Laserfiche WebLink
<br />INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. City staff present conceptual designs to tbe affected residents of a projeet one <br />(1) year in advance of tbe final feasibility report; <br />3. City staff provide a proeess and adeqnate time for residents' input by <br />balding meetings with affected residents to explain details oftbe proposed <br />project design once preliminary survey and design work bas been completed; <br />and <br />4. City staff consider residents' eomments on the proposed design in developing <br />tbe final feasibility report to the Conncil, <br /> <br />Lessons have been learned by the Review Group and hopefully the Council, City staff and <br />engineering firm that would be applicable in future pavement management projects. <br /> <br />The major complaints from the residents have been lack of information, insufficient time in <br />which to respond to the Council's proposed project, and lack ofresident involvement in the <br />proposed proj eet. <br /> <br />The Review Group obtained an explanation of the process used in Maplewood during one of its <br />meetings. Ken Haider, Maplewood, stated that it was Maplewood's objective to involve its <br />residents in all the projects. Haider and/or his staff meet 1-2 times with the residents in the <br />spring to discuss the residents' pavement/street needs. It is not until after these meetings that a <br />feasibility report is drafted in the fall for Council's review. Haider advises that at times, planned <br />projects were discontinued in the spring, before any feasibility report was prepared, when it was <br />determined that projects would or could not meet the needs of the residents and/or were not <br />readily accepted by the residents.7o <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Prom the design of its web site, one can tell that the City of Golden Valley strives to <br />continuously keep its residents informed of its pavement improvement projects, One page of <br />their web site describes their pavement policy program and other web site pages are dedicated to <br />. 71 <br />current pro] ects. <br /> <br />Once the City of Arden Hills develops its web site, information regarding current and future <br />projects should be posted for easy access by all concerned. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />One of the recommendations of the Review Group to the Council, staff and engineering firm is <br />that the needs, wants and values of the residents be considered in the final recommendations for <br />the Ingerson Project. There were and are certain values the residents took into consideration <br />when they chose to move into the area and they want these values to continue and not be <br />destroyed. We believe the recommcndations incorporated within this report provide sound, <br />economical and feasible alternatives to the City's PMP for the Ingerson Project. <br /> <br />70 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. <br />7L City of Golden Valley web site. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />August 17, 2000 <br />