On the council’s agenda tonight is a request by the residents on West Melbourne Avenue for some ornamental lighting. What’s interesting to me is that this request was approved by the Board of Local Improvements on June 19, 2003. That’s a full four years ago. Why does it take four years for something like this to be implemented?
Delays like this cost money. Materials get more expensive, and labor gets more expensive. It’s more expensive for the city, which affects all taxpayers, and it’s more expensive for the residents of Melbourne Avenue who agreed to pay 50% of the cost of this improvement through a special tax assessment on their properties. Actually, only 52.98% of the property owners agreed to it (it takes a simple majority for approval), so for those who didn’t want the ornamental lighting, the increased costs add insult to injury.
If the city is looking for their next big Six Sigma project to make the city more efficient, they needn’t look any further than this process.
I agree….odd timing. You’d think that the staff report would give an indication of why this took so long. I also couldn’t follow the math in the staff report – if the City and homeowners share 50-50 in the cost why is their individual allocations different (okay – only off a couple dollars but still). And there is no indication of how they calculated the per linear foot charge (dividing total homeowner share by length of project doesn’t correlate) — maybe I’m dense but seems like that information would be useful.
CJ and Peo Proud:
First, the homeowners usually go door to door (or contact property owners in some other manner) to collect the signatures on the petitions for ornamental lighting and/or sidewalks to achieve 50 plus percent needed. (City staff is too swamped.)
Second, then the petition is put in line to receive funding.
Third, since funding is limited, only those projects which can be funded can be completed in that year. That is why there is such a long turnaround time.
Fourth, unfortunately, the petition gathering process can become tainted. One time, my husband’s signature (for sidwalks and ornamental lighting) was forged for his three properties.
In my opinioin, the process needs to be reviewed and safeguarded in some manner. Additionally, sidewalks are part of the basic city services package, so until priority is given to this item — our city will continue to be behind.
It would appear that we need millions of dollars worth of cement to repair all of our sidewalks and curbs. Scary thought indeed.
Karrie –
Thanks for the insight. Though I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t at least send out letters or postcards to canvass the homeowners.
IF funding for projects where the owner is willing to pay half the cost is too limited, that seems like a good place for putting our funds first – nothing is more basic service than sidewalks and streetlights.
Seems like if funding is available for “Arbors” (sorry if I offend those in the Arbor district) than funding could/should be made available for sidewalks elsewhere.
If we’re running three years plus behind on these projects, we’re slipping past the point where infrastructure can be maintained. I know that some requests for “ornamental lighting” are wants and not needs – but in that case perhaps the City should revise the formula so homeowners pay a larger percentage for the “wants” but not on the “needs” (safe sidewalks).
The city just a week ago spent over $50,000 for new plaster for City Hall. The city’s portion of this ornamental lighting request is $38,000.
Peo Proud: You’re welcome. Although I might elicit the ire of some pro-library bonding taxpayers, personally, I would rather bond out for new sidewalks and curbs than a Gateway Building, a civic center expansion, museum expansion, zoo expansion, ball park relocation, library closure, reorganization and expansion — when people come to visit and start driving around on potholed streets and view deteriorating, missing or non-existent sidewalks — they ask, “What gives?” [I recall more than a decade ago that the figure to replace all the sidewalks needed was about $40 million — and you guessed it — the cost only goes up each year we delay and the amount to replace goes up…..-ouch!:(]
I think the sidewalk program needs an overhaul. If a neighborhood wants to do something ornamental, then the majority of the property owners should be in agreement. IF it is to replace a dangerous sidewalk, deteriorated curbs, etc. one should only have to point it out and get on the repair listing. It is a pain in the behind to track down absentee landlords and get them to agree to a special assessment for a sidewalk. We have areas that are nearly 90% rental with landlords all over the place. This is clearly not the same process as going door to door in an owner occupied area, hence sidewalks go unrepaired.
The new spitoons and a fine iron hitching post should be in next year for city hall as well.