2013-04-22 Regular City Council Session

Home Browse Search

Practices Commission, and at the City Council Study Session. He said various issues were discussed; however the charge that the Bike/Walk Task Force violated City Charter was never an issue until it was first stated by Councilmember Carr at the April 8, 2013, meeting. Mr. Kraft stated that in parallel, University City received a grant from Trailnet in January 2011, to do a study and create a plan on walking and biking in University City. He said H3 Studio was hired to guide the process and a bike/walk plan was developed. Mr. Kraft noted, as directed by the Charter, the plan was presented to the Plan Commission. Mr. Kraft reviewed the Charter for clarity, and quoted from it, “The department of Community Development shall have the responsibility to advise the City Plan Commission in all manners within their respective areas of concern and to provide all necessary staff assistance.” The Plan Commission Section 62, powers and duties “The Plan Commission shall have the authority to prepare and submit to the council for its approval a Master Plan for the physical development of the city and shall recommend such modifications for said plan from time to time as it deems in the City’s best interest”. Again Mr. Kraft said he did not see a Charter violation. He said that Community Development department and the Plan Commission followed the Charter and has come up with the recommendation to modify the master plan. He said there was no requirement that Council had to request a modification. Mr. Kraft said the Charter gave the Plan Commission the plan to act “From time to time as it deems in the City’s interest”. He said the Plan Commission voted to recommend the bike/walk plan as a modification to the master plan. Mr. Kraft stated that there was a larger issue clearly related to Council Procedures and Rules. He asked who makes the policy because Ms. Carr stated, “The City Council makes policy and the staff was responsible for executing the details”. He said he read the Charter and it does not explicitly give Council the authority to make policy as referenced in Article 2, Section 17. He said it would be reckless to suggest that City Council had sole authority to make policy. Mr. Kraft referenced Article 2, Section 19, which said “The City Manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the City and should be responsible for the proper administration of all the City’s affairs”. Mr. Kraft stated that it was pretty broad, as the City Manager has sole authority of hiring and firing of personnel and personnel is policy. He summed it up to say that City Council had some policy-making authority, but the City Manager and staff have significant policy authority. He viewed it as a collaborative effort. Mr. Kraft used an example that the Police Chief makes the policy decision of how many officers will patrol the Loop; IT made a policy of eliminating all fax machines; Public Works has policies for setting standards for curbs, street and sidewalks; accounting policies are governed by the accounting standards board; etc. Mr. Kraft stated that the real problem was that Ms. Carr had made her definition of policy overly broad. He said she seemed to be saying that the bike/walk plan should not come to Council at all because Council had not set a policy that asked for the plan. He stated that is a misreading of the Charter. Mr. Kraft stated the Plan Commission has the authority to send a master plan modification to Council. He said the Plan Commission can initiate the change without the direction of Council. Mr. Kraft said that any suggestion that the Bike/Walk Task Force violated the Charter is wrong. He said the bike/walk plan was put together in accordance with the 5