05/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e (' e Mr. Obie agreed with much of what Ms. Miller had said; however, he felt that staff should be asked to meet with the neighbors again to discuss these issues. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the council post- pone consideration of the proposed improvements on Crescent Avenue for 30 days to allow staff to meet with the affected property owners to see if a broader consensus could be achieved relative to the design of the project. Ms. Schue did not see any advantage in postponing a decision on this item. She felt that the council agreed with the total width and general design of the street, and that staff could be directed to address the issue of the turn lane and parking without postponing action. Ms. Smith asked what effect a decision to postpone consideration for 30 days would have on the project. Mr. Teitzel responded that a 30-day delay could create a problem with constructing the project during this construction year. He added that if the bids were made to do the work this year, the bids might well be higher to compensate for the short amount of time within which to complete the project. He noted that changes in street design could be made and brought back to the council at the time that the council considers the bid award. Mr. Lindberg said that although he had seconded the motion, he would vote against it, because he felt that it was unfair to raise the expectations of property owners by delaying the project when it seemed pretty clear that the council would ultimately give approval. Ms. Wooten said that she would vote against the motion. She indicated that she had mixed feelings about both the cost and equity of assessments, but that she felt more comfortable knowing that a proposal will soon come before the council to allow low-income deferrals and that the improvements will ultimately add to the value of the properties in question. Roll call vote. Motion failed 1:6, with Councilor Obie voting aye, and Councilors Hamel, Lindberg, Miller, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting no. Mr. Swanson noted that a petition on the matter had been filed by 28 of the 43 lot owners whose property fronts on Crescent. He said that in the case where more than 50 percent of the property owners remonstrate against an improvement, Section 9 of the City Charter states that no contract for the improvement or repairs may be let until the City Council reconsiders the necessity of that improvement and passes it by a two-thirds vote. He indicated that there would be an additional council hearing on the matter when the bids are awarded and at that time the two-thirds vote will be necessary to let the contract. Mr. Hamel said that he lived in this neighborhood and that he firmly believed that the improvements were necessary to provide for the safety of cyclists, joggers, and pedestrians on Crescent. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 13