The need for this action could have been recognized a day after the decision was handed down, which was almost exactly two months ago. Yet on the last business day before the day of the council meeting, the city attorney’s staff was on the phone with the AG’s office still soliciting advice on wording, the number of questions that needed to be put before voters, and the like. Granted, it’s a good strategy to get informal input from the AG’s office in advance of submitting the language. But I don’t think it’s optimal to leave it that late.

Fortunately, the council does have another meeting, on Aug. 7, before the Aug. 12 deadline for certifying ballot language to the city clerk. I think the council would be wise to postpone consideration of the vote until Aug. 7. The relevant question the council should acknowledge and identify to be answered before Aug. 7 is this: Is is possible to address only the requirements for elective officers with the current ballot proposal, and if so can that be done with a single ballot question? Assuming that the answer to those questions is yes – and I think it is – then that’s the wording that should be provided to the council and to the community for consideration on Aug. 7.

Late Saturday night, city clerk Jackie Beaudry made the necessary fixes in Legistar: [link]

The resolution to fund the creation of a greenway master plan and development of the greenway through the sale of the non-floodway portion of 415 W. Washington was developed in partnership with Bob Galardi, chair of the Greenway Conservancy, and Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the Greenway Roundtable.

Bob and Jonathan had discussed the potential resolution with the Conservancy board. They found some initial support from the board. At their meeting on July 18, the Conservancy Board reviewed the final resolution, but were not able to come to agreement to support the resolution at this time. As the conservancy does not have clarity in supporting the resolution, I am withdrawing it. From the beginning, the my approach to this was that if the Conservancy was supportive then we could bring it forward. If the conservancy was not in support then we would not move forward in this way.

The Conservancy has had the creation of a master plan as their top priority for several years, and the decision by Professor Larissa Larsen (a member of the original Greenway Taskforce) to do planning for the greenway as part of a masters capstone class created an opportunity to develop the master plan — if we could come up with the funding to support the tasks outside the purview of the student project. This resolution moved quickly from conception to introduction so that, if successful, we would have the funding in place in time to seize the opportunity presented by the capstone class.

While this resolution did not provide the right approach at the right time, I remain committed to finding ways to move the Greenway forward. It was 33 years ago that the City included the vision of the greenway in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. I was three years old, the same age my daughter is now. Since then we have generated numerous plans and reports, and these are important, but we have no greenway infrastructure on the ground. One day my daughter will be a grown woman and may have a child of her own. My goal is that when and if that day comes, we will have more than a stack of reports to show. My goal is to be able to show my grandchild a beautiful greenway.