Laserfiche WebLink
<br />charges and did it admirably, but the Mayor’s charges were not completely in <br />accord with the City Charter. She said the Council could not delegate policy <br />making because it was against the City’s Charter. She said the development of <br />the plan was prepared by Trailnet and H3 Studios. Ms. Carr noted that no <br />trustees of the private subdivisions were identified as stakeholders or included in <br />the process. She stated that she talked with the task force around a year ago <br />and informed them to take the information to the people, but apparently the <br />trustees were not considered people because they did not receive the <br />information. Ms. Carr said nineteen stakeholders were listed in the report, but <br />none were trustees of any of the subdivisions. She also stated she did not see <br />any institutions or merchants listed. Ms. Carr stated there was not enough <br />attention given in developing a complete list of destinations of importance within <br />University City as the concentration was destinations through Trailnet. Ms. Carr <br />stated in this City she wanted to get from point A to point B and let Trailnet, who <br />gets an extra ten million dollars a year, take care of the other destinations. Ms. <br />Carr said that essentially 1 out of 1,000 University City citizens was involved in <br />the details and she stated again that the City Council was responsible for policy <br />making, not directing the police or staff, which was suggested in the report. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr noted that a map was included in Council’s packet of the Bike and <br />Pedestrian Facility Network. She questioned the curb replacement which would <br />require millions of dollars stating it was unneeded and too expensive. She said <br />that putting new sidewalks in areas that lacked sidewalks would cost millions of <br />dollars and were a complete lack of understanding of U City’s history because <br />areas in the west were free from sidewalks by choice of the City and the <br />residents. Ms. Carr said that was due to a positive choice of the policy by each <br />Council as each neighborhood was platted, some with sidewalks and some <br />without. She said the neighborhoods with sidewalks paid for them when they <br />purchased their homes from the developer or later by petition, hearings and <br />payment. She said the City did not pay for them. Ms. Carr stated that grants and <br />block grants were used to pay for sidewalks when requested through the proper <br />process. She said the Charter was very specific about public improvements, as <br />in Article 11, Section 87, 90 and 91, which states that it involves a resolution by <br />Council for each improvement, not just a hearing, but a resolution and a public <br />hearing where all interested parties were notified, including trustees of the <br />subdivisions. Property owners then were responsible for paying. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr discussed stripping and signage stating that it must go before the Traffic <br />Commission whose policy was to hold a public hearing on each site’s specific <br />addition or change. She said according to the Charter, staff could not make <br />policy and the Council could not delegate policy making. She said the Boards <br />and Commissions could make recommendations to the City Council, but the <br />Council was not required to rubberstamp those recommendations, stating only <br />the Council can make policy. She also noted that the implementation she read <br />was flawed because the phasing and priorities were inappropriate, unrealistic and <br />in some cases presumptuous. Ms. Carr stated the City Council will prioritize: <br />projects first, then segments and then features based on finances available. She <br />said the staff will prioritize ongoing progress annually as planning, sidewalk & <br />curb repair, signage, stripping placement etc. She stated the City Council makes <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />