02/15/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- would not delay the installation of a signal at the intersection of Barger Drive and Highway 99, however. The reasons for the staff's recommendation were practical economics in that the State refused to fund a major portion for the improvement and the City does not have the funding to do so, either. Costs have doubled in the time since the project was proposed, and the City cannot divert another $800,000 to this project. Staff feels the State should fund approximately 90 percent of the project, rather than the proposed 15 percent. In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Don Allen said there are dif- ferent joint-funding programs generally involving Federal, State, and local funding contributions. He said, however, this was a different case in that no other situation exists where the adjacent property owners were to be assessed for a State-owned project. This is a State facility, not a City one, and thus the reason for recommending dropping the project. He expressed thanks to City Council for its efforts in the project, and said the staff would continue to hold this project as a high priority for State funding. The traffic signal at Barger Drive will be bid in May, with a 220-day completion date. He said the City support of the two-cent gas tax would help the State find funds for such projects. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to withdraw from the joint venture of the Highway 99 improvement project. e Mr. Haws was concerned over bike and pedestrian access. Mr. Allen said regarding those two issues, there might be an upgrading of street light- ing, and the State may have to do an overlay project in the interim. If tax monies were available, the project may be done in 1982. However, at this time, Mr. Allen said there were no plans for major construction for sidewalks and bikeways. Mr. Haws wondered if there was anything that could be done temporarily to make the area safer for pedestrians. Mr. Allen replied staff could make that recommendation known to the State. Mr. Lieuallen supported Mr. Haws' concern regarding bikes and pedestrians and felt it would be better to have some temporary solution. Mr. Allen replied the street lighting would help somewhat. Mr. Bradley said he could not support the motion, because he felt the City to be responsible for improvements for Eugene citizens' safety and for the aesthetic value of the area. He felt the improvements should be done by the City because of the existing hazards and need for improvement, even though it might be precedent-setting. Mr. Hamel said at the last public hearing on the issue, most people with businesses and those living in the area were not in favor of the highway being changed in any way. He said no one spoke in favor of the improve- ments except the staff. Mr. Obie agreed he would like to see the area developed and improved, but questioned Mr. Bradley as to how it might be financed. Mr. Bradley replied with whatever funds were available at the State level, combined with assessment and general fund or perhaps a bond issue. He reiterated - 2/15/78--9 110