At Tuesday's City Council meeting an innocuous line entry (E 7.) appeared on the Agenda in Manager's Report No. 356. The item was "Calhoun/Fair/South/Country Club Road/Route 47 - Update of Calhoun/Fair/South/Country Club Road/Route 47 Roadway Improvements and authorization for the acquisition of right-of-way and easements."
The Public was asked if it wanted any items removed from the Consent Calendar, and no one spoke up. I should have.
About three-four years ago Public Works held a hearing on this project. Several homeowners showed up. The project discussed at that time was creating a road parallel to Route 47 and running north and south from McConnell Road to Calhoun. The McDonald's exit to Route 47 would be closed and Calhoun St. would no longer intersect with Route 47. Everything went along smoothly. When no one else asked what the project was going to cost, I did. If memory serves me correctly, it was in the area of $6,000,000 PLUS land acquisitions. At the time, Federal and State funds were thought to be available that would pay 90% of the cost. So that makes it all right?
Some time later I inquired about the project and learned it was dead in the water. Well, it looks like it floated back to the surface. The kicker here is that Item 7 was not just an "update"; it was an authorization for the acquisition of right-of-way and easements. OK, at what cost?
Did the City just commit $6,-10,000,000 for a roadway that, 3-4 years ago, was being designed not to relieve Route 47 traffic? Is this the project that was the topic of the hearing 3-4 years ago? The stated purpose of the roadway, at that time, was to provide residents with an access to businesses on Route 47 without fighting traffic ON Route 47.
What businesses? Jewel had moved or was moving. The old Jewel property was virtually vacant, except for the DMV and a few small businesses. Dominick's was out of the picture or soon would be. There was no back entrance to DeCraene's or Vaughan's. Would they pay to extend a driveway far to the west? For a few customers? Probably not.
Are we Woodstockers, including me, so asleep at the switch that we are not watching carefully enough what the Council is doing? Remember that, recently, the Council asked where it would get $10,000,000 for a solution to flooding problems less than two months old?
Why did no City Council person remove this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion with the public, at least to inform the public how much money the Council was about to spend?
CTA Bailout – Here We Go Again
56 minutes ago
10 comments:
C'mon Gus, isn't it obvious that the city did this for you? New streets to drive up and down on finding new traffic signs to complain about, new stores to complain about, new places to complain about speeders tailgaters improper passers etc. Plus maybe new places to put your excorsist-puke-green plastic houses! Maybe a duck or two will waddle across the new street! Wow didn't know how special you were did you?
Thanks! I hadn't thought of that. Actually, the original design does present some wonderful opportunities. Three lanes wide, center no-driving lane, bike lanes. Maybe I can figure out a drive-thru lane for the news boxes. Think the City might name it after me? How about "Gus's Road"?
Way to roll with the punches Gus!
Any thoughts on a better way to solve this problem? Anyone?
Hasn't this project been on the budget for several years, yes years. Where have you been Gus?
I think you're right that it has been in the planning stages for years. But why is it needed now and is it a higher priority than the recent flooding issue? Even though it may have been planned for years, went dormant for a while, and back to life, what if the City Council had announced it was planning to spend - how much? $5,000,000? $7,000,000? on a back road behind the old Jewel? Is the 90% Federal and State funding still available? How much will it really cost? And what are the benefits, if any, except a fine construction job for the low-bidding road company?
No, not planning. In the budget.
How does a project get on the budget "for several years"? I can understand that it would be a multi-year project and planned for when funds are available. For example, now that it has been approved, the expenses might extend over several years. But it seems to me that it is not "on the budget" until approved; until then, it's just in the planning stage. Would you like to elaborate?
Love to.
Many municipalities use two types of budget. A "planning" budget as you seem to suggest where the project is approved and planned for (everybody knows you have to ask for and commit to spend the money before it is approved) and a "working budget where the money is actually aquired and then spent. Woodstock has had this project on its "planning" budget for years. They are now getting around to putting it on the "working " budget. If you wanted to protest you probably missed the boat. Now you can only squawk.
I'll admit that I am paying closer attention to what goes on in Woodstock now. When Public Works had a public hearing on this project, it had not yet been approved. A year later I was told it was off the table. Now it coasts through. Perhaps there were additional public hearings and public discussions. Or, maybe, it just appeared in the Agenda and sailed through because the Council knew what it was about and no one else, including me, asked. Do you know of public discussion beyond the public hearing held 2-3-4 years ago?
Post a Comment