Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Welsch stated that the motion has been made by Mr. Price and seconded by Mr. <br />Crow. The motion used the language of Ms. Carr’s amendment concerning the <br />prioritization of projects and placed it as number three in the resolution. Mr. Price clarified <br />that it should be inserted into wherever it fits within the resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe stated that although he is very much in favor of Mr. Price’s motion, the City <br />Manager has stated at this point, that he would like for it to be passed after we pass the <br />Bikeability Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert concurred with Mr. Sharpe; that Council needed to get this plan resolved and <br />adopted prior to acting on the issues brought up by Mr. Price and Ms. Carr. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that it seemed we are all trying to move forward and we are all giving a <br />great deal. And if that is all that is being asked of members to support this motion and <br />hoped that Council would consider moving forward on it, because those on the Council <br />who have opposed it have moved forward from just accepting, to adopting. So if we are <br />just asking for a prioritization list he did not believe that that is too much to ask at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr asked Mr. Price if he was including the portion of the resolution that talks about <br />directing the City Manager to secure all necessary approvals from the trustees, et cetera, et <br />cetera, because she was a little bit concerned about that one. She stated that in the case <br />of Parkview, they have said no; University Park has said no and University Heights has said <br />we will just kind of wait and see. But from her point of view we stand on very firm ground <br />when we talk about public ways and as former Councilmember Schoomer said, we are <br />really not standing on firm ground when we talk about private subdivisions. Now if a private <br />subdivision wants to develop it, and can put it together, and come to the City and say would <br />you guys consider something, I don’t know that we should. Ms. Carr stated that her <br />concern was twofold, number one, common law. If you take over the maintenance and you <br />do it for long enough we can then be held for maintenance for a longer time. Ms. Carr <br />noted that information came to her from the former City Attorney, which was also made <br />public when we talked about street sweeping. The second was one of adverse possession. <br />If we improved and kept that section of the street long enough, we would actually get to <br />keep it. Ms. Carr noted Council can set out agreements, but I have heard that there is <br />some kind of problem with Trinity and what land is over here. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch stated that Council was speaking to Mr. Price’s motion regarding the addition <br />of a clause that would allow for the prioritization of projects by the City Manager. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated just so it is clear what I think we are voting on is, “Be it resolved that the <br />City Council of University City directs the City Manager to develop a priority and feasibility <br />list of Bike/Walk Projects, including accessible sidewalks, for Council approval and <br />implementation”. He stated that if this gets us two more votes, then he does not have a <br />problem with it, but if you guys are going to vote against it anyway then I don’t know why we <br />are wasting our time. Mr. Kraft said he did not need to approve the list If Mr. Walker <br />provides Council with a list, we are going to have to approve each individual one separately <br />anyway. So it looked harmless, but does that mean we have to sit and start approving <br />every list? Mr. Wilson came to us with a list of streets and we funded them, but we did not <br />approve the master list that he took his priorities of streets off of. And the same thing for <br />the parks, we have a Master Plan for all the parks and the Parks Commission goes through <br />all this stuff and gives us what their priorities are. It is kind of harmless and if it gets us out <br />of here a little quicker and it gets us more votes, then he could support it, but he thinks that <br />it is unnecessary. Mr. Kraft stated that he could accept it if they eliminated, “for Council <br />approval”. He asked what happens if he comes up with a list? Are we going to argue about <br />what’s on the list and spend time on the same arguments over and over again? <br />Conceptually he would like to see a list, and he thought Mr. Walker will provide council with <br />28 <br /> <br /> <br />