Laserfiche WebLink
<br />... <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Further thoughts pertaining to my reasons to delay the project are discussed below. <br />I. The 'hurried' timetable. . <br />What's the rush? There did not appear to be anyone demanding immediate road <br />repairs or solutions to the water problems at the neighborhood meeting. While the <br />1999 Arden Hills Comprehensive Street Condition Assessment Report identified <br />Pavement Condition Indexes (PCl) ranging from 11 to 86 with a weighted average of <br />55, no analysis was provided to show that this PCI value of 55 is the worst value for <br />all city streets or is a value significantly different from any other city street index. Is <br />there money burning a hole in the City's pocket? Will the City lose funding for <br />portions of the project if it is not completed by said date? <br /> <br />2. Surprise <br />Most residents first heard about the proposal just one week prior to the meeting on <br />November 30. The cost or magnitude of the proposal were not realized until that <br />meeting. At the neighborhood meeting on January 6, I sensed a feeling of "They're <br />trying to ram this one through; they don't care what the residents think!" The tight <br />timetable for the project gives the impression that the project is a 'done deal' before <br />the residents have any input. My suggestions are to survey the residents, gather more <br />information on the water problems, investigate other alternatives, and most <br />importantly, involve the neighborhood early in the process, not after the engineering <br />proposal is completed. Yes, this will take more time and additional effort, but an <br />engineering study is not inexpensive. Your constituents will appreciate the <br />opportunity, and if they don't, then you can say, "You've had your chance." It was <br />stated in the letter of December 2 to Mr. Lynch from Mr. Stafford that "of the . <br />approximately 100 residences invited, only about 25 people attended the meeting." <br />People have several commitments these days, with added commitments due to the <br />holidays. With approximately one week's notice of a meeting which was taking place <br />during the holidays, it was probably difficult for people to change commitments and <br />attend. The city should not have expected any greater turnout. <br /> <br />3. Lack of neighborhood involvement. <br />It's apparent that there has been no involvement of the neighborhood prior to the <br />engineering study. From what I understand, the city has no quantifiable data about the <br />extent or severity of the water problems (and if they do, they should tell us). A <br />survey of the residents needs to be completed, and data from independent studies <br />needs to be collected. Questions that need to be answered include: <br />. How often does street and yard flooding occur? <br />. When does the street and yard flooding occur? <br />. How long does the street and/or yard stay flooded? <br />. How many residents are affected? <br />. Are basements flooding? <br />. Is there properly damage? <br />· What is the magnitude of the problem to the residents? <br />. What solutions do the residents propose? <br />Regarding the proposed streets, were the residents ever asked: <br />. How bad are your streets? . <br /> <br />2 <br />