07/22/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Teitzel stated that a public hearing was held previously along with a slide e show showing the general area of the proposed project. Mr. Teitzel stated that a number of maps and diagrams had been distributed to the council showing various alternatives. Staff looked at the possibility of a private path north of Greenview but staff could not get agreement from the golf course owners on this option. Staff looked at the possibility of a path on the south side of Spyglass and Greenview but staff does not believe this is acceptable because of the length and cost plus the fact that the path would be hidden which could cause security problems. The original plan presented by staff would be an 8-foot path with a 5-foot solid board fence and landscaping. Map 5 of the information distributed to council shows existing conditions and map 6 shows the proposed project and how it would look. Map 7 shows what the path would look like from the Wards' property. The bicycle committee has suggested proceeding with the original plan and staff agrees. This would be for a bike path between the two properties. He indicated that Ruth Bascom of the Bicycle Committee could also answer questions. Ms. Miller stated that a very lengthy public hearing had been held previously on this item. A public hearing was not scheduled on this item. Ms. Smith asked if the Oakway Golf Course option is a closed issue. Mr. Teitzel stated that it is, as the golf course owners do not agree. A bike path along the golf course would require condemnation. Ms. Smith asked what the costs of condemnation and a possible lawsuit would be. Mr. Teitzel stated that damages that could be awarded by the court are undetermined but even if no damages were awarded, the estimated costs could be $30,000 for construction. Mr. Ward testified at the hearing that his property would be damaged and the total cost could then be as much as $80,000. e Ms. Smith asked what the status is of the additional offer of help for financing. Mr. Teitzel stated that they still have an offer from two property owners to donate between $15,000 to $20,000 for construction of a bicycle path. Ms. Smith noted that she has a problem accepting a monetary gift for projects where the costs should be paid for by the City. Mr. Teitzel stated that this is a seperate issue as far as staff is concerned. Ms. Smith asked what the budgeted amount is to construct this bike path. Mr. Teitzel stated that it is $27,000. Mr. Gleason interjected that the City does not admit damages in the case. Any determination of damages would be in court and a jury would make that decision only after the facts were reviewed. The $27,000 that is budgeted includes construction and reasonable market value of properties to be acquired. If a court decided there were damages, that amount is not included in the budgeted amount. Ms. Smith stated that if the total cost for the project is more than the budgeted amount, either the project could not be done or a supplemental budget would have to be approved for the project. Mr. Gleason added that if a quick take of the property is done, the only issue in court would be the price. Mr. Lindberg stated that there are two problems: the planning issue and the property rights issue. He asked how long this project had been included in the Bicycle Master Plan. Mr. Teitzel stated that it was included in the 1979 update. Mr. Lindberg asked if this path is for commuting use rather than recreational use. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is. Mr. Lindberg stated e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 1981 Page 9