|
<br />-.- --."-."-- "-- ..._-_..._.._.._._-_..__.._..,~ .--.....-.------.------.... -.----- --.- -.....
<br />
<br />Councilman Wood could see no reason for not enlarging the Task Force as requested. !
<br />,He thought the additional members should represent the Committee on Aging and the \
<br />.Architectural Barriers groups. Councilman McDonald felt the neighborhood groups \
<br />should be consulted first when informed by Mr. Murray that they had not been formally; .a
<br />'approached about enlarging the Task Force. Mr. Murray said the proposal for the two! '11'-
<br />:additional people was made by one of ~he neighborhood groups' representatives. Councilman!
<br />Keller called for the question, saying he couldn't imagine anyone interested enough to I
<br />'accept appointment and then not being interested enough to catch up on the work al- !
<br />ready accomplished. He said the Task Force evidently felt they were not getting that ;
<br />;type of representation in their meetings. I
<br />
<br />i Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Council members !
<br />Beal, Keller, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Council members Williarils, !
<br />McDonald, and Campbell voting nD. I
<br />I Cornm
<br />
<br />Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Council meet in executive 11127/74
<br />session sometime within the next two weeks, that staff prepare a .list of A 'prove
<br />names of people who might be interested in. working on the Task Force plus
<br />suggestions from Council members, and that the final decision on the selec-'
<br />tion be brought to committee-of-the-whole for action on December II, 1974.
<br />Motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />
<br />(,. .,... ,--..', ,'.. "'... --' ..... " ,.., ""'---' -" ,-- -- ' .' ... -. '-' ..' ". .
<br />C. Bikeway Report - Copies of Bikeway Master.Planand a summary of conclusions and
<br />{recommendations were distributed to Council members. ,Ruth Bascom, chairman of the
<br />lBicycle committee, reviewed the process for developing the plan over the past four ~
<br />;years through work of the committee and citizen input. She suggested restructuring ~
<br />~of the bicycle committee at this point to a high-level staff committee with citizen
<br />~input for implementation of the plan.
<br />\
<br />:~ ~
<br />r2Al Williams, traffic engineer, reviewed highlights of the plan which covered some
<br />[150 miles of bikeways in the.metropolitan area. He said copies had been presented
<br />Ito the planning Commission and that hearings would be held before the Commission on
<br />December 10. More formal presentation would be made to the Council after that.
<br />Total cost of implementation of all elements of the proposed bikeway master plan was
<br />estimated at $5.8 million, $3.9 million of which would cover 116 miles within the
<br />city limits itself. Various funding sources would be available, he said. He~SlJg~ \
<br />gested that at the time of Council consideration, sometime in January, there would ~j
<br />be recommendations with regard to funding sources. He noted the uncertainty of de-
<br />pending on State funds - 1% of highw~y revenues set aside for bike paths - because
<br />the first priority for those funds was for automobile facilities. Mr. Williams said '
<br />the plan was intended as a guide in providing bicycle facilities and could be !
<br />changed as needed. He noted implications as the plan concerned manpower in the pub-
<br />lic works department and said that would have to be handled in the normal budgetary \
<br />process.
<br />
<br />Councilman McDonald said some people had expressed concern about the difficulty ex- ~
<br />perienced by pedestrians using paths on Echo Hollow road. He suggested separate paths I
<br />for pedestrians should be installed.
<br />
<br />, Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the Bikeway Master Camm
<br />Plan to the Planning Commi!?,sion~f~pgJ!llTI?!!dation and ask staff to be H/27V74
<br />prepared to I!lake recommendations wi th regard to makeup of a restructured Apprpve
<br />bi)2ycT~~ittee. Motion carried unanimously. 1
<br />
<br />,_~ 1\
<br />~ D~Lane County Auditorium Association - Copies of report from the Lane county Auditorium
<br />~: IAssociation with projected expenditures for the next three years were previously dis- .
<br />r \ I
<br />,tributed to Council members. James Kays, speaking for the Association, reviewed
<br />I changes in the audi tori um concept - elimination of convention center, portion of the I
<br />'meeti.ng, rooms-, restaurants, etc. - and said the Association's Board had decided to \
<br />.sed private'-:f-t1fld.i'ng.~for construction of the facility. Their intent was to approach "
<br />foundations, ask for p:r;)vate contriJ!.u,tiQI1s, and use other fund'raisi-ng devic..es \
<br />rather than using ci ty 'Funds. To'ao thiS;-'~he--..f:iajd., would require alu11-'tI;ne"director, \
<br />and the Council was asked~prove allocation of 'Funds from room tax monies~over.:
<br />compensation for that position and staff that would be required. ~~
<br />,. I
<br />
<br />Cou!3c;ilwoman Campbell wondered. if the Association could really' say .thattax 'money
<br />would not be involved. She said she knew of no auditorium of the sort proposed which \ ~
<br />would be self-supporting in its operation, and she felt it should be made clear that: .
<br />eventually the city would be involved. Mr. Kays replied that construction funds were
<br />the only concern at this time. He said th~y couldn't categorically state at this time
<br />. that tax money would not be needed, at some point, but for now the concern was for re-
<br />vitalizing auditorium plans, updating the study in terms of what operational defi-
<br />ciencies or costs might be. I
<br />. __ I
<br />
<br />
<br />Ar\~ 12/9/74 - 6
<br />
|