Laserfiche WebLink
Session 710, Minutes <br />August 20, 1962 <br /> <br />Page 26 <br /> <br />the State Highway Commission to have the State take over the maintenance <br />of the Inner Belt Expressway -- apparently they have entered into an <br />agreement - and the Mayor said he is somewhat concerned about two pro- <br />visions, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4. He quoted paragraph 3 and said he <br />does not know how many municipalities this will run through, but if he <br />recalls correctly it is either 35 or 40 - he said he has requested the <br />information from the administrative forces and perhaps that will be <br />forthcoming. The Hayor said this only covers a small section and he is <br />thinking in terms of the entire Inner Belt. <br /> <br />Mayor Kaufinan then quoted paragraph 4 and said what disturbs him is that <br />althou§h University City may desire such lighting, the municipality north <br />of the City may not and this would be a miserable way of lighting up the <br />Inner Belt Highway. He said his feeling is that the Council ought to try <br />to influence the County Council to take over the lighting on the Inner <br />Belt. <br /> <br />Councilman Tandler said he would assu~e if they can build roads through <br />municipalities they can install lighting if they so choose, whereas it <br />is his udderstanding that the State does not install lightin~ on its <br />highways in incorporated areas. The City Manager suggested it is far <br />more reasonable for the County to establish a standard pattern of light- <br />ing on the Inner Belt than to allow the municipalities to do so and he <br />said he thinks what they hoped to do was to establish the pattern and <br />send the bill to the municipalities. <br /> <br />Hayor Kaufman said he would be more inclined in this case to let the <br />County take over theInner Belt and let them take over the obligation of <br />maintena~ce, the repair, the lighting, and would not impose the obliga- <br />tion upoa i~ividual municipalities. He said an individual municipality~ <br />may decide it is not going to pay the bill. The Hayor said he thinks the <br />Council ought to take a very strong position on these two paragraphs. <br /> <br />Councilman Tandler said his mind is clear on paragraph 4, but he does not <br />understand what possible objection the Hayor has to paragraph 3, where= <br />upon Mayor Kaufman said he has no specific objection to paragraph 3, but <br />what he would like to do is to get all municipalities to surrender any <br />right they have over that portion of the road which travels through <br />their municipalities. <br /> <br />Councilman Tandler pointed out it is a limited access roadway and does <br />not connect with more than two or three major arteries, and he added the <br />City does not have such controls on the State highways that traverse <br />University City, and they are asking for no more than the City has already <br />relinquished in other State routes through University City. The Mayor said <br />perhaps he is anticipating the vote that will take place this November <br />where the County is attempting to take over some of these arteries - it <br />will not be the Inner Belt because that will be a State Highway. <br /> <br />Councilmam Tandler asked whether time is of the essence, whereupon the <br />Hayor said Mr. Murphy has asked for an answer. Hayor Kaufman said he <br />has asked Director of Law Morris to give an opinion on a number of ques- <br />tions which he raised and perhaps the Council can wait until the Hayor <br />gets the answers. Councilman Tandler said if these opinions are received <br /> <br /> <br />