02/22/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # RESULTS OF DIRT STREET PAVING SURVEY By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Background: In summary, ~c Road and Bridge Committee proposed a dirt street paving program to the City Council ~hich proposed setting a subsidy cap to encourage the paving of most of the remaining dJgt.' streets. As you. will r~all, the Co.uncll has expressed some reluctance toward insti '~tt/~g a prognun which ~q~ a fmancml subsidy and requested that a survey be conducted.; among the affected property owners to determine the degree of interest in seeing the dirt streets paved. A single questionnaire was mailed to 149 property owners Who were identified as receiving benefit from paving of dirt streets on eleven separate projects. Each separate project was sent an individualized letter which contained an estimate of the cost of the paving project. Copies of the h'ansmittal letter and questionnaire are attached. A summary of responses to the survey have been tabulated on the Table enclosed. Overall, 75 percent o~the surveys were returned. Except for Projects #4, #8 and gg, all projects had a return response of 68 to 100 percent. In analyzing the overall responses, 19 percent were strongly~in favor, while 64 percent were strongly opposed. Some projects, however, contained a ~stincfly more negative response than others. Projects #2, #6, g9 and gl0 were so strongly negative that even if the non-responses were in favor of the project, they would likely ~ defeated if a referendum petition on the project were circulated. Projects g4 and #8 had too few responses to make any determination as to the likelihood of the project's success. Projects #3 and #7 each had several strong supporters and project #5 had only a S~mgle strong supporter, but a significant number of neutral to leaning supporters. ,These three projects would appear to have the best potential for success, however, it s~ould be emphasized that each of these projects would requLre the support of the non-respondents, or a change of heart on the part of the project opponents. In addition to,the numerical support ratings, the comments received gave an incLication of the issues as_~ociated with the projects. It also provided insight in the reasons for opposition to paving. Below is a summary of the major concerns for opposition to paving. 29 10 6 5 5 5 4 2 2 13 Cost is too high Sewerland water will cause replacement Speed .will increase on street Like c0untry-like atmosphere No driveway on knproveed street Drainage City should pay the cost Interest rate charged is too high No reason shown Committee Action: Based upon discussion. Reviewed bY: Copies also distributed to: City Engineer R&B: 02/22/94 City Administrator Public Works Supervisor