Thursday, November 06, 2008

Notes on select items of the consent agenda

of the November 10, Springfield City Council meeting

Some highlights:

First reading consent agenda bill 2008-341, adds changes to the Land Development Code of Springfield.

A new section (412) is proposed for adoption by the City Council to which developers might want to take note.


It could allow the city to apply an, at minimum, 30 foot easement to a prospective subdivision of a developer:

a). If a trail in the area the developer is looking to develop has been previously identified by the Springfield-Greene County Comprehensive Plan; and

b). Even if plans for a trail in that area have NOT been previously identified by the Springfield-Greene County Comprehensive Plan.

The bill will amend the Land Development Code, Article II, Subdivision Regulations in three new areas. Those areas are:

> Designed Trailhead
> Linear Park Trail
> Neighborhood Linear Park Connector

Look at the bill yourself by clicking on the link above to read how it could potentially effect the plans of subdivision developers over all, and don't worry, even though a potential, at minimum, 30 foot wide strip of city easement seems like a large swath of property to you, you can rest knowing that nothing controversial ever ends up on the consent agenda. I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill, no doubt.


COUNCIL BILLS 2008-345 and 346 will both amend Chapter 2, Section 2-92, of the Springfield City Code relating to salary rates and pay grades for various job titles within the City service by changing the authorized job positions for City of Springfield and/or Springfield-Greene County by deleting lesser paid positions/pay grades and adding higher paid positions/pay grades. There has been a trend lately, in the city, of accomplishing pay raises through deletion and addition of existing and non-existing positions. Just noting that.

There may be a perfectly plausible reason for these actions, I haven't had the opportunity to look into it yet, but some people in the community question if this isn't a way to give raises to city employees without acknowledging they are getting a raise. I think I know a little about this but would want to verify what I *think* I know before making a comment.

No comments: