My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/21/99
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
1999
>
06/21/99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2004 2:47:59 PM
Creation date
7/27/1999 8:17:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
6/21/1999
SESSIONNUM
1670
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Session 1760 <br />June 21, 1999 <br /> <br />Ms. Colquitt said that she disagrees a bit. She knows that we are not going to be able to <br />satisfy everyone and she believes that we are attempting to do the best for everyone, but <br />she would rather delay the vote until we have the plans and a written assurance. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that he would also rather delay this, but he knows we can't wait for long, <br />because in one week EWGCC is going to vote. Mr. Wagner stated that there was no way to <br />sugar coat this Council action; it is not a victory in any sense, but it is not a defeat either. <br />This is a negotiated agreement, and by the very nature of negotiation you rarely get <br />everything you want. We appreciated Mayor Adams long and hard work at negotiations on <br />this compromise. While we did not get everything we wanted, the design is not as <br />disastrous as they would have given us, without our close attention. For example, if there <br />was a primary concern for us, it was to get the alignment underneath the major <br />intersections at Big Bend and Skinker. Without that, we argued, it would be unacceptably <br />dangerous, noisy, it would terribly impact our surface traffic, and would delay our <br />emergency vehicles. Looks like we're winning that one. Second, we fought hard against <br />any U. City residential property being forcibly taken for right of way, stations or parking lots. <br />I think we've won that one. Third, we wanted as much of the track underground as we <br />could get; this EWGCC fought strongly against as being a budget buster. It now looks as <br />though we'll have more than 60% of the route length in U. City underground. To our <br />constituents in Parkview and parts of Ames Place - I regret we didn't get more underground <br />for you. We believe we got the best deal we could. In our resolution, we are urging <br />EWGCC to "continue to pursue alternative designs to the surface alignments, and to <br />maximize the length below grade." The decision by the full Board of EWGCC to be voted <br />out on June 28, is not the last word. There will be a period for commentary and review of <br />the more detailed plans, with each community. We will continue to press for increased <br />underground alignments. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner moved that the approval of the resolution be delayed for two or three days, or <br />when the detailed plans have been studied. The motion died for a lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff cautioned that we did not go into negotiations and say to EWGCC that we <br />would think about it and let them know in a few days what we wanted to do. The Mayor <br />told them this is the bottom line and they wanted to know if this was what the Mayor was <br />saying or was it what the Council was saying. Mr. Ollendorff explained to Mr. Sterman that <br />the City Council authorized the Mayor to try to achieve this objective. Mr. Sterman and his <br />staff asked to see it ,n writing, in form of a resolution, before they made their final <br />recommendation to their Board. Mr. Ollendorff does not believe the Council should back off <br />from the agreement that the Mayor made on the Council's behalf. The agreement is that <br />we still want the whole thing underground and we still want as much as possible <br />underground, but we are going on record saying at least do this part. We could back out of <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.