My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2017 11 14
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Study Sessions
>
2017 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2017 11 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:56:38 AM
Creation date
2/6/2018 11:43:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B4
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2017 11 14
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Study Session Summary <br />November 14, 2017 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Council member Leh said intergovernmental processes are worth bringing to <br />forefront. Regional travel and transportation are political pieces that may be <br />useful. Reducing transportation demand is about carpooling and enticing people <br />to use other modes. <br />Council member Maloney said he would like neighborhood traffic management <br />and safety talked about more. He believes there is a lot of concern about safety. <br />Mayor Muckle agrees pedestrian and bicycle safety, and school safety are <br />priorities. Megan said perhaps separate out 1. neighborhood safety and 2. <br />pedestrian and bicycle safety. <br />Council member Leh said whoever we contract with needs to make use of our <br />citizens input. <br />Director Davis asked if Council be interested in a taskforce? <br />Council member Stolzmann said she appreciates the information and believes it <br />warrants further study, but this is far too broad of scope and feels we will get <br />shallow input. Feels we should narrow the scope. Would not vote for it as it is. <br />What are infrastructure plans? She said perhaps present as "here are the 5 — 7 <br />capital things we can do related to safety and alternative modes." We have a <br />huge demand for underpasses. Study which one would be the biggest <br />improvement in safety. What is the biggest need for technology. That is missed <br />in the scope. These are all worthy tasks but thinks we should pick the top three. <br />Council member Leh reads it differently but believes we want to take items on <br />page 19 into account in the packet. He thinks we should rearrange the scope. <br />Building and Public Safety Director Zuccaro said regarding the process: there are <br />limited resources. The whole purpose is to inform decisions and make budget <br />priorities. The document would be updated every 5 — 7 years. This document <br />would help prioritize CIP with limited resources. We want to know Council's <br />policies. In Small Area Plan we had discussions about which improvement meets <br />the plan. <br />Council member Loo listed the top three complaints that she hears, saying the <br />technology piece will be hard to solve: <br />1. Minimize traffic <br />2. Improve safety <br />3. Make it easier to connecting to alternate modes <br />We want a report that is actionable. Director Zuccaro asked is the process worth <br />it to reach deliverables? Director Kowar said what is the existing data and define <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.