CCP 08-28-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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