Laserfiche WebLink
Citing the improvements on the Ferry Street Bridge, Mr. Pap8 asked if the City was leading by <br />example and ensuring that its contractors followed the law. Mr. Reinhard said the City took that <br />responsibility very seriously, but acknowledged there had been some problems associated with <br />the bridge project. Mr. Pap8 said that the City had the ability to secure agreements from those <br />working in the right-of-way that confirm their intention to follow the applicable regulations. Mr. <br />Reinhard said that while the current process could be improved, he believed that the lack of <br />enforcement of those agreements in some cases was the greater problem. Mr. Pap8 suggested <br />that the City could require contractors to certify that they had reviewed the rules. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey noted his interest in State legislation that allowed cities large enough to administer <br />contracts to oversee local Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects. He cited <br />ODOT's decision to send staff out to change lights during daytime, high-volume hours, requiring <br />lane closures and backing up traffic when the work could have been done at night. As an <br />example of his concern, Mayor Torrey suggested that the Council Committee on <br />Intergovernmental Relations could further develop the concept and forward it to the legislature <br />through the League of Oregon Cities. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr endorsed Mayor Torrey's remarks. He said that people do not care about the cause of <br />delay, they just cared they were being delayed. He suggested that the council needed to take a <br />big picture look at the topic, and indicated willingness as a member of the Council Committee on <br />Intergovernmental Relations to discuss the mayor's suggestion. Mr. Farr thought the City had <br />done a good job in educating the public about what to expect in terms of road projects during the <br />construction season and believed a similar focus on education was called for in this instance. He <br />expressed concern that the public had somewhat unreasonable expectations about what the City <br />could provide and suggested again that the City needed to communicate with residents about <br />what they could reasonably expect in terms of City services. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Farr that communication was a large part of the problem, saying that <br />the City needed to do a better job of communicating with developers and the affected public. He <br />also concurred with Mr. Kelly that the lack of a central answering point for complaints was an <br />issue that should be addressed. He also believed the City needed to have a way to track repeat <br />offenders but that data was not now collected. He asked staff to think of additional ways to <br />communicate with those who would be affected by a temporary loss of access. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that the City should ensure that whatever legislation it proposed had a <br />funding source. She applauded the staff suggestion for a temporary position. She thought it was <br />an interim approach that gave the City time to study the issue before it applied a permanent <br />solution. Ms. Nathanson supported option 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He liked option 3 or option 2 as an interim measure and <br />requested information about the fiscal impact of the proposal. Mr. Reinhard estimated the cost at <br />$5,000 to $10,000. Mr. Lee said he needed more information about the source of the funding. <br />He asked if either option would require code changes. Mr. Reinhard believed that the needed <br />code language and related administrative rules were in place. He suggested that increased <br />enforcement might reveal gaps in the existing regulations. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee noted that the issue was not a priority for him but he was open to the staff <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />