Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> Staff’s response to bike walk recommendations requested by Mr. Kraft and Mr. <br />Glickert. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft spoke on a City memo with responses to the bike walk plan questions <br />from the public hearing. Mr. Kraft asked that the full memo be entered into the <br />record. (The memo is attached to end of these minutes) He mentioned some of <br />the main points in the memo since there was a lot of discussion: <br />1) Concern from private subdivisions about bike path being placed in private <br />subdivision without their consent and the response was that it was only a <br />draft plan and City would seek approval from private subdivisions before <br />proceeding. <br />2) Liability of bicycle route. Response was that subdivisions currently <br />assume liability for cars, pedestrians, bicyclists on their private streets and <br />sidewalks so there would be no change. <br />3) Paving and maintenance of the bike route. Response was it was a plan <br />and an agreement with a private subdivision would address those issues <br />and the subdivisions would incur no cost. <br />4) In 2005, City Council approved a resolution that supported building <br />Centennial Greenway through University City. Before any building takes <br />place, Great River Greenway agreed to fund all construction costs and <br />University City agreed to fund on-going maintenance, so that contract has <br />to be approved by Council before anything can happen. <br />5) The draft bike plan does not make any budgetary commitments to fund <br />any proposed project. Response was Council maintains full budgetary <br />control. <br />6) The draft plan notes the need for sidewalk and curb repair, which is to <br />meet the American Disabilities Act requirements. Response was this <br />needed to be done with or without the bike plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft noted that the questions on the bike plan fall into two categories: do the <br />subdivisions get the approval and what was the cost. He said in answer to those <br />concerns he was sure that no one on Council would let a bike route go through a <br />private subdivision without the subdivision’s consent. Mr. Kraft stated the plan <br />itself had no cost, as it was just a plan just like the Greenway project that Council <br />unanimously approved. He noted each individual project will require funding <br />approval by the Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert noted that number five of the memorandum from the Public Works <br />and Parks Director was succinct and covered a lot of the minutia that was going <br />around. He said the draft plan did not make any budgetary commitment to fund <br />any proposed route and did not commit the City to construct all or any of the <br />proposed routes. Mr. Glickert noted it was a vision and if the City decided to <br />proceed with the project the funding would be sought through the typical <br />budgetary processes. He stated other approvals would be obtained prior to <br />project implementation from the appropriate agencies, organizations, subdivision <br />trustees, and City boards and commissions. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />