Laserfiche WebLink
C. WORK SESSION: <br /> <br />Oregon Department of Transportation Presentation on I-5/Willamette River Bridge Project <br /> <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor invited Transportation Planning Engineer for the Public Works Department, Chris <br />Henry, to the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Henry introduced Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff member, Tim Dodson, and <br />consultant for the project, Lou Krug. He noted that the existing bridge was 45 years old; in a 2002 <br />assessment it had been found to be damaged and the repairs would not be cost effective. <br /> <br />Mr. Dodson provided a power point presentation entitled The OTIA III State Bridge Delivery Program <br />and the Willamette River Bridge, hard copies of which were provided to the council and staff. He <br />reminded the council that the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) III had included $1.3 billion <br />for the repair and replacement of 365 bridges around the State, of which the Willamette River Bridge was <br />one. He said originally the bridge had been scheduled for approximately $70 million but since then it had <br />been increased to $180 million. He added that at this point in time the whole program was in “negative <br />reserve.” <br /> <br />Mr. Dodson recognized the members of the Community Advisory Group who were present noting that they <br />had been participating in the design process for the bridge and had been very helpful. He reported that <br />ODOT had met with the Laurel Hill Valley Neighborhood, the City of Springfield, and the American <br />Institute of Architects. He said they would meet with the County Commissioners later in the week and <br />hoped to meet with the Fairmount Neighbors as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Dodson related that impacts to the environment were of primary interest to the regulators. He stated <br />that the project was in the environmental assessment phase. He explained that as the environmental analysis <br />was conducted a better idea of the number of piers and the bridge footprint would be known. He said they <br />had identified which bridge types could be afforded by the current budget. He noted that ODOT was <br />planning to procure a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), adding that having construction <br />experience interfacing with the design process would bring energy to the design team. He showed slides of <br />the conceptual designs that had been formulated thus far and delineated the differences between them. <br /> <br />In conclusion, Mr. Dodson stated that ODOT was willing to build any bridge but only had $70 million to <br />allocate to it unless additional funds could be brought in. He noted that the $70 million was for the bridge <br />structure alone. He said the project included funding for another $110 million in engineering and other <br />costs, noting that it would cost several million dollars to demolish the existing bridge alone. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that the designs responded to the City’s needs but not to its “wishes.” She said it <br />had been hoped that the bridge would be a “signature bridge” and would serve as a gateway to the two <br />communities. She asked what the timeline was for additional funds. Mr. Dodson replied that ODOT would <br />need to know of any significant design changes within six months. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if any particular comments had been made by members of the public about the design <br />of the bridge. Mr. Dodson responded that some members of the public had voiced support for an arch kind <br />of structure and some had suggested a cabled bridge. Mr. Henry added that the community response had <br />been mixed with regard to bridge types. He stated that the Community Advisory Group had expressed a <br />preference for reducing the environmental impact over esthetics. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />