Club on verge of bridging divide with county on Sour Springs Road

Posted by Howard Owens on October 29, 2009 - 1:02pm
Tagged in
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

A handful of snowmobilers attended last night's Genesee County Legislature meeting, and though they were not allowed to speak, they did walk about with good news.

It may be possible for the Genesee County Sno-Packers to reinstall the bridge it installed on Sour Springs Road over Oak Orchard Creek.

The county highway department removed the bridge Oct. 22, with officials citing liability concerns since installation of the bridge was not authorized.

Two issues stand in the way of putting the bridge back in place: County liability and responsibility for maintenance. Both of those issue appear on the cusp of resolution.

"After some discussion I had tonight with the county attorney, it appears that the county attorney would be receptive to the town of Alabama giving a hold harmless and indemnification agreement to the county," said Legislator Ray Cianfrini. "I was told by Mr. Rizzo that he would be receptive to that, and that's a huge step forward."

Even though the Sour Springs Road runs through a national wildlife refuge, it is actually a Town of Alabama roadway.

County Highway Superintendent Tim Hens said he was confident an agreement could be reached with the Sno-Packers for maintenance of the bridge.

Kevin Fisher, speaking for the Sno-Packers after the meeting said the club would have no issue with taking care of the bride and would gladly reinstall it themselves.

“I’m sure the club will put it back in," Fischer said. "We did it once, I’m sure we can do it again.”

At which point another club member chimed in, "It's easier the second time."

"You got it," Fisher said.
 

Posted by Jeff Allen on October 30, 2009 - 5:06am
The following is from my post on the original article a week ago..."why couldn't the town, county, and federal government then come along side the snowmobile club and help get the bridge into compliance as a limited use, limited access right of way for snowmobiles and pedestrians, perhaps with barriers that would restrict vehicle traffic."
Now that it looks like a compromise is going to happen, why did my county tax dollars have to be hastily spent to take the bridge down only to have a deal reached one week later? I am happy for the Snowmobile club, but angry with the county for clearly overreacting and wasting tax dollars at a time when municipal budgets can't afford it.
Posted by Howard Owens on October 30, 2009 - 5:53am
Jeff, I didn't use a quote from Tim Hens that would answer that question, and I'll paraphrase from memory. It cost $1,375 to take the bridge down. That was much cheaper than the potential liability the county was facing if there was an accident on the bridge.

I can pretty much predict that if the county left the bridge up and there was a big lawsuit stemming from it, there would be howls about the county irresponsibility in leaving it up.
Posted by Jeff Allen on October 30, 2009 - 2:43pm
Howard, my point was more about the fact that the situation went from "we must get this bridge down right now" to "I think we can come to a compromise" in one weeks time. It appears much of the fiasco could have been avoided entirely.
Posted by Peter O'Brien on October 31, 2009 - 2:07am
The county should pay to put it back up too.