Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />He said it also preserves Council's ability to approve a change or revision to the scope of <br />work. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch suggested adding that the first phase o f the study shall include the <br />North Grounds connector and extension of Hillsdale Drive. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said that in response to communication received from the Chamber <br />of Commerce and Board of Realtors, he would like to add the following language to <br />reass ure those affected businesses: "This Council recognizes the intrinsic value of each <br />individual business located in the study corridor." <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked what the implications of this would be and does that mean <br />each business is equal to others. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling made a motion to include the language he suggested, and Mr. <br />Caravati seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she will vote against the motion as she feels it leads to <br />ambiguity regarding action in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said he is concerned about this language if one business is put out of <br />business for the greater good, noting that he is not sure any study can produce that result. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he does not think we can or that this says we guarantee that. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she does not know what the interpretation of that phrase will <br />be in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said it does mean we will have a certain mindset to try to address <br />concerns of every business. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she would rather say to minimize impacts to each business. <br /> <br /> Mr. Br own said Mr. Schilling's language would not be stating any legal <br />obligation, but that in considering options the impact on each business will be considered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he feels it is just a statement of policy. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling's motion was approv ed by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, <br />Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox and Ms. Richards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati made a motion to add "and the reduction in value or removal of <br />property from the tax rolls," Mr. Lynch seconded the motion, and it wa s approved by the <br />following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati recommended adding that the resolution be sent to the University. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said there is no reference to what happens if the stat e does not fund <br />the study, and he is not comfortable supporting the resolution without a statement to that <br />effect, and made a motion to include such language. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion, but noted that the <br />resolution specifically says "requesting state funding" and that if the state does not fund <br />it, it will have to be revisited by the Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that the resolution does not contemplate anything other than state <br />funding, though private funding would be p ossible. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she tends to agree that we might find other funding partners, <br />but said that any City funding for the project is a decision that Council would have to <br />make in the future. <br /> <br />