Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Paving would damage tree roots and kill trees <br />. Paved drive would be damaged by snowmobiles <br /> <br />A response to Question #5 asking for "other comments" was submitted on 93 survey <br />returns. It is difficult to precisely represent the content of those comments. Staff will have <br />the post card responses available at the meeting for review. Below is a general sum~ary <br />of the content of the comment responses. <br />. (20) City should have other priorities <br />. (16) Can't afford paving <br />. (13) Concern expressed over increased taxes <br />. (10) Unpaved driveways shouldn't be a government concern <br />. (10) Don't agree with benefits stated <br />. (6) Objected to resources spent on survey <br />. (6) Class 5 or conbit should be considered adequate <br />. (4) Unpaved drive isn't a problem <br />. (4) Paved drives would ruin rural look <br />. (4) Unpaved drives are more eco friendly <br />. (3) Cited long driveways <br />. (3) Live on county ro~d <br />. (3) Prefer concrete drive <br />. (3) Secondary drive should not be required to be paved <br />. (3) Cost cited in survey letter appeared to be too high <br />. (3) Would want a subsidy from city <br />. (3) Paved drive would exacerbate drainage problem <br />. (2) Program cost savings would need to be significant <br />. (2) Plan to pave in the near future <br />. (1) Suggested a 3-5 year assessment <br />. (1) Would like additional information <br />. (1) Has a shared driveway <br /> <br />Financial Impact: <br /> <br />The cost of postage associated with reporting the survey results would be approximately <br />$350 and would be taken from the Engineering Department postage budget. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Although most affected property owners are opposed to paving their drives the survey <br />does indicate that perhaps two dozen properties might participate in an assessment <br />program which would result in their driveways being paved. The Committee should <br />determine whether this number is deemed significant enough to proceed with such a <br />program. Staff recommends that a follow up letter be sent to the property owners <br />advising them of the survey results and of the City Council's decision on the future <br />consideration this issue will be given. <br /> <br />6 <br />