CC_Minutes_2014_1208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,December 8, 2014 Page 40 the entire Fairview Avenue area prior to pursuing a larger discussion with neigh- borhood residents. Councilmember McGehee offered a friendly amendment that at the same time the City Council ask Public Works staff to fund and make available the updated traf- fic study as requested by residents. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not sure how she felt about that friendly amendment; while agreeing that the City needed an updated traffic study, it would be an educated guess at this point as it how it may impact Fairview Ave- nue. Councilmember McGehee withdrew her friendly amendment. Councilmember McGehee opined that the least that the City Council could do was to pursue their commitment to the community. Councilmember McGehee stated that she had re- peatedly said to residents that this was a better City Council in terms of wanting to facilitate interaction and work with residents and try to understand their per- spectives. To push this design forward through approval of this contract at this time, Councilmember McGehee opined was not in that spirit at all, since there remained plenty of information yet to seek. Councilmember Etten opined that there was no reason this action needed to stop the City's communication with neighbors, and it was important to continue it, and this would provide additional information to facilitate those discussions, as well as addressing any issues related to maintaining the water ponding or adding new elements as part of any environmental work needed around that development, along with environmental clean-up issues around Langton Lake. Councilmember Etten noted that this study, along with the traffic study was all part of that. From that perspective, Councilmember Etten spoke in opposition to the motion. As a result of this and even though it will generate information, Councilmember McGehee opined that, from her experience, once you approve going ahead with the design process, it precluded any further discussion. Mayor Roe stated that he did not support the motion to delay action; and ex- pressed his willingness to have discussions with residents or anyone interested in the project. Mayor Roe noted that the City had already approved and accom- plished right-of-way purchase for the Parkway as designed and for construction as shown, all decisions and actions of this very City Council. With the City Council fully informed about and throughout the process, to now imply that discussions with neighbors may change that location and general design, Mayor Roe opined was not fair to the neighbors to make promises that could not be kept when those changes were no longer an option. Mayor Roe stated that this engineering project would provide the additional information needed to help inform the overall pro- cess; and for those residents not previously involved, offered to provide ways to