Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Attorney Glenn Klein advised the council that re-bidding would likely be necessary if the improve- ments were modified and that a public hearing would likely be required if the improvements were put out to bid again. City Manager Taylor reiterated that the present bid would be lost and a bid on a modified plan for improvements would "certainly cost more" even if the level of improvement was substantially reduced. Ms. Ortiz asked how it would cost more if the project was less encompassing. City Manager Taylor attributed the potential increase to cost increases, such as those for petroleum products, which had occurred within the last year. He thought the City would ultimately pay more for less. Mr. Pap~ disagreed with the notion that the cost of the current project as proposed should drive whether it continued as it stood. Regarding State standards on bicycle lanes, he asked if one bicycle lane would meet the requirement. Ms. Cahill replied that she did not believe that a partial bicycle path would meet the rule. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the bicycle lanes would not be assessed as part of the local improvement district (LID). Mr. Pap6 agreed that no sidewalk was really necessary in front of the sewage treatment plant. He also agreed that the River Avenue situation was similar to the Crest Drive situation. He thought the City should at the very least allow the River Avenue residents and business owners the same latitude it had extended to the Crest Drive neighbors in letting them participate in the design process to a degree. Ms. Taylor thought the council should listen to the property owners and take its time. She said of the mail she had received on the issue, the preponderance was in opposition to the current plan. Mr. Pryor commented that standards were intended to serve a purpose. In this case, he said, the plan seemed to propose more improvement than was needed. He favored looking at the project to see if it could be scaled back even though it could cost the same or more. City Manager Taylor reiterated that the proposal sought to apply the design standards for a major collector. He asked if the council's intent was to be open, as a general policy, to redesigning all of the standards on all of the streets or was this specific to River Avenue. He pointed out that any time a project involving an LID was proposed, local residents come forward in opposition to it. Mr. Kelly remarked that a delicate balance was needed between having standards as a touchstone for the progress of development and having standards with some flexibility. Ms. Bettman advised staff to take into strong consideration the desires of an affected neighborhood when making proposals such as the one before the council in order to avoid reworking them. She said a proposal for local improvements that was being roundly opposed by residents in the area suggested to be improved would likely not gain council approval. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 20, 2005 Page 6 Work Session