If you saw Doug Strehl at the Dec 7th Council meeting suggest to the Council a public meeting on the tank issue, give him a call and thank him. Even if you didn't see it, call and thank him anyway. The difference between a hearing and a workshop is that the rules for public participation are more relaxed. It appears to me to have been a valiant attempt to provide a time to actually look at the tank issue, to hear what people think about it.
The Mayor agreed with the idea, even suggesting extensions of time could be allowed. He then asked the City Manager his opinion, and it looked like a go. They didn't ask the other three council members. But that isn't necessary because the City Manager, consulting with the Mayor, sets the meeting schedule. That task is delegated to him. Somehow, somewhere the idea got dropped. At the early January meeting, it was back to making both decisions at one meeting (to certify the negative declaration and approve the next step in the process). When the final agenda came out it is now just one agenda item. That means only one public hearing. What a wonderful time saving idea. I called and checked. There will be no extensions of time for speakers, no electronic images, and no expressing the opinion that the new tank isn't necessary. Anyway, that's the rules for the public. Except the last one, that one violates the Brown Act.
In any case, Doug Strehl deserves our thanks for trying to open the process up. Please call him, serving on the council shouldn't be a thankless job. He's in the phone book. I would save you the time, but I fear those little webby information gathering devices would pick up the number and put him on some call list.
If you have a bit more time call another member of the council and ask what their views are on public participation. Ken Zanzi, Mel Berti, Pat Whitchurch and Dean Glaser are all in the phone book.
Monday is the meeting. I know that one voice carries no weight, especially when that voice is saying something they don't want to hear. But I'll be there, a martyr to free speech and public participation. Please don't pity me, I hate pity. Understand that I believe in it. It actually can be fun. Come on down Monday, I could use some company. Oh, yes. It is at 6pm at the Courthouse.
Here is the link to my visual presentation I won't be showing. I checked the box for no sign-in required, hope it works. If you would like a hard copy leave that in a comment. I'll try to have one for you at the meeting. Also, I'll be giving a hard copy to the Council members, so it should be available at City Hall after the meeting. This is about the project, because that is what is on the agenda. The city reservoir at Vancil is not on the agenda.
Showing posts with label Stewart Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stewart Street. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Can we save millions?
Perhaps we can...Here is the link to a comparison of costs of new 2MG and using Vancil.
Please note that this has been given to the city, but was not prepared by the city. This statement is not meant to imply anything negative about staff. As has been pointed out in a poll comment here, the staff has many projects they are working on. I would add that staff was never asked to prepare information on Vancil, as far as I know. Of course there are some remaining unknowns and you need to know that the person who prepared this is neither an accountant nor an engineer. The important thing is that there is now a draft comparison and hopefully soon a definitive cost comparison.
Please note that this has been given to the city, but was not prepared by the city. This statement is not meant to imply anything negative about staff. As has been pointed out in a poll comment here, the staff has many projects they are working on. I would add that staff was never asked to prepare information on Vancil, as far as I know. Of course there are some remaining unknowns and you need to know that the person who prepared this is neither an accountant nor an engineer. The important thing is that there is now a draft comparison and hopefully soon a definitive cost comparison.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Change in Fortuna 2
I attended last night's informational meeting "to describe the anticipated design and construction process for the Stewart Street Replacement project" (formerly the Tank in the Park). The paper didn't mention it was a neighborhood meeting, but no one seemed to mind that a few non-neighborhood folks showed up. I want to note that the fact that it was publicly noticed is a positive change for a neighborhood meeting in Fortuna. Last spring the Friends of Rohner Park "crashed" a meeting on Stewart Street when they heard about it through the grapevine. Three months or so ago a Council member remarked "now that the cat is out of the bag" he'd like to hear how the meeting with the Vancil neighbors went. I'd say things are getting better, thanks city staff.
At the beginning of the meeting the neighbors were told staff was trying to understand the issue as if they were neighbors and at times it was acknowledged, "I truly hadn't seen it that way before." This seemed to come when some of the prepared response seemed to miss the mark, but some credit goes to the neighbors as they did a good job of repeating and rephrasing until their concerns were acknowledged. Hopefully after the clarified concerns have been "considered" the dialog will continue or at least they will receive a more definite response. But compared to the cold shoulder the Friends of Rohner Park got this was refreshing.
I have to say I felt a bit uncomfortable at times when the staff spoke for the "ratepayers" to remind the neighbors that the cost of their requests needed to be considered. The neighbors' concern that the switch from the park meant the construction impact cost shifted from the many to a few seemed legitimate to me (the speaker noted no ill-will toward those concerned with the park). But of course I'm biased, this ratepayer requested they make changes to the project which would have reduced both the project costs and the impact on the neighbors substantially so I have little sympathy for staff speaking on behalf of ratepayers interested in costs. But, I'll give staff the benefit of the doubt that I'll soon see the error of my logic when I review the preliminary records.
Anyway, back to changes. The Friends of Rohner Park struggled through seven months of meetings tentatively set and then canceled and requests to know results of investigations, or to have an explanation of process, ignored or denied. What a true joy to see a written "Anticipated Chronological Project Task List" handed out. Had I had such a list perhaps I could have met the city's illogical demand that I ask for specific records in my requests for information on using Vancil reservoir. This list is a positive change.
And lastly, there have been meetings, on the General Plan and last August on the tank issue, where no public comments were allowed. I have heard that city staff and some council members attended a Brown Act training last fall. I would bet last August was the last meeting to allow no comment. That's positive change. And those records? Any day now.
At the beginning of the meeting the neighbors were told staff was trying to understand the issue as if they were neighbors and at times it was acknowledged, "I truly hadn't seen it that way before." This seemed to come when some of the prepared response seemed to miss the mark, but some credit goes to the neighbors as they did a good job of repeating and rephrasing until their concerns were acknowledged. Hopefully after the clarified concerns have been "considered" the dialog will continue or at least they will receive a more definite response. But compared to the cold shoulder the Friends of Rohner Park got this was refreshing.
I have to say I felt a bit uncomfortable at times when the staff spoke for the "ratepayers" to remind the neighbors that the cost of their requests needed to be considered. The neighbors' concern that the switch from the park meant the construction impact cost shifted from the many to a few seemed legitimate to me (the speaker noted no ill-will toward those concerned with the park). But of course I'm biased, this ratepayer requested they make changes to the project which would have reduced both the project costs and the impact on the neighbors substantially so I have little sympathy for staff speaking on behalf of ratepayers interested in costs. But, I'll give staff the benefit of the doubt that I'll soon see the error of my logic when I review the preliminary records.
Anyway, back to changes. The Friends of Rohner Park struggled through seven months of meetings tentatively set and then canceled and requests to know results of investigations, or to have an explanation of process, ignored or denied. What a true joy to see a written "Anticipated Chronological Project Task List" handed out. Had I had such a list perhaps I could have met the city's illogical demand that I ask for specific records in my requests for information on using Vancil reservoir. This list is a positive change.
And lastly, there have been meetings, on the General Plan and last August on the tank issue, where no public comments were allowed. I have heard that city staff and some council members attended a Brown Act training last fall. I would bet last August was the last meeting to allow no comment. That's positive change. And those records? Any day now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
