02/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. : considered avallable for that extension. Manager detailed StatE/. a'l,locat'ions of ,Federal funds over the next two years and notes that there were many other projects on their program having higher priority. As a result the State is reluctant to fund an environmental impact statement on the extension with no prospects for actual construction' should the impact statement indicate the project proceed. He could see no way con- struction of the extension would occur unless it was decided to use local funds. Dis- cussions are in progress at staff level in the LCOG Transportation Planning Committee with regard to allocation of about $12 million of highway bond funds and unless the Highway 126 extension takes top priority on that list its construction appears un- likely. Manager suggested that the LCOG Transportation Planning Committee might be asked to consider this project as one of those being considered for the bond money. , In answer to Councilman Williams, he said County Commissioners had been sent a copy of Mr. Klaboe's letter. Also, that he was satisfied with Mr. Klaboe's interpretation ! of changes in the 1973 Highway Act. However, with regard to whether the changes wQuld be doing what was intended by Congress, Manager thought it would be desirable to raise that question. It had been the understanding that once the interstate road system was completed Federal funds would be shifted into urban areas. It appears the 1973 Act reverses that understanding, since there seems to be sufficient money ,available for rural highway construction which prev.iously was to go into urban areas. lManager noted additional funds coming into urban areas known as "urban funds." However,. ithey are not sufficient to cover a project of the scope of the Highway 126 extension. rThey were proposed for such things as the Pearl Street connector to High Street, 'planning and design of West Amazon Parkway, and had to cover the entire project _ I impact statement, construction, etc. ~ . I ;Mrs. Beal suggested contact with the Oregon Congressional delegation asking clarifica- : tion with regard to the shiff' of funds under the 1973 Highway Act. It was also sug.- ~gested to ask the LCOG Transportation Planning Comm,ittee to consider inclusion of : the Highway 126 westerly extension from Washington and Jefferson Streets as part of ibond'fund expenditures. Councilman Wood wondered whether more information should be gathered before referral { to LCOG. Public Works Director explained that the Highway 126 extension was included in considerations for expenditure of the $12 million bond funds. However, priorities were not yet established by thB.-_19cal community. Manager suggested a Council request for consideration of allocating funds for the Highway l2fi extension would not"h'e asking that it be given top priority. Mr. Wood was satisfied with that position and hoped that would be'communicated to LCOG in the referral. Councilman Hershner felt the issue of actual extension of Highway 126 was highly controversial, but referral in this case was merely calling LCOG Transportation Planning Committee's attention to deletion of Federal funds for the project and asking consideration of'funding from State bond funds. . Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to advise the LCOG Transportation Planning Commi ttee that Federal funds are not available for the westerly extension of High- way 126 from Washington and Jefferson Streets and ask their consideration of the Comm , project in terms of priorities with projects to be funded from State bond funds 2/6/74 : fqr this area:...... .._.. ._,._..._._. ___,_ . ".' .~.. ____...______._ ________.n..__--.-..--.-.--.j'L,Approve . ~In answer'to Mrs. Campbell-; Manager explained the first expendi ture if the funds jwere made available would be for,impact statement to assess impact of the facility Ion the transportation system and the community. According to Mr. Klaboe'w estimate, ; ihe said, that would cost about $i mi;Llion of the $12 million available. 'The impact \ !statement would be necessary for voter information prior to an election as required \ tby. Chari;er amendment. If voter approval was given, thEm construction money would be \ . \ [sought. Public Works Director explained that use of Federal money makes an impact i I statement ,mandatory; it is not a mandatory requirement if State funds are used. He \ !felt the State attitude would be that preparation of an impact statement in order to '\ !have information to present to the voters would have to be a local expense rather !than a State requirement. He doubted whether the State at this time would finance : I ! I allY thing other than construction costs from the $12 million. In answer to Mrs. Campbell! ;he sai'd that if the State appropriated money for the project cost of any impact state-j' :ment would have to come from general City funds. Manager said that staff could bring ia suggested processing for the Highway 126 projeot for consideration. I ;' , / i I Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion oarried unanimously. 0779 Councilman Murray mentioned his absence from committee when this item 'was discussed and asked what the money was being requested for. Manager explained that Lane County's portion of State money, part of a $150 million bond issue, was $12 million. Because,the 1973 Federal Highway Act withdrew money which would have been available for this westerly ex- tension of Highway 126 it was suggested the City ask LCOG to add the project to its list of projects'-for which the $12. million would be used. The quesi:.~fm. ~as ~aise.d at comm~~ttee, 4f> 2/11/74 - 9 "