|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2016 10:05:14 GMT -7
Road and Weed Committee Meeting, April 25th, 2016 At Liberty Hall, 30 Sirius Road in North Glastonbury. 7 to 9 PM
Agenda:
1. Spring Grading
2. Discuss assessing businesses operating in Glastonbury
3. Discuss Road Policy and RID’s
4. Discuss Bid for dry well/sump Download Meeting Documents
Please leave comments below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 26, 2016 12:14:26 GMT -7
Old Ways versus New Ways
Synopsis, Analysis and Commentary The dysfunction of the GLA Board and Road Committee was on full display at the April 25th Road and Weed meeting. The theme of the meeting was the continuing clash between old ways of approaching community business and new ways. A brief synopsis follows:
- An unusually large contingent of Board members attended this meeting. Only Dennis Riley and Mark Seaver were not present. Nine sheets of handouts, many double sided, were distributed to attendees by Road Committee members. A surprise guest was invited, Richard Mead, who did extensive grading on the original Glastonbury road network 40 years ago.
- The meeting started with Road Committee Chairman Paul Ranttalo opening discussion on gravel and grading for what he called "Glastonbury's 22 mile" road network. Then Richard Mead was introduced and he assumed the floor.
- Richard Mead discussed his duties while working for Church Universal and Triumphant maintaining the Glastonbury road network in the mid 1980's. Richard shared his experiences in how the roads were designed. As a grader operator he cut the original road beds 6 inches to 2 feet deep and then filled them in with a mixture of locally obtained cobbles and glacial till he called "pit run". Over the "pit run" was placed a layer of 3/4 inch gravel that was produced at the North Glastonbury quarry by crushing and sorting glacial cobbles. He explained, that over time, the 3/4 inch gravel was pushed to the sides of the roads and pounded into the "pit run" by traffic. Richard added, that he thought the roads held up extremely well but needed work. He also stated that the North Glastonbury paved loop was "fabulous" and "just fine".
- The subject of Park County involvement with Glastonbury roads came up. Richard Mead warned that the County was not dependable and in the past proved very difficult to deal with. He cited the example of how the County did not want to upgrade Dry Creek so the GLA was forced to purchase asphalt and take out a 15 year loan. A Board member, Gerald Dubiel, emphatically stated "Park County are liars". This was the same Board member who called Park County officials "church haters" at a previous committee meeting. Only one Board member, Kevin Newby, disputed the accusation. Kevin carefully explained how he built a personal relationship based on trust and mutual respect with several Park County road officials. The net result of his hard work was that the County agreed to crack and chip seal Dry Creek road with no cost to the GLA. Rudy Parker added that the GLA Board should enter a partnership with the County to co-maintain Dry Creek road. He too felt that the County was not dependable and would not maintain it on their own.
- One of the first questions asked by a landowner was "Does the Road Committee have a comprehensive road plan so they can set priorities". The question was met with several blank stares and went essentially unanswered until the very end of the meeting 2 hours later.
- The Forum presented information regarding exact road mileage for North and South Glastonbury. It was noted that the total road mileage for Glastonbury was 18.6 miles; not 22 miles as is often erroneously stated. South Glastonbury has 10.5 miles of gravel roads while North has just 3.2 miles. It was suggested that any division of gravel and grading should take road mileage into account. Traditionally the gravel and grading budget was evenly split between North and South even though South has three times more miles of gravel road, than North Glastonbury.
- Director Ed Dobrowski presented his Road District Proposal for Glastonbury. His handout detailed how Glastonbury should be divided into three regions; all of North, Low South and High South. Each region could be further divided into districts. Each district would determine the level of road maintenance desired and fund it from current assessments, special assessments or by borrowing money from another district.
- The Forum also talked about the current 71% collection rate and how if that was not corrected soon, $25,000.00 would have to be taken from the savings account to balance the 2016 budget. Treasurer Rudy Parker acknowledged the problem but thought that collections of past due assessments could be used to plug the gaping $25,000.00 hole. It was noted that traditionally, past due assessments were put into the savings account and then allocated for road maintenance.
- The subject turned to ditches. It was agreed that the ditches need to be cleared. When queried about which ditches, how many miles and the total cost of the work to be done Chairman Paul Ranttalo did not have a specific answer. He did state that the ditch digger worked quickly and the final price would likely be a good deal.
- Richard Mead gave a talk on how washboards and potholes form. He suggested that driver error was responsible and that somehow drivers need to be properly trained for driving on our roads. A landowner asked if the Road Committee did periodic road inspections. The answer appeared to be no. The last written record the Forum could find of a road inspection was four years ago when Paul Ranttalo and Walter Wunsch drove around the community one Sunday afternoon and casually determined which roads needed work. No gravel depth measurements or road base analysis was performed or published.
- Another landowner pressed Director Ed Dobrowski for an explanation of the Comprehensive Road Plan he stated the Road Committee possessed. What Ed called a Comprehensive Road Plan was just the disputed Road Policy that was enacted in 2008. The Road Committee did not have a plan. The Forum followed up by letting Board members know that a Comprehensive Road Plan with detailed analysis and costs was posted several months ago. It was suggested that the Board study the plan before the next meeting so they could better address landowners and set priorities. The Board was criticized for not reading the Forum and for not even knowing how many miles of road were under it's supervision. Paul Ranttalo replied that William Smith, a Church engineer told him there was 22 miles of roads in Glastonbury. He did not know whether to believe William or what the Forum stated.
- Finally it was agreed that ditches needed to be cleared first and then the roads could be graded. Where the $31,000.00 in funds should be directed was not decided. A few people thought the amount was paltry and could do little to seriously address the sorry state of Glastonbury roads. The clock ticked past 9:30 and the meeting was adjourned.
- Since most of the agenda was not covered at this meeting and little action was taken, another meeting was scheduled for May 4th at Liberty Hall from 7 to 9 PM.
Commentary The Road Committee meeting was a casebook example of why the GLA Board cannot effectively manage the business of Glastonbury. The first step to solving a problem is to analyze it. The Committee and the Board entered the meeting without a full understanding of Glastonbury roads. At the most basic level they did not even know how many miles of roads were in Glastonbury.
The next step in solving a problem is to query possible solutions and debate them. For the entire meeting we could not get past the first step because the Road Committee was not prepared. Thus a lot of time was spent aimlessly talking and very little on finding solutions.
In my opinion, this is classic dysfunctional behavior and is widespread on the current GLA Board. Financial statements are grossly inaccurate even though we have a treasurer, a bookkeeper and an accountant. A highly qualified volunteer who collected over $8,000.00 in past due assessments was passed over for a Board appointment. Landowner emails enter a black hole and are rarely answered. Requests for documents go unfilled and are routinely ignored.
Landowners have choices and they tend to vote with their checkbooks. A record number are no longer paying assessments and several are actively working to legally separate themselves from the GLA Corporation. The GLA Board is rapidly losing the respect of the landowners. The community is changing and old ways are no longer an acceptable means to solve business problems. If the GLA Board cannot adapt to the new face of Glastonbury then they should resign for the sake of Glastonbury. Their continued dysfunction will lead to more landowners seeking to legally withdraw and reduced assessments. At some point the Board will cease to be relevant.
The Glastonbury Landowners For Positive Change are working diligently on a meeting summary. The GLA Road Committee will eventually produce minutes. As both become available we will post them at the beginning of this thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2016 13:28:32 GMT -7
Administrator, the only thing left out of your synopsis was the report of another accident along Gemini RD, and that a guardrail is needed, plus using fill dirt to build up the steep area. There have been 4 accidents near the same spot, as far as was known, there could have been more. Someone is going to be seriously hurt and it was recommended that the road committee look into it immediately before that happens. Paul mentioned using rocks to line the area but that seems to be a makeshift approach to the problem. He also said he would look into the cost of a guardrail.
Too bad there isn't a way to look into the cost of a lawsuit!
This problem, of accidents, was mentioned before to Paul around three years ago and he was asked to bring it up at the road committee meeting. When asked about what was said he responded that they were not going to doing anything about it.
Someday there will be another accident and a lawsuit will ensue over this problem.
|
|
chris
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by chris on Apr 26, 2016 14:44:17 GMT -7
This summary of last night's meeting does indeed show more of this board's dysfunction and ineptness to properly manage the affairs of the GLA corporation. Shall we attribute this to laziness, ignorance, the whining excuse "we are all just volunteers," or a combination of these things. Landowners have been calling for a comprehensive road plan for at least a few years but, like every other comment or suggestion, the board simply refuses to listen by further burying their heads in the sand gravel, of which there is not much left anymore. There is but one word for this behavior...PATHETIC! Because this and previous boards have refused to perform in a professional and businesslike manner to manage this association, some landowners have taken the lead to set examples for them. One glaring example is the GLFPC summaries of GLA meetings which were started about a year and a half ago when the board was consistently delaying by weeks or months the publishing of meeting minutes. The GLFPC and this forum set the example, and continues to do so, by publishing their summaries of meetings within days of the event. Please note that we are all volunteers, too. But, I digress. This thread is about the Road and Weed Committee's failure to do its job properly. I, for one, have watched in dismay over the years how the various Road Committees have operated by just doing whatever had been done in the past to maintain the roads without developing any plan, but shooting from the hip in every instance whenever the situation reached the critical stage. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. Seems to me that we have an insane system in place here. Last year a few members of the GLFPC decided to assess the North Glastonbury paved loop before the board just rehired the firm who had crack sealed the year before. They had noticed that the sealing had failed in a number of places and wanted to document this for the board which is always too busy for analysis, doing any research, or giving much thought to anything. Back to the need for a comprehensive plan for our roads: At the end of 2015, realizing that the board and road committee was going to continue operating insanely without a plan, Tim Brockett and some other "volunteers" took it upon themselves to again set an example. Tim researched, analyzed and developed a comprehensive road plan for North and South Glastonbury which he evolved over time. He posted it here on this forum and to date it has gotten almost 300 views, but apparently not by any board or committee members who seem to know nothing about it. It may not be perfect, and some may disagree with the analysis, but it is a place to start and is much better than the blank slate that the committee and board keep coming up with. Some landowners have urged the board to hire the services of a professional road engineer to assess all Glastonbury roads for what it would take to bring them up to county standards. The board did agree to seek someone to perform this service and they apparently found a firm that offered to do this for $1,500. But the board and committee again balked, in all their wisdom, and brought in their own "expert witness" last night to give his opinion that the roads are "fine." The board certainly has their priorities askew still. They balk at getting a professional assessment of a major problem effecting every landowner member but they have no qualms about paying someone $1,200 to "train" a part-time administrative assistant to do the board's work. What? These are but a few examples of why I no longer can or will support this board morally or financially, and why we are taking action to withdraw our property from this ongoing dysfunction and insanity. Consider this: As a member of the GLA you are fully supporting this board, the corporation, and all of their actions, whether lawful or not. Through their own fault, they have lost the association's legal liability insurance and are now self-insured, meaning all landowners are liable for their legal bills. They refuse to negotiate and therefore invite further legal challenges which are forthcoming. We do not want to be legally liable for their actions or inactions. Something must change, and soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Looking on May 1, 2016 0:26:50 GMT -7
One might make note that after a time of queries by landowners, Mr.Mead admitted that paved roads were not his area of expertise. So how can he claim that the North Glastonbury asphalt is in fabulous shape, I wonder? Many residents have observed otherwise.
He would do well to participate in the Road Walk when landowners do their spring analysis of the NG Loop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inqusitive on May 1, 2016 12:58:01 GMT -7
Various topics were included in this meeting-The Road policy, Proposal for Districts, concern about financial health, costly expenditures, no long-term road plan, wash-boarding on dirt roads, equitable gravel distribution, crumbling asphalt and a surprise presentation by one of the original road contractors.
Considering each of these issues leaves one piecing question that can be applied to each and every one of them: What lies beneath?
|
|
|
|
Post by Worried on May 2, 2016 10:01:41 GMT -7
I believe last summer or fall during a Board meeting a professional engineer informed the Board there was a significant difference in paving quality between NG and SG, and the major reasons were the road bed preparation and thickness of paving. Someone said the did Dry Creek first and were running out of money so cut things short in NG.
It was also presented that Dry Creek, a county road, needed little work to have a good base to put the paving on. That was not the case in NG. He said that difference is why NG is so much worse than Dry Cr. I believe it was said that Dry Crk had 5-6 inches of pavement and NG had only 3.
Since I see so many large rocks popping up in our gravel roads, I wonder if the "pit run" base everyone is talking about being said to be so good when the roads were first built came from an actual pit, or was just what was there when the grass etc was removed.
This makes me wonder what happened at the last Road meeting.
Mr. Mead saying he was not an expert in paving makes me worried that everyone will take his advise and not seek truly professional help. I'm worried that without a good analysis and road plan, we'll plow another $30-40,000 into more crack sealing or seal coating - whatever they are - and see everything fail again.
During a Post Office discussion I was asked if I was present when Mr. Mead had stated that all GLA roads were not brought up to County standards. I was not, but being asked that question worries me.
I've never repeatedly beaten my head against an actual brick wall, but I',worried all the talk about road problems and then just doing the same thing again will make me do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aware on May 2, 2016 11:26:55 GMT -7
At this Road and Weed meeting, Mr. Mead stated that when he originally constructed Glastonbury roads, he did make them according to Park County standards. His words contradict what others have confirmed through direct knowledge. Dry Creek was made to county standards while the NG Loop was not. Folks who have participated in the Road Walk measured the asphalt thickness which was roughly a mere 2 inches thick. That is why people refer to the NG paved road as a glorified driveway. The absence of ditches along that paved stretch has made for a moisture-laden road bed. Add in the multiple crack seal failures which further add to water seepage. And, so what do you have? A 170,000 Band-Aid for the NG Loop!
Where does the truth lie?
|
|
