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