December 7, 2005

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 7/26/06

Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




Item 7. b. is rolled to December 14.  There will be an item 7. f. on future agenda items.   Item 10. b. should be range 6 instead of range 2.







Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, commented that one of Triad’s back up sites is called the western site.  He said in the east campus neighborhood the university still owns 84 houses. He noted they usually sell the houses at $1 per piece.  He hoped the Board could ask the city when they are going to sell the houses and for how much.  He said there is a gateway problem of putting the interchange at Franklin.  He said if they put in a $200 million project, they would have an obvious entrance to the community.  He thought it was a marketing ploy instead of an engineering issue.


Dwyer thought Vishinoff’s time would be better spent at the Eugene City Council, as the university housing is in the city.  He thought the Policy Housing Board should take note of those houses and have a discussion. With regard to Franklin Boulevard, he said the engineering and financial challenges and federal rules associated with interchange spacing will eliminate the Franklin Boulevard and result in a grand upgrade to the existing Glenwood exchange.


Joseph Verna, Junction City, said there are 12 tax lots on Templeton Road instead of 11 tax lots.  He moved to Templeton Road in 1973 and they paid $200 in taxes and the road was graded every spring.  He said in the late 1970’s there was a fire.  He indicated that Darryl Templeton came to him in 1986 and said he had a problem with people coming in and cutting firewood and trespassing.  Templeton requested that a gate be put on the road near his home and Verna had no problem with that.  Verna was given a key.  He said the County stopped grading the road in 1986 because they were never given a key to the gate.  He said they now have a key.  He said the County issued nine building permits in the 80’s and 90’s for three quarters of a mile.  He noted currently there are 21 adults and 8 children who reside there and there are three vacant lots with the possibility of 40 or more April 1986 the County decided to vacate the road.  He said they claimed the road was changed in the 70’s and had a partial right of way.  He said an April 5 letter from the County right of way manager stated that the relocated section was surveyed prior to 1970 with the intent of approving it.  He said when they moved there in 1973 there was no evidence of the road.  He presented a petition of 19 signatures.


Frank Marrs, Junction City, stated the issue was about fire safety.  He said there is one road going up the hill and if there were a fire below his house there would be no way out if they closed the road.  He didn’t think they should allow having so many people living on the hill with no way out if they had a fire.


Paul Templeton, Cheshire, noted there is no road but there is a right of way.  He said the map that Frank Simas, Public Works, referred to had been different than he remembered.  He commented that the right of way was a nuisance to everyone.  He suggested sending out the County surveyor to determine where the right of way is.  He urged the Board to vacate the section of the right of way.


Ann Verna, Junction City, stated she has lived on Templeton Road for 33 years and always walks on the road.  She noted that a lot of people use it.  She thought it was County Road number 50.  She said the County used to maintain the road before the gate was put in.  She said they don’t want the gate removed, they want access in case there was a fire.  She noted that 29 people live on the road.  She didn’t want to see the road go to private hands because of the people using the road.














a. REPORT/Extension Service Quarterly Report.


Charlotte Riersgard, Extension Service, gave her report on the OSU Extension Service. (Copy in file).


b. RECOGNITION/Recognizing Mike Cowles for Receiving the Outstanding Proval User of Year Award. (PULLED)


c. ORDER 05-12-7-1/In the Matter of Awarding Non-Cash S.A.V.E. Awards to Miriam Bolton, H&HS Administration.


ORDER 05-12-7-10 Awarding Judy Borgstahl, H&HS, a S.A.V.E. Award of 8 Hours of Time Management


Stewart said they have two recommendations to give S.A.V.E. awards to Miriam Bolton and Judy Borgstahl.  He said it was the recommendation from the SAVE committee that they award Bolton a S.A.V.E. award and 40 hours of time management and Borgstahl a S.A.V.E. award with 8 hours of time management.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-12-7-10.


Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


VOTE; 5-0.


d. REPORT/Valuations in Measure 37 Cases.


Dr. William Jagger, Department of Economics, OSU, reported that over the past year he had worked with several colleagues to better understand the economics surrounding land use in general and Measure 37.  He said the first conclusion they reached was there was nothing simple or transparent about the land use regulations.  He said they affect property values in complex ways, making it difficult to separate their individual effects.  He noted their second conclusion concerns two economic concepts being used in Measure 37 claims.  He said the two concepts are being used interchangeably when they are different, requiring different estimation methods and different monetary values.  He said that recognizing the difference and its implications are essential for responding appropriately to Measure 37 claims.


Jagger explained the first concept was a change in valuation due to enactment of a land use regulation.  He said it is the concept referred to in the text of Measure 37, when the enactment or enforcement causes the property’s value to be reduced.  He said the second concept was the value of an individual exemption to a land use regulation.  He said that represents the effect of removing a constraint from one landowner while maintaining the same constraint on everyone else.  He said there is a widely held belief that just compensation under Measure 37 is equal to the increase in value if a regulation is waived for that property. He added that belief is incorrect.  He said that waiving or removing a regulation on one property is not the opposite or reverse of applying the regulation to many properties.


Jagger said the first step is to realize that land use regulations could have positive and negative effects on property values.  He said there are studies from across the country documenting that land use regulations raise property values.  He said a land use regulation could make the location a more appealing place to live or work due to open space and trees and people are willing to pay a premium for that.  He said that land use regulations could limit the amount of land that could be developed in a particular area and it could drive up the price of developable land.  He commented that by making some land off limits to development, the scarcity and price of parcels of land that could be developed rises.


Jagger said the second step considers what would happen to a value of an individual property that receives a waiver or variance from a land use regulation.  He noted that regulations represent constraints that limit a landowner’s option.  He indicated if those constraints are removed, the landowner has more flexibility, which could increase the value of land.  He said the value of an individual exception would always be positive, whether the land use regulation had a positive or a negative effect on property values.


Jagger commented that the value of an exemption would be positive whether the land use regulation raised or lowered property values.  He said a positive value for an exemption does not help conclude anything about the effect of land use regulations on property values.  He said if an appraiser tells them that a waiver or variance will increase a property’s value, it does not tell whether the regulation reduced property values.


Jagger noted the way to ask about the reduction in property value is to ask what the property value would be worth today if the land use regulation had not been enacted or enforced at all.  He said answering that question brings up difficult issues.  He said it means it would be difficult if not impossible for Lane County to determine whether there had been a reduction in value due to a land use regulation in a way that reflected sound economic principles.  He said the demand for developable land in any given location would not be the same as it is now, given the scarcity and amenity effects due to the regulations.  He said the claim is based on allowing an individual claimant to have a monopoly opportunity in a market where everyone else is constrained.  He added the waiver or variance does not establish a market free of a particular land use regulation.  He said basing the claims on the value of an individual exemption allows each claimant to argue that the value of their property has been reduced by a land use regulation when in fact that determination had not been made at all. 


Jagger said the two different economic concepts are being used interchangeably and it has led local governments to assume that an appraisal with an increase in value for a waiver or variance is proof that the land use regulation reduced a property’s value.


Dwyer’s concern was equal protection for land.  He asked how a date in time could change expectations and fairness for people who bought land and didn’t expect it to change.


Sorenson asked Jagger what he recommended.


Jagger stated they should recognize that an appraisal that states what the increase in value would be with a waiver for an individual property doesn’t demonstrate that there was a reduction in value due to the land use regulation.  He thought they should go back to the phrase in the measure itself.  He said the idea of a reduction in value due to the land use regulation is broken in two parts.  He asked if there was a reduction in value, if the value of the property is now lower than it was prior to the regulation going into effect.  He added that they should adjust for inflation.  He noted in real purchasing power terms, if the value of the property is lower now than it was prior to when it was purchased or the regulation going into effect, then they would have to ask if that reduction was due to the land use regulation.  He said when he had reviewed data that made that comparison, (with current value and value in the 1970’s and adjusting for inflation) with the cases he had reviewed, the lands had not seen a reduction in value, they were worth the same or a little more than they were back then.  He noted there is a distinction between a reduction in value in real dollar terms and the perception that someone is being denied an increase in value.


Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled last week the Board requested that he come up with a few options that would address the situation they are in.  He said the Marion County Circuit Court decision applies to the state and other counties that were parties and it doesn’t apply to Lane County.  He said they are processing applications but applicants that obtain waivers can’t do anything with those until they have demonstrated they obtained a state waiver and the state is not processing claims.  He stated what is being proposed is a letter that would lay the description of the catch 22 situation for the people who have already provided claims to Lane County. He said the letter would be to those people who are currently in their system and ask them if they wanted to put their application on hold.  He noted they wouldn’t have to go through the expense of providing appraisals and title reports and application fees and they don’t have to go to the expense of expending staff resources and processing a claim that results in the Board not being able to do anything until the state has acted.  He said if they place their application on hold, the agreement would be signed that they would be agreeing to have a placeholder in Lane County to place their claim on hold to be picked up and processed upon the decision of the Supreme Court, or if the Supreme Court does overturn the lower court decision, then they would process it in line and the timelines would be back on again.


Howe explained the waiver is being used in two ways: the waiver of the land use regulations and the waiver of the timeline.  He stated what this process is talking about is having the applicant waive the timeline.


Sorenson thought they should have the legislature amend Measure 37 to accommodate the concerns of the voters.  He asked about amending Lane County’s ordinance to have applicants demonstrate the economic impact of the regulation they are complaining about.  He thought for the people who were moving forward that Lane County should amend their ordinance to make it clear that they are intending to implement the letter and spirit of the measure.


Howe commented that this is an evolutionary process and the way the code was written requires the claimant to meet the demonstration of reduction in value as a required by the ballot measure.  He said ultimately it is the policy board that determines whether the claimant has met the test or not.


Stewart was in agreement to send a letter to the people who have filed asking if they want to place their claim on hold until there is assurance on what the state and the courts decide.  He thought it was prudent to ask people to register and waive the 180-day requirement. He wasn’t sure the appraisal they require actually addresses the things they need to make a decision.  He wanted to develop criteria they would be confident with.


Sorenson wanted to put everything on hold for about two months and reassess the process at that time.  He wanted to move forward with the letter to the current applicants.


Morrison asked that, in the interim, if people on the list that don’t require a state waiver are under the current criteria.


Vorhes thought with regard to future claimants, they could turn a letter into a piece that describes the status of claims and uncertainty created by the ruling in Marion County.  He added if they are interested in adding to the list of claimants, they could handle it that way.  He suggested having a work session on what is in their ordinance to try to resolve some of the uncertainties.  He said it would keep the list of potential claimants in one piece so everyone knows where they relate with everyone else.


For people who had already paid their fee (if Lane County hadn’t expended the fee), Stewart asked if they could receive a refund if they placed their claim on hold.


Howe recommended that.  He said if they are not spending time and the measure is overturned, they would receive a refund.


MOTION: to send a letter to the people who have filed a claim asking them if they want to put their claim on hold and with any future claims that are filed, they are asked to do be put on a registry; and asked to waive their 180-day time requirement; and when and if the matter is cleared up in the future, that they proceed with the process as they filed their claim.


Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Howe suggested a paragraph that states if the claim doesn’t require a state waiver, they may elect to have their claim heard.


VOTE: 5-0.


e. ORDER 05-12-7-2/In the Matter of Extending the Use of Transient Room Tax Funds for Capital Improvements at the Lane County Fairgrounds


Van Vactor explained that he and Warren Wong, Fairgrounds, were assigned to return with an order.  He didn’t understand the total financial status of the fairgrounds and the payoff schedule of the bonds.


Morrison recalled that for the first few years for the fair bond it was interest-only and the payments would escalate.


Wong recalled that the Board wanted to extend the excess Transient Room Tax (TRT) to the Fair Board for another eight years, to FY 15, and cap the existing TRT at $900,000.  He noted the excess TRT is critical to the Fair Board to minimally maintain the site and facilities and keeping the Lane Events Center operating as a public entity.  He said the board order does not guarantee the Fair Board will get $900,000 per year, that would be the maximum the Fair Board would get it.  He said it would be unlikely the Fair Board would receive $900,000 for the first half of the extended term, giving the debt service.  He said the excess TRT would minimally address equipment and facility repairs.  He noted that this doesn’t add any new facilities to the fairgrounds.


Wong outlined his understanding of how the TRT formula works.  He understood the first five years was for interest only and in the sixth year the principle begins in increasing amounts through the remaining life of the bond.  He said after that is subtracted, the excess is TRT.  He said initially the big projects were to take care of the summer storm water collector so they could have large animals on site during the dry weather period, and to address critical issues like re-roofing the events center.  He did calculate the TRT going to 2015 to show what the Fair Board was likely to receive over the time period.  He said he did a zero increase in TRT, a five percent increase and a 3.3 percent, the average they had incurred with growth of the TRT.  He commented that under the best case, it was possible to get the $900,000 sooner.  He said there is no big windfall to anyone under this process.  He said when the Fair Board discussed the board order at the joint meeting, they wanted the Board to consider the feasibility of indexing it.


Morrison recalled the Board agreed to interest only and the schedule that was set up when they refinanced the bonds.


Van Vactor noted on page 2, the excess TRT would minimally address capital and equipment requirements and adequately address operating budgets.  He asked (from a practical point of view) if the Board approves the order, if the fairgrounds site stays as it is.  He asked if this was enough money to maintain the facility, or if over time it would slowly degrade.


Wong responded that over time it would continue to degrade.  His and the Fair Board’s priority is to keep the facility open so any excess TRT they receive in the budget process will balance out, so the existing Fair Board debt service is less than $100,000 per year after they paid off the planetarium loan.  He said after they take care of the operating budget, whatever is left over is applied to the site and facility.  He commented things are breaking down.


Morrison’s concern was that cost for future repairs would be higher than the one just incurred.


Wong indicated that what the Fair Board is doing as part of its work plan for next year is they will be looking at what would it take to either redevelop at the existing site, bring the buildings up to grade, or build at another site.  He commented that the situation at the fairgrounds is such that every dime they put back into equipment replacement or capital is because of basic need.  He added it was a risk management issue.  He said they couldn’t have events with the public attending when they have a risk issue.


Tom Hunton, Fair Board, stated they had started to build a rainy day reserve fund that they are trying to get to an amount that would offset a failure or some unexpected expense.


Dwyer commented that the fairgrounds face the same challenges the County has in working with old buildings.  He said they have a study that would determine what action they would take. 


MOTION: to move that they allow the adjustment of the cap to reflect the consumer price index.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Green supported the motion. He was concerned about the vision for the fairgrounds.  He asked why they never went to the Board of Commissioners to propose an alternative source of revenue.  He commented that it seems like they would continue to do what had been done and things would continue to degrade.


Hunton stated they had explored things with direction from the Board towards more of an event-type of policy, not to find funds to replace TRT.  He thought TRT was needed for capital.


Bob Zagorin, Fair Board, said no one is happy with the status quo.  He said they want to move forward with an economic impact study.  He thought they would see something significant for future generations.  He thought the Fair Board was following Lane County’s super goal.  He wanted more direction from the Board of Commissioners.  He commented if things are not making money for the Fair Board, and are negative, they shouldn’t continue.


Dwyer thought this would require a subsidy. He indicated that there was a cost associated with providing those services and achieving their goals.  He said if they want to continue that goal, they have to recognize the cost and be willing to that as part of the operating strategy.  He commented that it is the cost of doing business.  He added government is not in business to make money, but to provide services.  He thought TRT is public money that doesn’t belong to anyone.


Green supported the packet.


VOTE: 5-0.


f. No Date Certain Items


Morrison wanted to bring the natural resource study back to the board for discussion.  She recalled that came up in February 2004 when they discussed the proposal around the industrial, commercial lands inventory and the participation by Lane County.  She noted at that time Dwyer brought up the question and it had been on the NDC list since then.


Howe explained the commercial, industrial buildable land study is moving forward.  With regard to the natural resource study and buildable lands study is not part of the periodic review and not on the work program for the Cities of Eugene and Springfield or Lane County.  He noted the Cities of Eugene and Springfield are bringing forward their natural resources inventory and protection measures under Goal 5 as part of periodic review.  He recalled that Lane County had already done the portion of the Metro Plan that is outside the UGB and Springfield is scheduled to go to the Lane County Planning Commission in February next year for the adoption of the portion that would be under the Board’s jurisdiction outside of the city limits for the Springfield area.  He added they would be going to the Lane County Planning Commission in March for the portion that is outside the Eugene city limits, inside the UGB.  He noted that would be coming as a recommendation from the planning commission to the Board of Commissioners.  That will be the final adoption of the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan area natural resources inventory.  Protection measures next spring to go to the Board of Commissioners for co-adoption for Eugene and Springfield’s inventory.


With regard to water pump tests, Morrison recalled there was public comment given.  She noted there were specific exemptions in the state requirements regarding water pump tests.  She said that Lane County has additional requirements she would like to see addressed.  She noted there was confusion as to whether or not they want to amend Lane Code to take out those restrictions regarding water pump test.  She said if they do, they need to direct staff to research and amend Lane Code.


Howe explained the code they are operating under was their current aquifer test.  He said it requires for additional development that was planned in their Comprehensive Plan that would put additional demands on the aquifer.  He added that it requires a demonstration that the property has adequate water forever.  He said the concern is whether or not there are impacts to adjacent to properties.  He noted the pump test they currently have demonstrates that the subject property has adequate water, it doesn’t demonstrate whether or not surrounding properties will be affected by the ability of the subject property to have all of the water they need.  He stated it was whether or not the Board wanted to look at amending the code to have the aquifer test be more of an impact analysis than a demonstration of adequate water for the subject property.


Morrison noted that the state already has specific exemptions.  She said the question that was raised was that Lane County’s regulations were more stringent than the state’s.  She said Dwyer’s request was that they amend their code and adopt the state standards.  She said staff would have to go through and amend the Lane Code to do it.


Van Vactor indicated they could have Howe look at state law and Lane Code and send the Board a memo and the Board could give new direction.




Morrison recalled there was direction on September 26, 2005 to staff regarding the situation with the City of Eugene moving forward with the Parks Plan and in that was included Lane County land outside of the city’s jurisdiction that they were not aware of.


Vorhes stated that was the question that was raised at the Board meeting.  He said the city’s response was that they already had language that says it has no legal or regulatory effect outside city limits.  He said the city could do what the city is going to do with adopting whatever they are going to adopt.  He said the question would be what is its implication or effect outside city limits.  He said they acknowledged that it would not have any regulatory effect.  He said they would have to comply with the applicable land use regulations in place on the ground.  He said if they want to do something outside the UGB on land that is zoned EFU, they would have to comply with the County’s Lane Code Chapter 16.  Their plan will have no legal validity or effect on the decision-making.


Vorhes said they have seen the ordinance and the findings to express why this complies with statewide goals and why it is consistent with the Metro Plan.  He indicated their ordinance adopts the plan and the text of the plan. He said the ordinance goes on to delete references to the old Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan that was adopted in 1989 by only the city.  He said they adopted as part of the Land Use Code update a reference to the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan (1989 version) and that is described as the adopted plan.  He noted the current land use regulations now in place cite the old parks and recreation plan from 1989.  He said one of the things the ordinance is intending to do, is to remove the reference from their Eugene Code Chapter 9.


MOTION: to move to send a letter that indicates that this does not reflect any legal authority outside the area that they are entitled to regulate and does not constitute Lane County acquiescing the amendment to the Metro Plan.




Van Vactor suggested a copy of this letter go to the planning director.


VOTE: 5-0.




Green reported the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee had a retreat this past Saturday and he participated as liaison.  He indicated they did work around goals, objectives and visions.  He noted they have a new chair and vice chair.  He also reported on the Enterprise Zone Committee.




a. Announcements






a. EIGHTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1221/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility for Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15) (NBA & PM 4/5/05, 4/19/05, 5/10/05, 6/1/05, 8/31/05 & 9/27/05).


Howe recalled this came before the Board in the spring.  He noted that Springfield acted and approved this proposal.  He added that Eugene did not. 


MOTION: to move that this be postponed indefinitely.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. DISCUSSION/Direction to Staff Regarding Initiation of Proceedings to Either Vacate or Withdraw County Road Status from a Portion of Templeton Road, County Road No. 50, in Section 2 and 11, T. 16 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian.


Ollie Snowden, Public Works, explained that over the years the department had occasionally initiated road vacation or road legalization requests. He said that would go to the County surveyor who would bring it back to the Board for a hearing.  He indicated that because the process broke down recently, they wanted to come back with the engineering division to give information before they go to the County surveyor.


Frank Simas, Public Works, distributed information and an aerial photo that he entered into the record.  He said from Templeton Road to High Pass, to the haul road is shown as a County maintenance road.  He indicated that the center section of the road had not been receiving County maintenance since 1986 and that was when the gate on the north end at Milepost 3.82 was installed.  He noted there was a facilities permit for that gate.  He reported the road had not been generally open for public use since that time and receives no maintenance.  He noted that Paul Templeton recalled on the south end having two additional gates. Simas noted that Templeton stated those gates had never been opened in the past 60 years.


Simas noted around 1970 there was an agreement and the road was moved east.  He said it was never followed up with any legal establishment or acquisition of right of way.  He said that became the traveled County right of way.  He indicated this road had been used for timber harvest transport and the Templeton family and BLM has a 200-acre parcel on the south end of the Templeton property that they utilize Templeton Road to access.  He added they also have other ownership on the west and they access it by the BLM easement.  He said the easement is not for public use, it would be controlled by the Templeton family and the BLM has the right to use it.


Simas said that BLM sees the non-establishment of alignment as a negative for their timber resource land. He thought there was some doubt since it had never been through an establishment process if they were to allow a timber harvest contract.


Dwyer asked about prescribed rights.


Simas responded if they did have a prescriptive right, they might be required to go to court to perfect it.


Dwyer asked if they know people had been using the road for the past 40 years, why they would want to require them to go to court to preserve their prescribed right.  He commented that the BLM wouldn’t care about the right to egress or to go in and out.  He asked about the other people who were affected on the road.


Simas said the BLM issues are stated in a letter.  He noted the Vernas’ concerns were the availability of the county road for emergency egress if there is a forest fire.   He added people walk on the road.  He noted there had been some usage with the people parking at the end of the maintained portion and walking in to go hunting.


Dwyer commented that the county road status and the public road status are two different things.  He noted one deals with maintenance and the other with access.   He didn’t want to deprive anyone access to the road.


Morrison asked if they would have to start maintaining the road and bringing it up to current code if they made this an actual public road under Lane County guidelines.


Simas said they could make it a public road but they did not have to maintain it.


Dwyer wanted Option 2.


MOTION: to direct the County Surveyor to initiate a vacation proceeding on the superseded section and legalization of the public road proceeding for the as traveled portion and withdraw County road status for the portion of the original right of way between Mile Post 2.432 to 3.77.


Dwyer noted that it would require hearings to protect the people who travel and use the roads.


Dwyer MOVED.


Simas noted he hadn’t talked to anyone who wants this to be a through road.


Morrison wanted to address it and take the issue off the table once and for all.


Simas explained that a public road would be one not maintained by the County and gates could be allowed to remain at the County maintained mileage.


Sorenson asked if they contacted any fire district.


Simas indicated that they contacted the Lane Rural Fire and Rescue, the Oregon Department of Forestry and the Lane County Sheriff and they didn’t have any objections to the vacations and withdrawal of County road status.  He noted the general public couldn’t go past the gate because they don’t have a key.


Sorenson asked if there was a way to reconcile the property owner’s concern about vandalism and having the road gated.  He asked if people from the public who have legitimate reasons to gain access to BLM lands could use the public road.


Simas responded he didn’t know how it could work to provide protection for fire and illegal activity and have public access on a public road basis.


Sorenson SECONDED.


Stewart asked what the BLM easements were.


Simas indicated that the existing BLM easement was a private easement for use by the BLM.  He said they would have the same rights as the public to access their property.  He indicated if it were changed into an access road, there wouldn’t be any maintenance on the road.


VOTE 5-0.




A. Approval of Minutes: None.


B. County Counsel


1) ORDER 05-12-7-3/In the Matter of Approving Amendments and Restatements of the Lane County ICMA and NACo Deferred Compensation Plans to Comply with IRS Code and Regulations.


C. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 05-12-7-4/In the Matter of Approving the Submission of Continuation Grant Application for the Community Health Centers in the Amount of $3,299,000 for FY 2006-2007 Through FY 2010-2011 and an Expanded Medical Capacity Grant for FY 2006-2007 and FY 2007-2008 in the Amount of $1,300,000 To the Federal Department of Health & Human Services.


D. Public Works


1) ORDER 05-12-7-5/In the Matter of Appointing the Investment Manager of the Oregon State Excess Fund as Attorney-in-Fact for Lane County in a Limited Capacity and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Power of Attorney.

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.


Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.







14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


Per ORS 192.660 (2)(e) and (h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.




There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 11:50 a.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary