2013-10-14 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

twice; the Traffic Commission; the Green Practices Commission; the Parks Commission; the Urban Forestry Commission, and it is his belief that it has passed in every single one. He noted that this process had actually been very useful, because three main issues were raised and possibly addressed. First issue was going through the streets of a private subdivision, which potentially raises very complicated issues. Mr. Kraft stated that this resolution addressed those issues by clearly stating that no bike paths will go through a subdivision, unless the subdivision decides that they want a bike path. He said the wording was very clear, “Before a private subdivision is included with the implementation of a Bicycle and a Pedestrian Master Plan the City Manager will secure all necessary approval from trustees or other relevant authorities”. The next issue was cost, and the good news was that tonight’s plan spends no money. Like any other plan, it is simply a plan. UCity has a Parks Master Plan wherein Council recently approved an updated and detailed plan for Lewis Park, and separately approved match money that would implement a portion of that plan. Similarly, Council will approve or reject individual parts of the plan and approve or reject necessary funding for implementation. He stated that the final issue was whether we really need a Master Plan, because Council can just approve little pieces at a time. Council will improve the implementation a little piece at a time, but a Master Plan was needed to compete for funding. UCity will be asking for regional money from the .03 or .08 cents sales tax that passed last spring. The state provided funding for a bridge in UCity because it connects to other roads in the region. Similarly, monies for these projects will become available when it is clear to the funders that our paths have been designed in a way to connect to other communities, thus the need for a Master Plan. Clayton, Olivette and the City of St. Louis all have Master Bike/Walk Plans, and cities with a plan will have a higher priority for funding. Mr. Kraft then reemphasized the fact that a vote against this plan is a vote against our fellow citizens who push strollers, are in wheelchairs and our children who bike to school. Ms. Carr stated that her view of this plan is perhaps a little different than that of her colleague Mr. Kraft. So while she would like to thank the Plan Commission for conducting the public meeting, they are only an advisory board and do not have the authority to address what happens on or in private areas. Nor can any statement or whereas in the resolution guarantee any behavior or promise any action to those private entities or subdivisions. It is nice that the Commission addressed the issue, but their statements on how the private streets might be considered hold no legal water, because it is what is in the plan that will be implemented, not the resolution. Ms. Carr stated that she would also like to thank the Mayor’s Task Force on Bike and Walkability for their effort, enthusiasm and commitment. She said they have produced an interesting plan that has invoked provocative discussions. Unfortunately, it is impossible for her to vote for approval on the conflation of a Bike Plan with the largest and most comprehensive transfer of power in the history of UCity, no matter how much she liked biking, or how much biking and UCity are a good match. Ms. Carr stated that she was deeply disappointed in staff’s presentation of the plan and questioned where was the authority to agree to maintain private streets. Council has not granted that authority to either Mr. Walker or Mr. Wilson, and this statement violates city policies. Further, neither the City Manager nor the Director of Public Works has ever been granted that authority in any document that she has ever seen. Ms. Carr noted that Mr. Wilson advocates for Council to adopt this plan which gives him or the City Manager the authority to maintain private streets or portions thereof. In the meeting summary Mr. Wilson stated that the city would be responsible for clearing bike paths and working out agreements with private subdivisions, but that authority has not been granted. She said a frequently asked question was who would pay to maintain the bike route if it were to be constructed on a private street? City’s answer; after all conceptual approvals have been obtained from the trustees is that an agreement would be executed. But again, he does not have the authority to tell you that. The city would pay the 20 percent local match and that is the use of public funds for a private entity that does not involve health and welfare. The explanation from staff is that the plan includes taking over private street maintenance, so 11