Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Papé believed the study should proceed and the City should take advantage of the federal earmark. Mr. Kelly thanked ODOT and City staff. He referred to the signage around I-5 and the Franklin interchange and said it was challenging, to say the least. He asked if ODOT could work with the two local jurisdictions on a project to improve signage. Ms. Lee indicated that ODOT would be happy to partner on such a project. Mr. Kelly thought that was a very positive thing. Mr. Kelly said he continued to believe a full interchange at I-5/Franklin was a good thing in the abstract and for that reason he had been willing to study the issue. However, the process had gone beyond the abstract and it was now clear, for example, that the interchange could not be constructed with the replacement bridge. He was also concerned about the loss of access to residents in the lower Laurel Hill Valley. He said that the estimated costs had given him sticker shock. Any study that went forward should consider what was doable, and he did not think the ramps were doable. He also noted considerable community opposition to the project and wished to constrain what was studied to some degree. Mr. Poling thanked ODOT staff for its honesty about the need for the project. He liked the idea of exploring possibilities for improvements to the ramps already in place. He thought the fact the study was not limited to adding new ramps were a positive thing. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if one jurisdiction did not want to proceed. Ms. Gardner said whatever jurisdiction supported the proposal would have to determine if the cost was worth doing the study alone. . Mr. Poling suggested the $20,000 cost was a worthwhile investment. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Gardner that a portion of the match could be provided through end-kind services. Ms. Gardner was unsure of that amount. She noted that ODOT had indicated it might co-manage the project and provide funding. The value of staff resources was included within the $20,000 match. Ms. Bettman said that it appeared there were several different types of ramps were still being discussed and asked if bridge ramps were “off the table.” Ms. Gardner clarified that ODOT had not found a clear transportation problem to solve for the State highway need but she did not think anything was “off the table.” The refinement planning process would frame what was examined and identify next steps. Ms. Bettman said the motion mentioned both I-5 at Glenwood and I-5 at Franklin, and all the options related to Franklin included the elevated bridge ramps. Mr. Boyatt indicated there were one or two diamond folded ramps that did not cross the river but had an impact on adjacent property. Ms. Bettman indicated she could support an examination of the I-5/Glenwood interchange in terms of improved access and egress and converting that area into more of a gateway to the community. She acknowledged it was a distance from Franklin Boulevard where the city limits commenced but the cost differential between the two areas was huge and the money more effectively spent on that area than on bridge ramps at Franklin Boulevard. However, she was not sure given that vague wording in the materials and the lack of a shared understanding among councilors as to the nature of the project. She pointed out that Glenwood/I-5 intersection was under Springfield’s jurisdiction and she did not recall a time when Springfield had offered to pay a cash match for a Eugene project. Mr. Boyatt clarified that I-5 was the demarcation between Eugene and Springfield, so half of the Glenwood interchange was in Eugene. Ms. Bettman asked what staff envisioned would result from adoption of the staff-prepared motion. Ms. Gardner said staff envisioned an examination of a broad geographic area to look at access and circulation for the two cities. Staff did not want to limit the examination. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 7 Work Session