06/09/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- be some general feel whether review and comment is all that is wanted, or whether they will ask for public hearings. In this instance, staff was unaware of any major concern until the last two or three weeks and then it was not opposition so much as request for information. Mr. Massoglia said he did have copies of blue- prints of the project and that his group was asking for postponement of the project itself, not just time for review and clarification. Councilman Bradley asked how great the administrative burden would be if neighbor- hood associations were to be informed of every project planned or designed. Assistant Manager couldn't say other than it would delay projects a month or six weeks to give people response time after notifications were sent out. It really depended upon the type of project and would take some work with the Council to de- termine the types of projects on which notice to neighborhoods was wanted. A genuine effort had been made, he said, to assess the magnitude of this project as to need of the neighborhood to know - it takes time and time is money when dealing with many groups. Councilman Murray added that not everyone wanted to know about every project, that it could lead to an inundation of reams of material most of which would be irrelevant. I-B-l Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to award contract to the low bidders on each of the projects, excluding 29th and Willamette inter- section (Item 4). Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that contract be awarded to the low bidder on the 29th and Willamette intersection (Item 4). e Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Shirey that the Council adopt the resolution submitted by the Friendly Area Neighbors, that contract award on Item 4 be postponed until the June 23 Council meeting, and that staff be instructed to contact Lane County for extension of time on county funds for the project. Councilman Bradley thought public policy was involved and that the integrity of the neighborhood group process needed protection. He didn't think it had been adequately demonstrated so far as this project was concerned that the neighborhood association process had been followed. Postponement to the June 23 Council meeting, he said, would give opportunity for others to come before the Council. Further, he felt the process needed changing if the decision making policy was to be decentralized. Councilman Keller said his understanding was that those objecting wanted the project postponed considerably longer than two weeks, and postponing the decision at this time would really be evading the question. The project was not something that had just come before the Council, he said. And it was not a case of not allowing input, rather it was a case of the project's having more longevity than the neighborhood group. Councilwoman Shirey wondered what would happen if the issue was postponed two weeks and then it was discovered the county funds would not be made available. Mr. Bradley said he included contact with the county to the motion so that information would be available at the June 23 meeting whether the county would allow further exten~ sion should a longer delay be decided upon. e Councilwoman Beal asked if there would be a chance of losing the county money if the item was postponed to June 23. Assistant Manager referred to Public Works Director's report that the county had given one extension with the understanding there would be no more because other communities in the county could use the funds. Whether further extension would be granted would be the county's decision. Mr.Allen said county had given no assurance of when those funds would be used. He felt more 6/9/75 - 7 309