Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
Monday,May 22, 2000 Managing Growth Working Group Minutes for 5/ Page:4 <br /> 16 meeting <br /> Karl Kastorf moved, and John Frey seconded, that the group use Mike's <br /> version <br /> to submit to the CPG on the following day. The motion passed 9 in <br /> favor, 2 opposed. <br /> Further discussion by the group led to the agreement that Mike's version <br /> will <br /> be the one that group members should base their suggestions for changes <br /> and <br /> addtions. Mike will be the editor of the vision statement, and people <br /> who <br /> submit changes/additions should try to be as specific as possible in <br /> their <br /> suggested wording. <br /> Agenda Item 8. <br /> Lee Sinai asked Karl Kastorf why the changes to goal 1 that she had sent <br /> him <br /> were not added to the current draft. Karl explained that there was some <br /> confusion on his part about who was submitting the changes. He and Lee <br /> agreed <br /> to meet after the group meeting to work out the details of the required <br /> changes <br /> so they could be included in the draft to be submitted the following <br /> day. <br /> Suzanne noted that there were a couple of objections to the use of a <br /> specific percentage (10%) in the wording of goal 5, objective 5.1. <br /> Several <br /> members of the group expressed the opinion that the objective could be <br /> reworded to just require an increase in the amount of affordable <br /> housing. <br /> Other members expressed the opinion that the 10% mentioned in the <br /> objective <br /> was desirable (even though ambitious) , in order to maintain diversity in <br /> Lexington. <br /> Suzanne moved, and Larry Belvin seconded, that the wording of objective <br /> 5.1 <br /> be changed to remove the specific percentage. The motion was passed by <br /> 9 in favor, <br /> 1 opposed, and 1 abstention. <br /> Mike Hanauer noted that he agrees with Tom Harden's suggestion that <br /> comments <br /> about regional cooperation be added to goal 6. Mike asked the group to <br /> give <br /> him suggestions for additions about regional cooperation. <br /> Several group members expressed the opinion that many of the objectives <br /> of <br /> goal 6 are too ambiguous and that it is unclear what they are supposed <br /> to <br /> achieve. Mike explained that the puLpose of the goal was to ensure that <br /> processes are put in place to make sure that the goals and objectives <br /> coming <br /> out of the Lexington 2020 exercise are achieved over time. <br /> Several group members encouraged Mike to make the objectives more <br /> specific <br /> in their wording. It was agreed that the current version of the goal <br /> m ai Ibox:/Macintosh%20 H D/System%20Folder/ <br /> Preferences/Netscape%20Users/ <br />