Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LESSONS LEARN eo <br /> <br />Being one of the first cities to embark on completing a Health Impact Assessment utilizing the Threshold <br />Analysis prepared by Oeslgn for Health at the University of Minnesota, we wOl.lld like to take the ch41nce <br />to outline the cha!lenges and learning opportunities we encountered when testing this analysis. In <br />general, we believe It will be very difficult for suburban communities to score well USing the scale <br />proposed given the pattern of development focused on open spaces, low density, and auto dependence. <br />Whether that Is because suburban communities are generally less healthy or whether the indicators are <br />urban-biased is Impossible to determine without a thorough understanding of the supporting research. <br />It seems there may be some Indicators of health, such as quality of life, -average age, and/or use of <br />health services that could be included to support the connection between aspects of urban <br />environments and general health. <br /> <br />More specifically, there were a number of instances where the Indicators had no clear goal for which to <br />strive. An example of this is limiting amount of pollutants in the plan. The Threshold Analysis awards 6 <br />points if there are no polluting non-residential uses within the plan, but according to the MPCA website, <br />all cities within the metropolitan area have polluting uses. No city would be eligible under that specific <br />criterion. Furthermore, It would seem redundant for a city to regulate polluting sources when state and <br />federal regulations are In place. Therefore, the second award also Is not applicable. Another example of <br />an indicator with no clear goal is the safety indicator. The section discusses the Importance of perceived <br />safety, yet the only indicator available Is lighting. It is our opinion that there are a number of other ways <br />to increase the perceived level of safety within a community. The reported level of crime within a <br />community would be a clear alternative. Street lights will not necessarily IncreaSe the level of perceived <br />safety in all environments. <br /> <br />The final indicator that does not provide a clear goal for Ramsey is the assertion that septic systems lead <br />to groundwater contamination. It is unfounded to suggest that the overall water quality of a city or <br />region will be safer if a City prohibits septic systems. Surface water quality is negatively affected by the <br />wastewater treatment process, which In turn Impacts potable water sources in many communities. It <br />would not necessarily be beneficial to the region's water supply to eliminate all functioning septic <br />systems and ship our waste to the Mississippi River. A closer examination of the impacts of functioning <br />septic systems wOl,lld be required in order to make this assertion. <br /> <br />Another ehallenge to the Threshold Analysis Is the fact that these Indicators may be at dlstinct odds with <br />other Important planning goals. For example, while the research may point to the advanti:lges of locating <br />schools, residential areas, and sports facilities away from major roads, it does not consider the <br />additional driving requirements, and in turn, additional pollution when locating these .uses away from <br />major roads. This would no doubt have a negative impact on vehicle miles traveled. Furthermore, it Is <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />-137- <br />