mykle-

The issue is that the city said it would be the contractor for the project and that the original agreement did not have any provision for cost-overruns. OHSU and property owners would foot the bill (for a set $15, then $40m) while the city would actually build the project.

When the cost overruns started, it put everything into a legal situation that was not clearly spelled out in the original agreement, hence all the problems now.

In hindsight, having a clause about any cost overruns seems like it would've been a wise course of action. But I don't know exactly how the agreement was drafted up or who did it.

Sam had left Vera's office about a year and a half before he was elected and entered office in January 2005, so the tram never came across his radar - because of that, we are learning a lot about the project now that Sam wasn't involved with and hadn't seen before. It's been quite a learning process!

We posted the contracts up on this site a while ago- you can find copies of the original contracts and ordinance on the links below. The second link has other information on the history of the project that may prove helpful.

http://www.commissionersam.com/sam_adams/2005/11/stop_the_tram_p.html

http://www.commissionersam.com/sam_adams/2005/10/issue_update_po.html