Laserfiche WebLink
Dr. Gunter stated that she felt the small existing bridge <br />has prevented the road from becoming an expressway. <br /> <br /> Dr. Hall stated that he was concerned that future demand <br />could cause Ridge Street to become a major thoroughfare in <br />the future a~s had happened on Hydraulic Road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that while the proposed Meadowcreek <br />Parkway would be a connection from Rio Road to I 64~ it was <br />not intended to be a by-pass and signage of the road could <br />prevent it from becoming a by-~pass. Mr. Hendrix added that he <br />felt slow-downs such as a smaller bridge would be self-defeating <br />and that widening the bridge by three feet now would be a <br />planning tool that could be used in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he did not think the present or <br />future Councils would sacrifice the Ridge Street neighborhood <br />and that the proposed expansion of the bridge to five lanes <br />could alleviate the present problem of blocked through traffic <br />due' to northbound cars-stackmng up to turn left. <br /> <br /> Mr. Barnes stated that he felt the major questions involving <br />the bridge expansion were: 1) would future residents have to <br />endure a bottleneck by nqt expanding the bridge, and 2) if the <br />bridge were to be exp[nd~d, would the Ridge Street structure be <br />destroyed or adversely effected? Mr. Barnes stated that he did <br />not feel the neighborhood would be adversely effected, and that <br />he felt five lanes would correct an interceptional problem which <br />needed addressing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he-was concerned with taking a vote <br />without talking with the neighborhoods involved. <br /> <br /> It was agreed that Council would hold a meeting on <br />November 21~st at 7:30 p.m. in order to discuss the expansion <br />of Ridge Street. <br /> <br />STAFF REPORT: STREET LIGHT POLICY <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the issue of the City's street <br />light policy had been raised after a complaint was made to the <br />Mayor. Mr. Hendrix stated that there is a policy that is <br />consistently applied, but there was not a formal written policy. <br />Mr. Hendrix stated that citizens submit a petition to the City <br />and if 60% of the affected parties are in agreement, and if <br />funds are available, lights are installed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt the public should be given <br />an opportunity to speak to the street light policy. <br /> <br /> Mrs. Gleason agreed with the idea of a public hearing, <br />but stated that she did not feel the policy should be decided <br />as a result of one specific situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck agreed with Mrs. Gleason's comments, but requested <br />that the persons involved in the present controversy be informed <br />of the public hearing. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: <br /> <br />PROGRAM <br /> <br />$50,000 <br /> <br />PERINATAL NUTRITION AND EDUCATION SERVICES <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the appropriation consisted of <br />State money for a program that would be administered by the <br />Health Department. <br /> <br /> Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Thomas Jefferson <br />Health Department, stated that the program was being funded <br />in this manner for the following reasons: 1) federal money <br />had been made available for the program which would be outreach <br />in nature, 2) a cap had been put on growth in State employees, <br />and 3) alleged scandals with State contracts had caused <br />curtailments. Dr~ Prindle stated that the City wo~ld hire <br />the individuals who would then be assigned to the Health <br />Department, at no cost to the City. <br /> <br /> <br />