(UPDATE: After the cut, the council votes the proposal down, 3-2, because it needed four votes to pass.)

For the past 45 minutes, the city council has been hearing testimony about the Sauvie Island bridge. There’s a proposal on the table to spend $5.5 million to repaint the bridge and move it to NW Flanders Street, where it would become a bike and pedestrian crossing over I-405.

From Scott Bricker of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance to former mayor Bud Clark, there are tons of citizens here speaking in favor of the proposal. Not only does it create a much needed bike-ped connection (the overpasses at Everett and Glisan have freeway on and off ramps that are difficult for bikes and pedestrians to navigate, as pointed out in emotion testimony from Tracey Sparling’s aunt, Susie Kubota, and others), but it creates a landmark, fits with Portland’s values of recycling, and doesn’t cost a whole lot more than a utilitarian bridge that would be half as wide. (Fifteen foot bike/ped crossings around the city have been “almost been undersized since the day they opened,” a city staffer said at the outset of today’s meeting. “‘We can’t build big enough to accommodate the future demand for bikes.”)

Bricker likened it to the Eastbank Esplanade, which “is one of the landmark projects of Portland. The $30 million plus project has absolutely panned out for the city. This project has the potential to be a landmark project for the city, and this council has an opportunity for leadership today.”

So what’s the problem? Mayor Tom Potter. He sent out a memo questioning the proposal, which is being championed by Sam Adams. Potter’s memo sticks largely to fiscal concerns, handing his mayoral candidate endorsee Sho Dozono some ammo to use against Adams (though that would put Dozono in an anti-bike position on this issue).

Randy Leonard and Erik Sten reportedly support Adams proposal. It’s an emergency vote, so Adams needs a third aye—Dan Saltzman’s—to get it passed. Heading into today’s meeting, Saltzman’s chief-of-staff Brendan Finn mentioned that he was working on this issue most of yesterday, but wouldn’t reveal what that meant.

Time to vote:

Adams simply thanks everyone, and votes aye.

Leonard is recounting the history of the old Burnside bridge that was taken apart in 1926—and the three parts reused around the region, including a piece across the Bull Run river, which he loves to see when he tours the watershed.

"I don't think the debate here, by the way, has anything to do with whether there should be a bridge across Flanders," he says. "The issue needs to be framed as to whether or not it's this particular bridge from Sauvie Island, or a concrete bridge that's built."

"We connect ourself with our history when we do [historic preservation]," he says, and that's important to him. What we're getting for the extra money this bridge would cost is "a project that inspires people." He never had a moment of doubt in the project, and he's pleased to support it. Aye.

Saltzman is up—he's the key vote. He thinks the Sauvie Island bridge would be iconic, but he also thinks this contract would make it iconic in another way—it would be the largest sole-source contract in the city's history. He thinks that's the wrong way to do business, and the city should go out to get bids for the best pricing on moving and reinstalling the bridge (the contractor building the new Sauvie Island bridge currently owns the old one, and would be the winners of this contract). "I would recommend that PDOT and Commissioner Adams enter into discussions to purchase the bridge," he says. "Then let's put it out to bid, who can move it an install it at the least cost." He votes no.

Sten says a safer crossing could be accomplished for less money, but he thinks the vision is the right one—it's the kind of place that could be on postcards, as former Mayor Vera Katz used to point out about the tram. "These could be famous last words," he jokes. "It will cost a little bit more, but as is the case in every store on every product, you get what you pay for." There are risks, but he's confident that Adams can manage them. He's also realizing how interesting council will be without him, when there are 2-2 votes. Aye.

Potter: This is about prioritizing. He could see the money being used for sidewalks so children can walk to school. "I'd rather invest that money in sidewalks, in safe ways to school, and in paving streets and reducing traffic congestion and improving traffic safety throughout the city," he says. "For that reason, I vote no."

Adams wants to remove the emergency clause that requires a four person approval, because he has the three votes to approve it in a regular fashion. The city attorney's representative says the people who voted against it though, would have to approve that. So it's not going to happen...