03/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.I. Pedestrian Bridge Connection - County Administration Building to City Hall Sketches of the proposed overcrossing were distributed to Council members. It woul.d connect City Hall at its plaza level to the proposed County administra- tion building at its plaza level across Pearl Street. Lane County asked the city to share in the estimated cost of $22,400 - city's share $11,200. Staff recom- mended that the city declare its intention of sharing in the link with the idea of makipg the effort to budget funds in the 1975-76 budget. Councilman Williams wondered if walking to the corner to cross from City Hall to the County building would save $11,200 of public time. Al Williams, traffic engineer, cOf'.mented that the "jaywalking" at that location to/as a continuing source' for his office of public annoyance and resentment. In response to Councilman Bradley's inquiry about the cost of a marked crosswalk or a flashing yellow light at that location, traffic engineer said that type of "protection" would be a real waste of money since it was considered one of the most unsafe installations. Strange as it may seem, he said. the present situation of cross- ing against traffic was safer than if a flashing yellow light was installed. Mayor Anderson thought that aside from the safety factor, the proposed overcross- ing would provide an aesthetical addition, it would give a pleasing tie-in be- tween the two buildings. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the city's sharing in financing of the bridge connection as presented. Councilman Haws was concerned that agreeing to share in the $22,400 cost would be commitinq the city to sharing a greater cost by the time the connection was installed. He wondered if some sort of covered extension would be more appro- priate. Assistant Manager answered that it had been discussed at some length and that option was still open, cost was the main concern. He added that because of increasing use of public parking in the city hall basement the connection would be a matter of public convenience as well as an operational covenience for city and county employes. Manager said it was hoped a similar connection could be made with the new Federal building across 7th Avenue at some future time. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. Comm 3/19/75 Approve Councilman Hamel said he was not opposed to the location of the bridge but to the cost involved at this particular time. He thought plans for the bridge should have been stated some time ago rather than just now when a budget was being considered which contemplated a reduction in city services. In view of the general economy, employment situations, etc., he felt expenditure of $11,000 for something of this nature was not being conservative. Assistant Manager noted the Civic Center Plan adopted by all agencies about four years back - county, state, federal, city - which included pedestrian connections between all of the buildings in the civic center, segregating pedestrian and auto traffic. This pedestrian bridge was in line with that Plan so was not something just now formulated. He added that the etimated cost appeared the most reasonable in view of the design (having the potential for being covered at some future time) and materials chosen in consultation with the contractor and architects working on the county building. In response to Mr. Hamel, he said, plans at this time were undetermined for a similar connection to the new federal building. J. Petition, Sanitary sewer Oakway Golf Course PUD - 100% - Manager explained that the Oakway PUD second phase approval process was still underway. An appeal from the Planning Commission's approval would soon be before the Council. However, he said acceptance of the petition for sewer would make possible design work, call for bids, and construction this year if the PUD was approved. Mr~ Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition, recognizing decision was still to be made with regard to the Oakway PUD. Motion carried unanimously. C6mm 3/l9/75 Approve 3/24/75 - 10 140 . -- --