Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Scope topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birmingham commission and multimodal board debate role, direct staff to rewrite ordinance
Summary
At a Dec. 11 joint workshop, planning staff reviewed the boards history and commissioners and board members debated whether the Multimodal Transportation Board should focus on advocacy, plan updates or design review. The commission directed staff to produce a clearer decision matrix and draft ordinance language; no final vote was taken.
A joint workshop of the Birmingham City Commission and the Multimodal Transportation Board on Dec. 11 focused on whether the advisory board should continue in its current form and how the city should revise the enabling ordinance.
Planning staff opened the meeting by tracing the boards roots: a 2011 Complete Streets resolution followed by a multimodal transportation plan adopted in 2013 and creation of the board in 2014. A staff presentation said the city has since adopted many complete-streets practices and that "we feel we're facing an opportunity here to modernize the city's approach to multimodal transportation planning," urging commissioners and board members to consider whether the boards purpose and processes still fit city needs.
The question at the center of the discussion was whether the boards role should be primarily visionary and advisory or whether it should also operate closer to project execution. Several board members and commissioners said both functions have value: the board can develop frameworks and advocate for pedestrians and cyclists while also providing early reviews of consultant designs. Commissioners repeatedly said that funding and final policy choices must remain the commissions purview.
Participants proposed a clearer order of operations: staff and consultants would prepare an initial design recommendation and an options matrix showing trade-offs; the board would then evaluate multimodal impacts (sightlines, bike and pedestrian accommodations, accessibility) and surface value-based recommendations for the commission. Multiple speakers urged posting the decision framework on the city website so residents understand what kinds of input the board considers at each stage.
Leah (planning staff referenced in the meeting materials) and other staff were directed to draft a revised ordinance and an action list for the board that includes a decision matrix (orders-of-magnitude cost categories and value metrics) and clearer criteria for when items go to the board. Commissioners also discussed holding a focused streets workshop early next year to align commission priorities with the boards work program.
No ordinance changes or formal votes were taken at the meeting. The next steps recorded were a staff assignment to return with ordinance language, a proposed matrix and options for public communication and engagement.
