Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> .T <br /> M I NUT E S <br /> . City Council Work Session <br /> Wilder Room/Conference Center <br /> December 16, 1985 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> PRESENT: Brian Obie, Mayor; Cynthia Wooten, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue, Roger <br /> Rutan, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Richard Hansen, Ruth Bascom, <br /> councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Dave Whitlow, Christine <br /> Andersen, Barb Bellamy, Dave Reinhard, Mike Weishar, Nathan Duke, <br /> Kirk McKinley, Susan Brody, Lee Beyer, staff; Jim Gix, State Highway <br /> Department; Jim Boyd, Register~Guard; John Se1ix, KUGN. <br /> The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Ms. Wooten; Mr. Obie conducted <br /> the meeting. <br /> I. 6TH AND 7TH AVENUE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES <br /> Mr. Gleason distributed a summary sheet entitled "History of the 6th/7th <br /> Extension. II In 1976-77, when discussions were held regarding which corridors <br /> and models would be included in the T-2000 Plan, 6th and 7th avenues were <br /> - adopted as the primary corridor for development. By 1983, staff committees <br /> were appointed, and as a result, the State Highway Division looked at all the <br /> alternatives for the project in order to prepare an Environmental Impact <br /> Statement. The City Council is now responsible for recommending an <br /> alternative to the State for review. It will submit a report to the City <br /> Council for the alternative chosen and that alternative will be the one <br /> proposed to the voters. The law does not allow the city to vote on an <br /> alignment before the EIS is approved. Several meetings back, the City Council <br /> established a sequence which would allow the project to be voted on in time to <br /> be a part of the State's Six-Year Highway Improvement Program. <br /> Mr. Reinhard was introduced and referred the council to the memo entitled <br /> "Evaluation of the 6th/7th Avenue Extension Alternatives" with matrix <br /> attached. This report was prepared at the request of the City Council in <br /> order to compare several alternatives at the east end of the project, between <br /> Seneca and Highway 99. The report included a general discussion of the <br /> alternatives, discussion of evaluation criteria, specific information about <br /> each alternative, a summary statement, and recommendations. <br /> Using the maps and the evaluation sheet, Mr. Reinhard explained each <br /> alternative. He continued by going through the matrix chart attached to the <br /> report. Mr. Reinhard commented that the higher cost for the elevated portion <br /> of Alternative One would be reduced by lessening cost for right-of-way <br /> acquisitions and traffic signals. Mr. Gix added that he estimated the <br /> additional cost to be $2-1/2 million to $3 million. <br /> . <br /> MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 1 <br />