CC Minutes - 07/08/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Nathanson asked the purpose of the delay if the outcome would not be different. Councilor Pap~ did not know if there would be a change in the final outcome, but he had been made aware of what he considered valid challenges to the road project. For example, there were suggestions that the bicycle path was not built to legal width. He was also concerned about whether the road was constructed according to design, and suggested that an outside consultant be hired to determine whether there were manufacturing defects. Mr. Klope said that there were several defects to the surfacing of the roadway that the contractor was directed to remedy. None of those defects would result in additional costs to the City or to the property owners. Therefore, staff decided to proceed with the assessments and stop the interest expense. In response to a question from Councilor Rayor, Mr. Klope described the problems being experienced with the roadway surface. He said the City notified the contractor that the surface must be repaved. Councilor Rayor did not think delaying the assessments would be in the public interest. He said that no one wants to pay assessments. It was up to the City to work through the quality control issues. He pointed out that the assessment method in question was arrived at through a considerable amount of work with Lane County. Councilor Rayor said that everyone else in the City with a paved street had paid for it when they paid for their house. He said the council needed to uphold the policies of the Public Works Department and the established method of paying for streets. City Manager Carlson said that the Hearings Officials' findings were clear that the property owners would not be assessed for the road surface deficiencies. Further, the property owners do not pay for the bicycle lanes or other related road amenities. The amount being assessed was based on sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and seven feet of pavement. He did not believe delay would change the final assessment unless the council directed the staff to deviate from the ordinance the council adopted in 2001. Councilor Taylor asked if the contractor could be required to pay the interest. Mr. Lidz said that he would have to examine the contract. Councilor Taylor thought that such an approach would be fair. She noted her opposition to the City's method of street assessments, and thought it unfair residents be assessed before the project was done. Mr. Lidz agreed with City Manager Carlson that the assessment method was dictated by ordinance and would not change as a result of the delay. The City Charter limits the council's ability to do anything other than assess according to the ordinance. Councilor Meisner asked if the quality control corrections related to the project would be affected by the motion. Mr. Klope said no. Councilor Meisner concurred with the remarks of Councilor Rayor, saying delay was not in the City's interests. Councilor Kelly supported the findings of the Hearings Officials and the track the project was on. Staff was addressing the deficiencies that exist. The question of whether the bicycle lane was legal was addressed at length in the minutes of the Hearings Official. He said that the project was MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 7 Regular Meeting