Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Complete Streets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anderson council delays "Complete Streets" resolution after debate over advisory committee role; special meeting set
Summary
The council debated Resolution 9-25 (Complete Streets) on Aug. 14, with disagreement over language that would involve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and reporting requirements. Councilors voted to table the resolution and scheduled a special meeting for Aug. 21 to finalize language and obtain attorney review.
The Anderson Common Council on Aug. 14 debated a proposed Complete Streets resolution that would formalize city guidelines for accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians on roadway projects and require periodic reporting to a citizen advisory group.
Supporters urged adoption as a public-safety and economic measure; Ben Orcutt, a local cyclist and advocate, told the council that including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee "is very important in this process" and would bring expertise from people who use the city's streets. Resident speakers also cited crash and access data to argue for safer, walkable corridors.
City officials and the city engineer raised concerns about language that one official said used "shall" mandates and assigned oversight duties to a citizen body that traditionally has an advisory role. City Engineer Matt House said the proposed language would require his office to prepare semiannual reports and submit them to BPAC, adding work that, in his view, duplicates materials already prepared as public record. "The language in the original is just that it's documented," House said, advocating the version that keeps administrative discretion.
Council members discussed whether the BPAC would have final authority or a strictly advisory role. Several councilors proposed replacing the word "oversee" with wording that makes clear BPAC's role is advisory and that engineering staff would continue to make technical decisions. Councilors and staff also noted Rule 33 (requiring attorney approval of legislation as to form) and agreed the city attorney should review final language.
Because the council and administration had not agreed on final wording, councilors voted to table Resolution 9-25 and set a special council meeting for Thursday, Aug. 21, at 3:30 p.m. to consider the revised document after attorney review and to allow the Board of Works to review a related exhibit. The motion to table passed by roll call.
The tabling postpones final adoption; supporters and staff said they want the resolution to pass but sought clearer language to preserve the advisory committee's role and the executive branch's discretion over technical design and implementation.
