CC MInutes - 02/17/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner was not comfortable with charging a maximum cost per square foot because of varying circumstances and because property owners had the responsibility to invest in the community on an individual basis. He said he understands the limitations of the Road Fund, but did not want to focus only on high-priority areas that would be determined both technically and politically, and leaving the council "holding the bag" in the end to make such determinations. He agreed the system gaps were significant. He was surprised at the number of people who walked on streets lacking sidewalks, such as Seneca Road. Mr. Meisner said that such gaps were more dangerous where they existed intermittently. He cited his own street as an example of a street without a complete sidewalk system, yet it was located adjacent to a park with a heavily used wading pool. Mr. Rayor said he would prefer to focus on the more easy-to-repair sidewalks rather than on sidewalks on steep hills that might have fewer pedestrians traveling them. He said that staff could be directed to identify high-priority gaps, and suggested the council might have to just "bite the bullet" and attempt to get property owners to fulfill their responsibility. Ms. Andersen said that staff had been grappling with the program for some time because so many property owners were in unique situations, and there were reasons in most cases why a sidewalk was not installed or there were constraints on the property owners that prevented installation. She said that it was much more difficult to get the in-fill elements of the system completed. Ms. Andersen said staff agreed that it was necessary to keep moving forward with the program to the degree possible given existing funding limitations. She said staff was looking at a "triage" approach similar to what Ms. Nathanson had outlined, but would not be able to make much progress on the priority listing that had been presented to the council in the past and which was addressed in the sidewalk program. Ms. Andersen perceived the sidewalk program as a part of the whole transportation system funding problem. Staff wanted to call the council's attention to the fact the program had reached a point where staff was constrained in its ability to move forward aggressively in a number of key areas. Ms. Andersen said staff wanted to continue where it could in places of the highest need in the most cost-effective way, but the program needed to be revisited when the council attempted to address the larger transportation funding picture following whatever legislative action that might come out of the current session. Mr. Papb agreed about the importance of sidewalks to the transportation system, and also indicated his concurrence with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding conflicts between trees and sidewalks. He said it was unfair to require the property owner to pay for the expense of maintaining a tree that disturbed a sidewalk. He also was troubled about the "do nothing" option. Mr. Pap~ said that the program should be a priority and more funding should be found to support it. He was opposed to an approach that required the council to argue over sidewalk installation on a street-by-street basis. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could require sidewalks on an infill property. Ms. Andersen said the City could require the property owner to install the sidewalk. She said that in most cases, the sidewalk program was focused on just such properties. Ms. Taylor believed that steep areas needed sidewalks more than flat areas because such streets curve and can be dangerous for pedestrians. She asked why the City had not provided a sidewalk near the neighborhood park on Potter Street. Mr. Reinhard said that such projects were included on the priority list Ms. Andersen referred to earlier. Ms. Andersen added that the City paid for such projects with park improvement funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 6 11:30 a.m.