the meeting) asked for documentation showing the county’s rationale and any DOT compliance determinations. County staff agreed to visit the site with the insurer and to collect photographs and documentation; staff scheduled an on-site visit that afternoon and agreed to consider inviting the county attorney to participate. No final reinstatement or new construction was ordered at the meeting; the board recorded that it would review follow-up after the site visit and any additional documentation.
The debate highlighted competing priorities: on one hand, some supervisors and residents prefer removing features that they view as unnecessary or obstructive; on the other, insurer and county counsel input emphasized the legal exposure created by altering a bridge after construction and approval.
For the official record, the minutes note the board approved removing the trailing end section from the northeast guardrail and that two supervisors voted nay on that motion.
