01/28/1991 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tit Mayor Miller noted that several letters have been received on this issue. There being no additional requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Czerniak indicated that staff from various City departments would be available to answer council questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Les Lyle, Public Works Department, said that the council could re-initiate the Lorane Highway Project. (In the early 80's, the council did not overturn a remonstrance of the project.) He pointed out that because road fund moneys are involved in the project, choos- ing to move it forward would alter priorities in the CIP. Ms. Ehrman asked the council to consider re-initiating this project as a means of moving it forward. e Mr. Gleason advised the council that if it is interested in moving forward the Lorane Highway project that it look to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for a joint funding effort using road fund moneys. Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Gleason said that funding for the Valley River Bridge study involves the County, the City, and the private sector. Money that has been allocated for this study could not be transferred for efforts to reopening Station 6. Mr. MacDonald noted that although previously opposed to moving the Lorane Highway study forward because of the history in the area of resident opposi- tion to assessment costs, he would be willing to reevaluate this position. He asked the council to consider moving this project forward contingent on the ability to obtain agreement on the part of residents in the area. Responding to questions from Mr. Boles regarding the Maurie Jacobs Memorial Park improvements, John Etter, PARCS Department, said that the entire list of park improvements was not included in the CIP because the projects did not follow the normal City processes with respect to funding. He indicated, however, that it would be appropriate to include the full list of projects in the CIP. Mr. Boles clarified that projects be listed within the CIP in clear priority order and, in turn, that regardless of their funding source, they be funded with respect to that prioritization order. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Lyle said that the Maple Street improvement was identified a potential project in both the TransPlan and the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan. Because this street is classified as a col- lector, SDC funds would be involved in the street improvement. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Lyle said that because of the scale of the Valley River Bridge project, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analysis of the area would be appropriate. In response to questions from Ms. Ehrman, Dave Reinhard, Public Works Trans- portation, said that the Willakenzie Refinement Plan addresses and makes e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 28, 1991 Page 7