J. Clarke wrote:
....

Either (1) put the resurfacing off for a year or (2) don't bother with it at
all since the sewer repalcement is going to negate the benefits of the
resurfacing.
....

Again, would be ideal but...it's not at all unlikely that the funding
for the resurfacing will disappear not to be seen again the following
year(s). So, the choice may come down to not repairing a very bad
surface at all or having a surface that is far better than the previous
even if it does have a repair.

Particularly since most large $$ projects of that type have matching
funds, if those funds are not used when/where allocated the local
authority generally is not there to use them somewhere else and they
will disappear. Once that project has been through the competitive
cycle and won but isn't completed, its chances of a returning win in any
near term future are, as mentioned above, virtually nonexistent.

It's not nearly as trivial a task as it seems, even for relatively small
jurisdictions to avoid all the seemingly obvious to the outside observer...

--

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:20:56 -0600, dpb wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
...

Either (1) put the resurfacing off for a year or (2) don't bother with it at
all since the sewer repalcement is going to negate the benefits of the
resurfacing.
...

Again, would be ideal but...it's not at all unlikely that the funding
for the resurfacing will disappear not to be seen again the following
year(s).

SO you're *required* to *WASTE* money? What nonsense!

So, the choice may come down to not repairing a very bad
surface at all or having a surface that is far better than the previous
even if it does have a repair.

So you choose to waste million$ on nothing.

Particularly since most large $$ projects of that type have matching
funds, if those funds are not used when/where allocated the local
authority generally is not there to use them somewhere else and they
will disappear. Once that project has been through the competitive
cycle and won but isn't completed, its chances of a returning win in any
near term future are, as mentioned above, virtually nonexistent.

"Use it or lose it." What a waste of resources, all around.

It's not nearly as trivial a task as it seems, even for relatively small
jurisdictions to avoid all the seemingly obvious to the outside observer...

No one said it was trivial. If you're not up to it, let someone else
do the job.

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...

Either (1) put the resurfacing off for a year or (2) don't bother
with it at all since the sewer repalcement is going to negate the
benefits of the resurfacing.
...

Again, would be ideal but...it's not at all unlikely that the funding
for the resurfacing will disappear not to be seen again the following
year(s).

And this is a problem because?

So, the choice may come down to not repairing a very bad
surface at all or having a surface that is far better than the
previous even if it does have a repair.

Uh, you've never seen them put sewers in, have you. Very little of the new
surface will be left after the sewers are in. The expenditure is basically
wasted.

Particularly since most large $$ projects of that type have matching
funds, if those funds are not used when/where allocated the local
authority generally is not there to use them somewhere else and they
will disappear. Once that project has been through the competitive
cycle and won but isn't completed, its chances of a returning win in
any near term future are, as mentioned above, virtually nonexistent.

Fine.

It's not nearly as trivial a task as it seems, even for relatively
small jurisdictions to avoid all the seemingly obvious to the outside
observer...

In other words our government as a whole is run by bumbling incompetents.