08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contract to the low bidder on Item 4 (Agate Street). Rollcall vote. Motion defeated - Councilman Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller. Beal, tit Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no. Recognizing that staff needed direction, the Mayor asked for some indication or reasons for the votes cast. Councilman Hamel said he was strongly in favor of the project as bid because there had been no previous assessment for the existing road. He thought the properties abutting the street should bear their share of streets and sidewalks in the city as did all other properties where improvements were made. He thought if the overlay could be put in within the 28-foot widthit should be done. Mrs. Beal said she voted against it because of the assessment procedure and because of her do~bts about what future construction would involve. Councilman Keller thought the idea of a 32-foot street in that location (when the street was completed) was the main reason for the objections. He said it was a unique area and that there should be some alternative to the standard curb and gutter treat- ment. He didn't think the property owners were objecting because of the assessment. Councilman Haws thought the street should be improved as fully as possible because it was his understanding that the primary reason for initiating the project was the safety factor. Mrs. Shirey suggested further discussions with the people involved to bring about a more equitable situation, some alternative to the project presented. Councilwoman Beal said that when the project was originally discussed it was with the idea of providing a safe place for people to walk. She didn't recall that it neces- sarily included curb and gutter construction. Councilman Bradley thought a policy situation might be involved - whether the city might pay for the cost of the overlay. Mr. Allen thought perhaps the term "overlay" e was misleading because actually the street was being rebuilt to city specifications. The work under this contract would be incorporated into the permanent structure and precedent would be set if that cost was not assessed to abutting properties. He said an "asphalt plug" could be installed between the paving and curb, allowing full use of the street, but he felt that would not be suitable. He noted that proponents of the improvement, not the engineering department, initiated the project. The neighborhood association wanted far more than what was included in this design which was offered as a compromise. Mr. Bradley thought it still boiled down to who was going to pay for it. He moved that the city pay the cost of the improvement. There was no second. Councilwoman Shirey suggested further discussion in committee, after the staff had an opportunity to consider some alternative. It was her understanding that staff pro- posal was for something less than a standard street. Mayor Anderson commented that the staff had "nothing to go on," that some Council consensus was needed. Counei Iman Haws added that staff had in this proposal reflected the wishes of the neighborhood group, assessment problems, difficult construction, etc. Councilman Murray thought it might be easier to deal with a "more complete" kind of project in terms of trying to make it compatible with the environment and still pro- vide a safe street, realizing that no one wanted a great, wide thoroughfare going up that hill. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to ask staff to prepare alterna- tives for Council consideration embracing two concepts: (1) Working on a more complete project than now considered; (2) design to recognize the value of keeping the thoroughfare as narrow as possible and compatible with the surrounding environment. 4-5l 8/11/75 - 15