2013-10-14 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Crow stated that he would like to amend Resolution 2013-17 by deleting paragraph seven, which read, “Whereas the Plan Commission agrees to consider for incorporation, the analysis and conclusion of the Revised Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan into the development of the next Comprehensive Plan Update”. I would delete that paragraph, as well as paragraph number eight, and rewrite it by saying, “Now therefore be it resolved that the Bikeability and Pedestrian Master Plan as attached as Exhibit A, is to be received by Council and its analysis and conclusions be used in the development of the next Comprehensive Plan of University City”. He also amended paragraph number nine by deleting the word “adoption,” and replacing it with “receipt”. He would delete the word “Immediately,” in the same sentence, which is prior to the words “commit city funds”. Ms. Carr then seconded the motion. Mr. Price asked for a Point of Clarification. He then asked Mr. Crow what his amendments would accomplish. Mr. Crow stated that number one, they would give the support that the Bike and Walkability Plan deserved for the hard work they have done. It also brings it forth as part of our Comprehensive Plan. It makes clear that there are no public funds being committed at this time. At the same point in time it has been accepted by the Council and will be used as part of the next Comprehensive Plan. Therefore we have assurances then that funds will not be expended; that the private neighborhoods will not be impacted until such time that the Comprehensive Plan has been updated. Mr. Kraft stated that it was basically a motion to kill the plan, so he would just suggest that if you are against the plan to vote against it, without trying to amend it to death. If you want to defund the government you vote to defund the government. You don’t play some other game. He stated you pretend you were for it, but in effect, you really were not. You are saying it is a nice plan, why don’t we look at it three years from now. Why don’t we kick funding the government down to two years from now and just let it keep not functioning. Let’s just sequester the money away so you can’t say you voted for this or for that, let’s just amend it to death. Ms. Carr stated that she was surprised at how Council moved off by a couple of degrees. What we are talking about here was amending the resolution and not amending the plan. If you want to amend the plan then he would be glad to sit down and do that, but that’s not the issue. Ms. Carr then asked that the amendments to the resolution be read back because there are other amendments that she would like to make, such as we are not authorizing any activity in private subdivisions. She wanted to take that off totally. She did not want to give the City Manager the right to do that without Council sitting down and deciding that this is a change in policy. Ms. Carr stated that her objection was not to the Bike Plan so much as her objection to the powers that get shifted. Whatever kind of quote “conspiracy nonsense” that her colleague brought up had little to do with the fact that she is absolutely sure that once we approve this we will not vote on any of these things again, except to approve contracts. Ms. Carr also wanted to talk about whether we direct the City Manager to develop a priority and feasibility list of Bike/Walk Projects. That’s the kind of phasing that Mr. Sharpe was talking about. How else do you really address phasing unless you have staff develop those priorities? For the most part Council supports the recommendations made to Council. What is being done here is we are just basically signing off and saying good, we want a Bike Plan. Ms. Carr noted she loves to bike and walk. She has been in UCity for 27 years and loves it. She loved the diversity. Ms. Carr stated this is not about motherhood and apple pie, this is about getting this plan right so that it works for City. We are not even talking about the plan because the first paragraph of this resolution at the fifth line, says “waterways and other public ways”, so that says to her public, not private. The city has the right to do anything that they would like to the public 20