JOINT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'/
SPRINGFIELD AND EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
June 18, 2003
Springfield City Hall
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1189 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D, Policy #13 and Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (NBA & PM 6/4/03)
Mayor Sid Leiken presided with Springfield City Councilors Anne Ballew, Tim Malloy, Dave Ralston and John Woodrow present.† Tammy Fitch and Stu Burge were excused.
Mayor Jim Torrey presided with Eugene City Councilors Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, George Poling and Betty Taylor present.† Jennifer Solomon was excused.†
Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Tom Lininger and Anna Morrison present.
Mayor Leiken called the meeting to order.
Mayor Leiken opened the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.
Mayor Torrey opened the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.
Commissioner Sorenson opened the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Mayor Leiken asked for any conflicts of interests from the joint elected officials.
There were none.
Cynthia Pappas, City of Springfield, explained their public hearing is on Ordinance† No. 1 for the Springfield City Council, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text,† Chapter III, Section D, Policy #13, adopting an exception to the Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway: and adopting a Severability Clause.
Greg Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield, explained the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to Chapter III of the Metro Plan and to consider adoption of the goal exceptions in the Willamette River Greenway, Goal 15.† He noted the action is required by two documents that the area must adhere to.† He explained that Policy 13, of the Metro Plan, states that any transportation-related facility that places fill within the setbacks must take a goal exception before that fill can occur.† He added it also states that in the Willamette Greenway in the setback, if a proposed non-water related non-water dependent use is to be placed within the greenway setback, the goal exception is required.† He noted the Metro Plan also requires that all three jurisdictions participate in any goal exception that is not related to an urban growth boundary amendment.
Mott explained the area of the exception is the ODOT right of way as it crosses the Willamette River.† He noted the City of Springfield did not have a greenway setback prior to the application of ODOT to go forward with the project.† He said their planning commission met on May 20 to establish a setback line. He noted their planning commission had also heard a request for a discretionary approval for an intensification of use within the greenway setback area. He explained the planning commissionís decision was contingent upon the elected officialsí approving the exception.
Mott noted the joint planning commissions met on June 3 to consider the findings and the request for the goal exception of the Metro Plan amendment.† He explained that the June 6 memorandum (copy in file) on the last page, summarizes the conclusion of the planning commission. It forwards recommendations to the elected officials approving the goal exception and the plan amendment subject to three changes.† He noted one change included boater safety on the canoe canal and the Willamette River during construction.† He stated a request was made that the elected officials consider the implication of a specific clause in the Metro Plan tax amendment as an ordinance, (attachment 6) the text language proposed includes a clause that addresses future capacity or safety improvements for the portion of I-5 right-of-way over the Willamette River.† He said it was the feeling of members of all three planning commissions that the distinction should be made †regarding the extent of the future action.† He stated they requested the elected officials consider that clause to amend it, delete it, or leave it as is.† He added they did not forward any alternative language.† He recalled there were six people who testified at the joint planning commission hearing and the testimony was summarized in the staff report (copy in file.)† He passed out a map describing where the right-of-way was in relation to the roadway. (Copy in file.)† He noted the proposed routing of the detour bridge is within the ODOT right-of-way and there is a support structure that requires fill and the fill is outside of ODOTís property, but the roadway surface is itself within the greenway.† He noted language had been proposed by the planning commission on a condition that calls for a construction, mitigation and restoration plan.† He reported people were in agreement with the specifics of those three plans.
Pape asked if they made their decision subject to approval that ODOT consider in their plans for the new bridge, a three lane bridge on both sides and an onramp north out of Glenwood from Franklin Boulevard and an off-ramp south onto Franklin Boulevard into Eugene.
Mott responded they could include any condition that everyone agrees with.† He said they didnít prepare any findings that would support that.† He added the findings they prepared addressed the impacts of the detour bridge within the greenway setback.† He noted there would be a NEPA process for the replacement bridge.† He added the format and the techniques that were applied to the stakeholder Beltline, I-5 group will be employed for this.†
Jeff Scheick, Region Manager, ODOT, explained their goal is to restore normal traffic to I-5, as quickly as possible.† He said they have to replace the Willamette River Bridge and the two McKenzie River Bridges in the Eugene-Springfield area.† He noted in order to accomplish this, they have to design and build two replacement bridges over the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers.† He estimated that effort would take a period of seven years.† He explained the first step is installing the two detour bridges.† He noted the detour bridges would be in place until the permanent bridges are built and open and then the detour bridges would be removed.† He added the detour bridge is on a fast track in order to restore the traffic on I-5 as soon as possible.† He hoped they would have a job bid in early September and the detour bridges would be open by November 2004.
Scheick commented that I-5 is the West Coast economic lifeline that goes from Canada to Mexico and the current situation is that heavy haul trucks are not able to use bridges on I-5 in the Eugene Springfield area because the bridges canít carry the loads.† He noted the bridges are old and had been exposed to conditions and it is time for replacement.† He estimated the economic impact of the detours to the trucking industry is about $38,000 per day. He stated by building the detour bridges now, they are able to get them in place by November 2004 and the cost of the existing detours to the trucking industry will be at a cost of $23 million.† He added the cost is passed off to the local consumers.† He commented if they wait to build the detour bridges, the cost to the trucking industry and consumers would become $62 million.† He estimated the cost of both detour bridges is $38 million and if they† install them now, they would be saving a cost to the trucking industry and the consumers.†
Scheick stated that ODOT is committed to working with local governments to reduce the environmental and community impacts associated with the bridge replacement program and the long-term issues related to the bridge replacements.† He said the goal is to restore the traffic flow on I-5 as quickly as possible.† He said they heard the concerns from the planning commissions and are addressing them.
Dean Fuller, Project Leader, ODOT,† Area 5 Office, Springfield, explained this project is fast track and does not resemble ODOTís normal process for developing a project.† He noted they are doing several things simultaneously.† He said the design process of the project would last about nine months.† He said the project team looked at the impacts to the parks themselves.† He said they wanted to keep it as tight as possible and there was more room on the east side as opposed to the west side due to the power lines.† He added there was going to be impacts to residences on the west side if they decided to put the detour on the west side.†† He said they reduced the size of the bridge from ODOTís normal standard.
Fuller explained the techniques they are using in the project include reusable parts.† He noted the main structure itself has 115 foot 4 x 4 box girders.† He added those would be able to be used on other detour bridges throughout the state for future projects.† He said they are continuing to work on the easements with Willamalane.† He added they are working on permits with the City of Eugene and they will be accessing the project on Walnut Road from Leo Harris Parkway and that road will be reconditioned to bring the contractor in.† He said their bid let date is set for September 4 and construction should start by October 1.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, asked how much additional fill would be placed in the area and what impacts it will have to the existing floodway boundaries.† He asked what liabilities the state would take on regarding any damage that might occur within the temporary period.† He asked what would happen if there was flooding and it caused damages to homes that donít currently exist in the floodway.† He noted the Willamette Greenway has certain criteria regarding visual aspects and the addition of adding more piers into the river would create hazards to boaters.† He wanted to make sure the existing bridge is not torn down until they obtain funding for the new ďsignatureĒ bridge that is going to replace it.† He commented once they destroy the existing bridge before they get the funding is foolhardy. He asked where the new staging area would be.† His concern was what they are calling a temporary bridge might become a permanent one.† He added if the state doesnít improve economically, that they would have to live with a temporary bridge if it becomes permanent.† He suggested firm language stating that this is a temporary bridge and it would be removed within seven to ten years as ODOT has stated.
David Sonnichson, Chair, Whilamut Natural Area, Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee.† He commented because of the nature of this greenway exception process,† their committee (made up of citizens of Eugene and Springfield) appointed and confirmed by elected officials represents the public interest of park constituents.† He said they have been an asset in impressing ODOT with the uniqueness of the urban park managed for natural values.† He said the proof of how the project will be seen in how the contractors (selected by ODOT) actually implement and adhere to construction and habitat restoration plans.† He commented if ODOT managers can work as well as contractors as they had with their committee, the Whilamut Natural Area would come through the temporary bridge project in tact.† He thought the language from Attachment page 11, lines 5 and 6 might be too broad for the necessary scope of the project.
Mark Robinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin, Eugene, stated this had been an issue for many years.† He thought trucks should pay the† costs since they caused the problem, instead of the individual motorist.† He suggested building one bridge instead of two could cut the cost.† He commented that Section 4F of the 1966 Transportation Act requires that if avoidance is not possible, then minimization of an impact is required.† He noted this applies to both direct impacts on the park and proximity impacts.† He stated if the road could be kept within the ODOT right-of-way,† cutting back or eliminating the fill altogether would satisfy that requirement.† He said ODOT should consider paying for severing the park since it is a taking of the park and should be required to provide compensation.† He thought the most important issue besides keeping the road at four lanes is how oil will affect transportation planning.† He suggested the bridge have a full shoulder so if there is an accident, people could pull off to the side.† He thought the current situation was dangerous.
Sorenson stated the Board of Commissioners had agreed when they set the second reading to ask questions but† they wouldnít be taking any action other than to roll it over. He asked about the purpose of the Eugene Springfield Metro General Plan and the reason for involvement of either the City of Eugene or Lane County in this matter
Mott responded a goal exception that is a higher standard of a post acknowledgment plan amendment is set apart from other plan amendments by the agreement of the three jurisdictions.† He added most of the goal exceptions that occur within the plan boundary are going to be Lane Countyís responsibility on the resource lands.† He said when they do an urban growth boundary amendment, they almost always have to do a goal exception because they are including resource land inside the urban growth boundary.† He commented this was unique to the Willamette Greenway and it is established in the Administrative Rules that this has to be done.† He said the plan says that all three jurisdictions must agree to a goal exception and since state law says the plan needs to be amended when they take a goal exception, all three have to participate.
Sorenson asked how this related to TransPlan and if they have to bring in the other TransPlan partners to amend TransPlan to undertake an investment of federal funds within a fifty year period and why it is not included in the constrained list or future list.† He explained the question asked was specific to the I-5 crossing of the McKenzie River.
Mott understood the Willamette River crossing is in TransPlan, but it was identified as a more significant project than bridge replacement because it discusses the potential for an interchange at that site.† He didnít think the McKenzie River was in TransPlan.
Sorenson asked if they would have to build out the constrained list before funding projects to allow the federal or state government to fund projects in a future list.
Mott stated that the STIP needed to be amended in order to fund the project and that the OTC amended the STIP when they funded the project.† He stated he was referring to the detour bridge, not the replacement bridge.† He noted there are other processes that will occur for the replacement bridge.† He added it was an unusual circumstance and not something they thought would occur.
Sorenson commented a park was involved and possible federal funding to build a federal facility across a parkland.† He asked what ODOTís view was around the 4F issue.
Bonnie Heitsch, Department of Justice, explained the detour would be fully funded with state funds so it doesnít invoke the federal 4F requirements.† She added the replacement bridge would be funded with federal funds and thereby through the NEPA process the replacement bridge would be subject to the 4F requirements.
Sorenson asked how long the detour bridge would be temporary.
Heitsch responded the design life is expected to be ten years.
Sorenson asked what other opportunities for public comment would be taking place.
With regard to the permanent bridge structure, Hutch believed that ODOT would embark on a full EIS NEPA-type process.† She noted there would be an extensive stakeholder involvement process that is tailored to meet individual community needs.† She added from the NEPA process there is a draft document that will be prepared and there will be another opportunity for public testimony and comment and then a final document will be prepared.† She noted in-between the draft and the final document, all necessary land use actions will need to be taken.† She said at that point if there are† necessary land use actions, then the hearings would occur and there would be public testimony and opportunity for involvement at that level.† She explained with the 4F issue, the document would be prepared concurrently with the environmental NEPA document and there would be opportunity for comment and opinions as that document is prepared.† She said the goal is to avoid the park altogether.† She thought there could be ways to avoid or mitigate impacts.
Bettman asked what the process would be if one or all jurisdictions wanted to amend the adoption ordinance.†
Mott stated they could add the map to the findings and if they want to amend the findings that it is part of the public hearing process.† He noted the City of Springfield was not adopting this as an emergency ordinance, they are having a second reading on July 7 and they will take action that night.† He thought it was okay to change the† language in their ordinance, proposed in the Metro Plan text.† He added that all three jurisdictions have to adopt the same Metro Plan and if not, it goes into conflict resolution mode.
Bettman asked how this would be† coordinated.
Jan Childs, City of Eugene, explained they try to get some direction from the elected officials during this discussion process.† She said there was a suggestion from the three planning commissions that the elected officials seriously consider deleting a clause from the proposed text if they got such direction from the elected officials tonight† Then they could prepare revised ordinances, she said.† She said they are staggering the adoption of this, with the host jurisdiction going first.† She thought they could have a tentative approval and then come back to adopt an ordinance later.
Bettman asked why the language of the exception includes the permanent bridge.† She asked if the permanent bridge is eventually modified during the design process to reflect some of the projects they had heard, if that meant the permanent bridge project would already have an exemption.
Mott responded the future bridge is included to allow the existing alignment to be used as a future bridge because the scope of the bridge didnít go beyond that alignment.† He said it wasnít a matter of critical concern that that be included because the NEPA project would probably take three years and before a final decision is made, if it is a significant departure from the existing alignment, they could invoke Policy 13† to also have a greenway exception.
Bettman commented because of the time that is going to be involved in doing the planning and design work for the permanent bridge, it was premature to include an exemption.† She added there were several caveats in the ordinance including the one that was questioned by the planning commissions.† She said the findings did not address all of the caveats.† She thought it would be cleaner since† they are trying to accomplish the fast track of the detour bridge that they should be taking the permanent bridge out because they are pre-approving exemptions without knowing what it would look like.† She noted the right-of-way was also referenced in the† new wording for the Metro Plan amendment.† She asked what the dimensions were and whether or not the findings should include a legal description of what the right-of-way is.† She noted the right-of- way extends west of the existing permanent bridge and the footprint of the proposed permanent bridge into the City of Eugeneís jurisdiction.† She asked if the exemption extends into that right-of-way, even though there is nothing mentioned for that right-of-way.
Fuller explained on the north side of the river, ODOT's right of way is 170 feet east of the centerline of the existing highway and 165 feet west of the existing centerline highway.
Bettman suggested including the map in the adoption that contains the specific dimensions.†† She commented that all of the† findings are predicated on the bridge being temporary. She asked what happens at some point in the future if the decision is made to modify the terminus and use it for bus rapid transit or bicycles and pedestrians.† She also asked what happens if this bridge becomes permanent.
Mott responded the expectation is that the bridge would come down once the replacement bridge goes up.† He said the findings that are responsive to the greenway goals, in particular restoration, presume that it is going to come down and the land area would be restored to equal to or better than it is today.† He said there is an assumption in the findings that justify the exception that it is coming down and the ordinance speaks to its removal.† He said the question about setting a time limit on it so they would know for certain when it would come down, or the possibility of it staying forever was discussed at the joint planning commission hearing.† He said the discussion of a date certain was dismissed because of the uncertainty about funding and how long it might take.† He said the design life was lasting longer than ten years.† He didnít think there was anything in the ordinance where the detour bridge will come down when the replacement bridge goes up.
Bettman suggested it would be easy and a necessary part of the ordinance to explicitly state the detour bridge would come down when the replacement bridge goes up.† She asked what the options were for staging of the project.
With regard to staging, Fuller stated that ODOT would not give an option.† He said staging the locations would have to be the burden of the contractor.† He said it would slightly benefit local contractors because they would have their own yards for materials.† He added there would be some availability of staging between the Patterson slough structure or the canoe canal and the Willamette River structure on the fill itself.
Bettman commented her issues are including the actual dimensions and the map in with the findings. She recommended removing the suggested language from the ordinance that the two planning commissions recommended comes out on number three,† taking out all the extra caveats that are not covered in the findings.† She requested to take the reference to the permanent bridge out of the ordinance because there will be a long public process and it is premature to go ahead and provide that exemption without knowing what the alignment would look like and how it might be modified.† She also wanted to include definitive language regarding the explicit intended ten-year design span for the detour bridge.
With regard to attachment 16, goal 7, discussing the site overlay district and the floodplain, Woodrow stated there was nothing mentioned about seismic considerations.† He asked if that would be part of the site plan for the temporary bridge.
Fuller stated that the detour structure will be built on concrete columns and that was their best option for seismic events.† He said it would have a better chance of withstanding a seismic event than the existing structure does.† He commented they were doing that to ODOT standards.
With regard to goal 8, the recreational needs, Woodrow asked if Alton Baker Park would continue to be open to people and if they would need to close the park, how long it would be closed.
Fuller responded the project plans include building pedestrian structures underneath the existing structures that are 14 feet wide to protect bicyclists and pedestrians so they could walk underneath the work activity and be protected.† He commented the only time they would close the paths off would be when they would be setting the girders over the top.† He thought the closure for each path would be a day or two and then bicyclists and pedestrians would be redirected from the Willamette River through the canoe canal and around so there would be access through it.† He added it would be harder on the south end bike path because there would be no way to redirect them.† He said they would have to have flaggers working.
Woodrow asked if the bond for the contractors would be reduced so that local contractors could afford to work on this project.
Fuller stated the contract is estimated to be about $38.6 million and there would be competition with local contractors.† He added the project deals with both the bridges at the Willamette and the McKenzie.
Kelly supported the need of the project going ahead.† He was concerned about putting in a stipulation about a permanent bridge because Fuller previously discussed setting up a stakeholder working group on the Beltline I-5 project.† He didnít want to get into permanent bridge matters with this goal exception because he wanted to keep it simple and move it ahead to get the detour bridge built.
Childs said there is a use permit being negotiated that would speak to the use of that as an access road, but the Willamette Greenway permit would not be required.
Kelly noted the right-of-way map did not show the right- of-way south of the river and since the project impacts that area† he wanted to see the diagram of the south side of the river.† He asked if the change in flood impact had been examined.
Mott responded that ODOT had applied for a fill permit in the floodway and they are processing that.† He added they also submitted a land alteration permit.† He said they are required to do different levels of analysis of the impact of the fill when it is in the floodway as opposed to just the floodplain.
Kelly suggested keeping the amendment simple.† He noted it was a condition of support for him to strike the future capacity language from the ordinance in the Metro Plan.† He said they have no idea where or what the permanent bridge would be.† He didnít want to approve it now.† He added it was a lightweight process with so much money involved for the goal exception.† He said it shouldnít be a burden to have public input.† He liked the idea that the greenway exception gives the elected officials a chance to review the permanent bridge.† He wanted to see language prepared that would eliminate the references to the permanent and the future.
Lininger commented because no federal funding is involved in the construction that the detour bridge would not be required to have a NEPA process.† He noted that NEPA requires an analysis of accumulative impacts.† He thought the impacts caused by the detour bridge must be accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis required in the EIS for the permanent bridge.† He stated that they would be accountable for any environmental damage.† He didnít want to proceed in such haste that problems are created before the NEPA permanent process.† He was concerned because Oregon has heavier load limits than other western states.† He saw the problem recurring if ODOT doesnít address the disparity of load limits in Oregon.† He also wanted to insert language that would include within the scope of the Goal 15 exception any future capacity or safety improvements.
Green asked if the request for this exception is precedent setting.† He asked if anyone else in the state was doing this.
Mott responded that Policy 13 is unique to Lane County.† He noted it had been in place for a long time.† He said the Administrative Rule applies to the entire reach of the Willamette that is subject to the Willamette River Green Goal and it specifically states that if it is not a water related or water dependent use, it requires a goal exception and it also identifies activities that are ďnot normally considered water related or water dependentĒ and that includes transportation facilities.† He commented that ODOT was staying within its right-of-way except for some fill that would go onto Willamalaneís property and they are getting an easement to do that.† He added once the detour bridge comes down then the fill will be removed and it would no longer affect the greenway goal.
Hutch explained the goal itself also has an exception for the repair of existing structures like bridges, in the Willamette Greenway across the state.† She noted that ODOT had not constructed a brand new bridge that wasnít previously there.† She added that Lane Countyís Metro Plan Provision Policy 13 is triggering this.
Torrey asked if all of the monies coming to construct both the detour bridge and the new bridge will be new dollars and if there was a requirement for a TransPlan amendment.† He stated it would be adding something to the TransPlan constrained list or futures list, identifying the dollar source to pay for it.
Child stated the detour bridge is all new state money that is separate from the TransPlan money.
Torrey asked how people going north would get off at I-5 onto Franklin going east or west with the detour bridge.
Fuller noted that ramp would be closed for seven days while they are working.† He commented the detour alignment is such they would have to dig down the ramp about eight feet.† He noted they would detour traffic either through the Glenwood Boulevard interchange or through McVay.† He explained the eastbound Franklin† Boulevard ramp would not be affected.
Torrey asked if ODOT would be going outside of their right-of-way for the bridge.
Fuller explained on the north side, the tour of the slope would be outside of their right of way and the Willamalane Park in the Whilamut natural area.† He said it is approximately 7/10 of an acreís worth.† He said there is an issue because of land and conservation funds.† He said they would be required to replace some land for the Willamalane Park District.† He noted on the south end, they are within their right-of-way with the exception of a small area where they go over the top of the Lane County solid waste site in Glenwood and they are working on the easements for that.
With regard to the detour bridge, Scheick stated the bridge is built to the current bridge engineering design standards following seismic design practices.† He said structurally the bridge would be safe for as long as it needed to be there.† He said their desire is for the detour bridge to be there a minimum amount of time to get to the permanent bridge as soon as they can.
Kelly commented what fill is done versus what sort of piering is done would vary the park impact and he wanted to postpone that until they had an indication of a bridge design in front of them.† He also wanted to know where the ramps are placed and the park impact of the ramps.† He wanted to have the elected officials re-examine that in the future.
Bettman commented this doesnít preclude anything from happening, it defines clearly what the exemption in the greenway is for.
MOTION: to direct staff to return with a revised ordinance, findings and exhibits to include the right-of-way map and the dimensions in feet in the southern ODOT right-of-way and to explicitly indicate where a temporary detour bridge will be deconstructed in a stated time frame with a maximum of ten years and to remove the language in the ordinance referring to a permanent bridge and to include the recommendation of the two planning commissions for the deletion, which is the number three recommendation.
Meg Kiernan, Assistant City Attorney, explained what is triggering this proceeding is Policy 13 in the Metro Plan which the three jurisdictions enacted years ago, that says if fill is going to be put into the Willamette Greenway, there has to be an exception taken to statewide planning Goal 15.† She noted the language in the Metro Plan that is adopted through this ordinance stays in the Metro Plan until the Metro Plan is changed.† She added if any future bridge does not create fill, they donít need to deal with the Goal 15 exception process.
Bettman commented that all the motion does is make the scope of the exception consistent with the findings and the intent to facilitate the quick building of a detour bridge.
Kelly wanted to get a motion that would pass all three jurisdictions.† He wanted to hear ODOTís concerns on the deconstruction timeframe.† He commented that Poling suggested that the time certain could be within a certain period of time after the permanent bridge.† The maker of the motion accepted that.† He stated the detour bridge wouldnít have to come down until the permanent bridge opened.
Scheick considered that a more workable solution for ODOT.
Bettman asked if there would be any chance that the permanent bridge wouldnít get built and they would end up with the same bridge and the detour bridge.† She said the clarifications could be made between now and when they see the revised language.
Meisner supported the motion but he was concerned because they told the public they would not be taking action.
VOTE BY THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL: Unanimous.
Ballew wanted to see the written Eugene motion brought back to their council.
Leiken asked if the Springfield City Councilors were in favor of Bettmanís motion.
Sorenson stated that the Board of Commissioners would not take any action.
Green didnít believe they had an adequate response on what the potential implications would be.†
Leiken stated that Ballew asked staff to come back with comments from the motion made by Bettman.
Bettman thought it was important to give staff direction tonight because of the fast timeline and the fact that it was going to bid September 04.
Childs explained they would have the revised language drafted in time for the Springfield City Council review July 7.
Sorenson asked for the revised language that the City of Eugene would be getting.†
Torrey asked when ODOT needed an answer from the joint elected officials.
Scheick stated they are trying to get to bid by the first week of September.† He added they could not if they donít have closure with the elected officials.† He said they needed the approval by the three jurisdictions by July 31.
Mayor Leiken closed the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.
Mayor Torrey closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.
Sorenson closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
MOTION: to approve the Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on Ordinance† PA 1189 for July 16, 2003.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Dwyer out of room.)
Leiken reported that the City of Springfield would convene on July 7, 2003 on this issue.
Mayor Leiken, Mayor Torrey and Commissioner Sorenson adjourned their jurisdictions at 8:25 p.m.