12/22/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--, B. Neighborhood Organization Policy Review - Copy of Community Goals Policy #6 on refinement of neighborhood o~ganization policy has been distributed to Council. Mr. Murray feels it is appropriate to assess the Neighborhood Organization Policy and how it is working and explore the community goals policy #6 which outlines some extensive refinement of the relationship between the neighborhood organizations .and the city. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey that the Council authorize fornJation of a committee for the purposes he noted, the committee to Comm consist of two City Council members appointed by the Mayor, three 12/10/75 neighborhood leaders appointed by the collective neighborhood leaders, the committee to work with staff and to gauge the attitude of staff Approve people, decision nJakers and other active civic groups having an interest in neighborhood groups. Mayor Anderson wondered if Mr. Murray intended it to include assessment of the activities of each group. Mr. Murray answered he intended it to include merely review of the policy and how it is working. It has occurred to Mayor Anderson that an evaluation might be something the committee could look at as regards activities and participation of each separate neighborhood group. Mr. Murray felt the policy itself provides that decisions regarding the effectiveness of each group should be nJade by the Ci ty Council. Mayor Anderson thought that, if the neighborhood policy is going to be refined with more authority possibly delegated to the groups, there should be some idea as to how the groups represent their neighborhoods. That information should be obtained, even though Council perhaps would be the appropriate body to nJake the evaluation. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. C. Approval of Revised Proposal for CityjCountyPedestrian Bridge - Letter of e November 28 from County Administrator has been distributed to Council members. It indicates new plans have been drawn for a pedestrian bridge connecting the county and city offices. The span would have a clearance of about 15' 2" at the center. The original proposal provided for a 14' clearance. The County Commissioners have approved the project conditioned on the approval by the City of Eugene, with the understanding that the cost would be equally shared between the two jurisdictions. Cost estinJate is $30,048.00. The design provides for a ramp with no steps included. Increase in price for the new design is about $5,000 to $6,000. Mrs, Shirey indicated not being in favor of the project but, at the same time, felt it would be difficult to cancel it at this point since it appears the Public Service Building construction is nJaking provision for the bridge. Manager said the bridge would save much mid-block crossing and would be convenient for the handicapped as well. He explained too that original conve~sations between the county and the city had talked about a span with a clearance of l5~ to 16 feet, due to possibili ty of ,large trucks coming up Pearl and needing more clearance. The County felt that would be too costly, but 15'2" seems more advisable than original plans of 14'. Mr. Haws wondered about number of pedestrian crossings a day and man hours that would be saved by construction of a bridge. Assistant Manager responded the,re are probably in the neighborhood of several hundred people a day crossing From ci ty to county or visa versa. Staff would number at least 50-70% of that total. There is so much ml.-:'J.-block crossing that County Judge Ed Allen e has even sought repeal of the jaywalking ordinance. ~s9 12/22/75 - 6