BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
June 1, 2005
Commissionerís Conference Room
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† Bill Dwyer and Bobby Green, Sr., were excused.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
There will be an item under Commissioners Business about a PeopleSoft upgrade.† Measure 37 claims will have their original numbers.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
William Weisert, Eugene, spoke regarding amplified music in the Wayne Morse Center area.† He thought there were free speech issues that needed to be addressed.† He said it drowns out everything in the area.† He noted that one group is using the electricity exclusively on Saturdays and other groups are not allowed to use it.† He indicated that it is a religious group that is amplifying the music.† He thought David Suchart, Management Services, needed to have guidance regarding the interpretation of the permits.
Morrison indicated this would be brought up at the Facilities Committee meeting to see how to best approach the problem.
Jim Hale, Eugene, didnít think the Metro Plan amendment for law enforcement was going anywhere.† He said they need a better alternative.† He thought they should replace the law enforcement district and the property tax proposal with a County charter amendment that specifies the rules for a county income tax.† He believed that compression would continue to be a problem.† He thought they needed to give an income tax for the public to think about.† He suggested that they replace this with two income tax proposals.† He said one would fund countywide law enforcement with the exception of police services, and the second would fund police services.† He thought the sheriff should develop a proposal that would take care of the 100,000 people in unincorporated Lane County.† He wanted a proper balance of the system with full funding the jails and juvenile center.
Morrison indicated that she and Stewart met with Mayor Piercy and there is an item on the agenda they will be discussing.† She recalled that they did go to the voters for an income tax.
Hale wanted the cities to reduce their property tax levy and have property taxes reduced.
Jim Bozarth, Mapleton, commented that the current dock registration process is too complicated with too many agencies to contact.† He said they have been frustrated with the process and the planners are frustrated in dealing with those types of regulations.† He wanted to simplify the process.
Barb McClain, Mapleton, commented the dock owners were notified in an irregular way about the dock registration process.† She said notification did not go out to private dock owners on the Siuslaw River until March 7, 2005.† She said if they had been notified of the dock registration in 1998, the fees would have been hundreds of dollars, instead of the thousand dollars that is required.
Diane Saubert, Mapleton, stated she is a frustrated Lane County taxpayer.† She commented about the dock process and said she hadnít seen much of the strategic plan being implemented.† She read excerpts from the strategic plan.
Sue Bozarth declared that the County has to listen to the citizens.† She asked why they werenít invited to participate in the boat dock discussion.
Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, asked if the people on the coast could hold onto the dunes. He was concerned about it being turned into parks.† He thought that Florence would have the ability to buy the land.† He noted there is a resolution for public involvement at the University of Oregon.† He said Mayor Piercy is interested in having an interagency forum.
Jerry Margarth, Junction City, favored legalization of Hulbert Lake Road.† He indicated he had about one-half mile of property on the road.
John Rearsleb, Junction City, said he leases farm property on Hulbert Lake Road.† He said he has no objection to the legalization of the road that passes through their property.† He said it was originally purchased with the assumption that there was already a legal road maintained by the Lane County Public Works Department.† He said they found that the current discussion of legalizing a 40-foot right-of-way would carry normal maintenance in the future.
Chuck Hammonds, American Red Cross, Eugene, stated they have an application in for Title III funds.† He said their primary mission is disaster relief and they get no government funding.† He said they rely entirely on fundraising efforts and grants they are able to secure.† He said they respond to residential fires.† He added that they also deal with fires on federal lands.† He said they are effective but need money. He said they were asking for less than one percent of the available funds.† He asked the Board if they could have the money so they could continue their work.
Roland Lewis, Fall Creek, supported the funding for the Lowell Covered Bridge Interpretative Center.† He commented that it is an important livability issue, as it will attract people to the area. He said people will spend money and it could bring in jobs.† He said the Board could overturn the denial of the temporary use permit for the quarry there.† He said by pulling the rock out of the quarry, it could reduce costs.
Ken Gee, Creswell, commented that the proposals the Board gave him for Measure 37 wouldnít work.† He said that staff doesnít follow directions.† He said they keep referring back to Lane Code 16.212 that limits the division land.† He said that Lane Code Section 16.212, Section 1, doesnít qualify.† He said there is no EFU zoning parameters for two-acre parcels and nothing else would fit.† He said they refer to farm operations.† He said he now has to go to the state because of the EFU classification, but he shouldnít have to.
Warren Weathers, Lowell, said he is representing the City of Lowell.† He indicated that the covered bridge project is important to their community.† He said they were willing to postpone other projects to raise $60,000 as this is the most important thing for their community right now and they want to do everything they can to make it happen.
Melba Durant, Junction City, addressed the revisiting of a legalization of a portion of Hulbert Lake Road.† She attended a legalization hearing requested by Public Works.† She noted that every landowner was represented and there was a unified request that the Board deny legalization.† She said no other person besides Public Works testified in favor of the legalization and it was denied.† She noted if the road were legalized at 40 feet, it would be on the edge of the lake.† She thought the road would be repaired after the legalization hearing.† She recalled that staff testified in 2003 that they had been remiss in repairing that section of road.† She noted the residents of the non-legalized portion sent a certified letter to Public Works on August 24, 2004, requesting that the roadwork be limited to the hard surface portion.† She indicated that repair of the road surface was denied.† She requested that the Board deny another legalization hearing.† She noted that Public Works is now requesting the 40 feet, but they indicated at the April 8 meeting that they still desire the 60-foot right of way.† She stated the residents are concerned with public access to the waterway as now it is all private property.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson distributed copies of the 2005 Lane County Food Coalitionís Food Directory.
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. REPORT/Extension Service Quarterly Report.
Charlotte Riersgard, OSU Extension Service, gave her quarterly report.† She distributed a food pyramid food chart and a seasonal pamphlet cookbook. (Copies in file).
Riersgard indicated that they are aware of budget challenges and they are investigating alternate revenue sources.† She noted they have 900 volunteers.
Morrison requested that Steve Bowers, OSU Extension Service, call her regarding the savings of $15,000.
b. DISCUSSION/Voting Delegate for National Association of Counties Annual Meeting.
Morrison stated she received information regarding the voting delegate for the County.† She noted that each county has the ability to recognize someone who could be at the convention that could be the voting delegate.† She asked if any of the Board would be attending the annual meeting this year.† She said she was already registered to go.
MOTION:† to appoint Anna Morrison as a voting delegate.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
c. PeopleSoft Upgrade
Morrison acknowledged staff and the work that had gone into the upgrade to version 8.8.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee.
Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, didnít think the legislative session would wind down for another four to six weeks. With regard to SB 1043, Bieda said it was introduced by a senator with connections in Lane County.† He said two weeks ago there was a quick hearing in Senate Revenue and it passed 8-0.† He said the bill has been referred to Senate Budget.† He said the potential additional resource provided to K-12 funding is being considered as part of the budget deal that will close the session.† He said it would make an option for each county whether or not they wanted to use some of their county road fund money that comes from federal timber receipts to help finance K-12 education.† He said it sets up a confrontation county by county between the education funding advocates and the transportation interest groups.† He asked whether or not they should continue to push for the preservation of the current statute.† He indicated that it sets the distribution of the federal timber receipts at 25% schools, 75% roads on a statewide basis instead of giving county by county the opportunity to revisit this if they have any capacity to divert road fund money to fund K-12.
With regard to the bill relating to non-county jail facilities, Bieda reported that it is up for a third reading schedule.† He thinks it will pass and be sent onto the governor.† He said there was concern from Senator Floyd Prosanski that they would like to make sure that the counties do not stop doing the jail inspections all together.† Bieda said there is a sense at the legislature that some kind of ongoing local oversight of the safety and humanity of local detention facilities is appropriate.† He added that HB 3301 sponsored by Rep. Farr passed out of the house two weeks ago and has been referred to senate rules.† He also said they were working on a public contracting bill.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
b. ORDER 05-6-1-1/In the Matter of Approving Projects Under Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, P.L. 106-393 for FY 05-06.
Christine Moody, Budget Analyst, reported that this is to approve the Title III portion of the project.† She said they publish a 45-day notice to the public, which they did in March to solicit projects.† She said they received eight additional projects besides the ongoing County projects.† She noted that the Legislative Committee reviewed those in May and Option 1 is what they recommended for approval.† She explained that part of the reasoning for the approval was that the Legislative Committee wanted to look at the strategy they are using and the projects they are choosing so they ensure the renewal of the funding.
Morrison noted that she and Dwyer had the applicants come on what they had submitted with clarifications.† She had concerns that they met the criteria of items under Title III. She said they were coming under more scrutiny, as the re-authorization is moving forward.† She added that they had also looked at some Title II projects that had been submitted for this round of funding that they had suggested.† She said they have to be diligent on what they are funding to make sure they meet the intent of the legislation.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-1-1.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Moody clarified that in the agenda they had mentioned a September 30 deadline for going out again.† She noted that was not an actual deadline.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 05-6-1-2/In the Matter of Authorizing up to $272,000 from 2004 and 2005 Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds for the Rehabilitation of the Lowell Covered Bridge and Construction of an Interpretive Site and Amending the FY06-FY10 Capital Improvement Program.
Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported that ODOT opened bids and the low bid was about $500,000 over the engineerís estimate.† He said they have been trying to generate additional money for the project.† He said there is no local money involved in this project, but there are three different kinds of federal highway administration money.† He commented that federal money was actually matching federal money.† He said after the bid opened, Western Federal Lands agreed to add another $163,711 to the project, bringing it to $1.2 million.† He noted that ODOT agreed to add another $122,180 to the transportation enhancement program, bringing it to about $822,000.† He said the total available is $3.09 million.† He indicated that they are still about $370,000 short.† He noted what OBEC Consulting Engineers had agreed to do, is lower its construction engineering fees by $100,000 with the expectation that if there is money left over, they might be able to amend their contract to be made whole.† He added that leaves a shortfall of about $272,000.† He said the request today is that the Board authorize another $272,000 of the Countyís STP federal money for the project.† He commented that would give ODOT enough money to award the contract.† He added once they award the contract, then ODOT could negotiate with the low bidder on selected items.† He said they were proposing two projects to be deleted. He said they could save about $81,000.† He said they would lead for contractor flagging.† He noted that flagging on jobs like this would be $38 per hour and the contractor bid $380 an hour.† He said they could delete items in their entirety and the County picks up the flagging for less than $20,000. He said the net to the County would be about $60,000.† He couldnít guarantee that would be the bottom line.
Morisonís concern was once they get into the project, they could find there would be more work that needed to be done.† She asked if the three and a half percent could cover that.
Snowden replied that was the hope.† He noted this was a different type of project.† He indicated that ODOT thought the transportation commission should actually reject all bids.† He noted there were only two bidders and ODOT wanted to see more than two bids.† They didnít think rejecting bids and re-bidding in the fall was necessarily going to attract more bidders with a better price.† He noted another concern from ODOT was the rock costs.† He said they thought the rock costs were above what they would have otherwise expected.† He indicated they did research to see if they could find cheaper rock.† He said they found a number of ODOT pits, but none could be ready for a fall bid.† He said what ODOT is planning on doing is an analysis as they are bidding jobs to see if ODOT has rock pits close to their own projects. He said the bottom line is they are going to recommend that the OTC award the bid as long as the Board is agreeable to adding the $272,000 to the project.† He noted that the city council unanimously agreed to forego $60,000 of partnership money in order to help defray the costs.† He added they were going to see if the Corps of Engineers could also defray the costs more.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-1-2.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Morrison said she would support this with the caveat that they explore all of the things he suggested to try to control costs.
b. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 05-6-1-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the Public Works Director to Accept, if Awarded, an Oregon State Marine Board Facility Grant of $168,380 for a Floating Transient Boat Dock at the Lowell Covered Bridge Interpretive Center and Roadside Rest Area.
Snowden indicated this was another piece of the project.† He said when they were in the planning stages, there were partner agencies and stakeholder members who thought that a transient boat dock would enhance the interpretive site.† The state park in the City of Lowell prepared a State Marine Board grant application that was submitted.† He said they were asking that the Board accept the award.† He explained that the plan would be for the State Marine Board to do the engineering work and bring to the County a bid-ready set of plans and specifications and the County would open the award to contract and administer the grant.† He added that the match for the grant is the interpretive site itself.† He said in the past where they had plans and specs delivered from the State Marine Board with the expectation they would bid them, there were problems with legal counsel.† He said they would have to work with legal counsel and the State Marine Board.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-1-3.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
c. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1223/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram for Property in the Glenwood Area, with Concurrent Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram and Text Amendments, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Second Reading & Public Hearing: June 20, 2005, 7:00 pm).
Wilson announced that the public hearing is being set for the Springfield Library Meeting Room.† She indicated that there would be a dinner at 5:30 and a work session at 6:00 p.m.
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1223 for June 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 2-05/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt Amendments to the Springfield Development Regulations for Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Springfield Urban Growth Area (LC 10.600-15) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Second Reading & Public Hearing: June 20, 2005, 7:00 pm).
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance N0 2-05 for June 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
d. DISCUSSION/Resolving the Legal Status of a Portion of Hulbert Lake Road (County Road No. 160), and Directing Staff as to Process for Establishing Said Portion of Road at a Width of 40 Feet.† (NOTE: Decision to be made on June 8, 2005).
Frank Simas, Public Works, recalled the last time they were before the Board with the Hulbert Lake Road issue was in December 2003. He said that was to legalize the northerly portion of Hulbert Lake Road, approximately 1.94 miles.† He said it was a connection with a capital improvement project that had proposed a width of 60 feet for the road.† He noted a hearing was held back then and at the conclusion of the hearing, the legalization of that portion of the roadway was denied and the county engineer was given general direction to fix the road.† He commented that the problem with the establishment of the northerly portion of Hulbert Lake Road was that no formal establishment order could be found, dating back to 1855.
Simas noted the county surveyor had done additional research and had discovered the road is in the same location going back to 1922.† He said after the 2003 hearing, county maintenance was attempting to perform maintenance on the road, doing mowing and pothole repair.† He said they were having resistance by one or more property owners.† He said that prompted them to come back to the Board to get further direction as to what maintenance activities they wanted on the road.† He said they were requested by one of the property owners to hold off until they could get agreement from the abutting property owners to ask for the vacation of the road and at which time it would become a private road.† He said they had a meeting in Junction City in April and at the conclusion of the meeting, the consensus was to resume maintenance on the lower portion of the road.† He indicated that had been done and that the road should be legalized at the width of 40 feet.† He indicated the current 40 foot width adheres to what has been historically maintained. †He noted the pavement width is about 21 feet.† He indicated that County Counsel said they could accomplish the legalization process that would provide a means for formally accepting the road as a County road and the owners affected that had any improvements in the right of way would be compensated for fencing or any other improvements.† He added they could also use the normal acquisition method for accomplishing the same goal and that would involve legalization of the land that would be within the 40-foot strip and making offers to the others for fencing or other improvements they might have in the 40 feet.† He noted one of the options to be considered by the Board is what width it should be legalized. He indicated that 40 feet is the recommended width and that had been maintained in the past.† He added a lesser width could be legalized.† He indicated that would require the purchase of additional feet.
Simas stated the recommendation would be the legalization of the 40-foot width road and for Public Works staff to stake out the 40-foot width to determine what objects are within the area, to do an appraisal and compensate the owners for those items.† He added once that had been done, to direct the county surveyor to do a legalization of the road.
Morrison recalled when they had the meeting in Junction City, they had issued letters to all of the property owners to know who was there and represented.† She said the confusion was the neighbors didnít understand the vacation piece and who was responsible for the maintenance.
Sorenson asked what the previous Board action was.
Simas said the proposal was 60 feet and the county surveyor was replacing the finding of fact as to the locations of the road and requesting the legalization of 60 feet of right of way.
Sorenson asked who was in favor of doing something with this road.
Simas said two people this morning were in favor.† He noted that the road maintenance staff has a problem maintaining the 21 feet.† He said they canít do their mowing properly and that is a safety issue.
Sorenson asked what the legal status of the road is.
Simas explained it is a local collector.† He added it is a County-maintained road they have had in their system for a long time.
Snowden indicated there was no legal record that the road was ever accepted into the County system.† He said they are trying to establish an alignment and a right of way into the County system.
Stewart commented that it was important that they legalize this road.† He was not in favor of upgrading the road, but said it is important to maintain the road as they have been doing it for 50 years.† He believed that it was already a legal road because of adverse possession.† He heard concerns from the neighbors that they didnít want the road to change; they donít want vegetation wiped out.† He added they were concerned at the previous hearing that when they were looking at 60 feet, people were afraid it was affecting their homes.† He asked if it was necessary for maintenance to move the fence.
Simas responded that normally fences are not allowed within the County right of way.† He said they would either require that the fences be moved or they would purchase the fencing along with the right of way and that would compensate them.
Morrison indicated that this item would be brought back on June 8.
e. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1222/In the Matter of Amending Lane County General Plan Policies (an Element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan) by Revising Goal Two - Policies 10, 11, 15, and 16; Adopting Plan Designations and Zoning Designations for Five Unincorporated Rural Communities in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed, and Four Unincorporated Rural Communities and One Urban Unincorporated Community in the Middle Fork Willamette Watershed to Comply with Such Amendments; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Second Reading & Public Hearing: June 15, 2005).
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance PA 1222 for June 15, 2005.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
f. FIFTH 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).
Van Vactor stated that based upon their discussions yesterday, it is recommended that the Board move this to a Sixth Reading on August 31, 2005.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Sorenson asked what the rationale was for putting this over into August when it had not been ratified by one of the three jurisdictions.
Van Vactor explained that under the Metro Plan, it takes all three governments to adopt identical amendments before they have a plan amendment.† He noted the City of Springfield has enacted a plan amendment and the City of Eugene has tentatively indicated that they would deny it.
Stewart commented that they donít know whether or not the public safety district is completely dead.† He said instead of the County moving forward on the project today, it would send a message to the other city councilors to keep it and set it off for three months to look to see if it is a viable option.
Morrison indicated there were positive things that were put on the table in her meeting with Mayor Piercy.† She said having the rural areas involved was important.† She said by moving this forward and a sixth reading, that they would have an opportunity to have people coming to the table from the small cities and the metro cities and the funding mechanisms.† She said they have an obligation to the citizens of Lane County to deal with the public safety crisis they have.
Sorenson wanted to roll this for one week and decide whether or not to have a sixth reading.† He didnít want to make a decision today to move it to August unless they had more buy-in from the Board on a process that was discussed.
Stewart asked why they needed to roll this for another week.† He heard concerns about having a public safety district.
Sorenson commented that the City of Eugene rejected this.† He didnít think that there would be sufficient buy-in to form another group.
Stewart said if they are putting this out in 2006, they need as much support that they can get.† He said if they move forward with the public safety district, they do not have the support.
Morrison suggested rolling this until this afternoon when Dwyer would be available.
The motion was withdrawn for August.
MOTION:† to move for a Sixth Reading and Deliberation on Ordinance PA 1221 on Wednesday June 8, 2005.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 1-2 (Faye, Morrison dissenting) MOTION FAILED.
Morrison suggested bringing this item back this afternoon and contacting Dwyer and Green.
(Dwyer was present via telephone.† The following took place at 1:30 p.m.)
MOTION:† to approve a Fifth Reading and Setting a Sixth Reading and Deliberation for August 31, 2005.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Sorenson asked what role the Board of Commissioners would have. He asked about the land use issue.
Van Vactor explained the concept is to put the ordinance out three months in advance so they have time to look at the issue in a broader context by looking at an ad hoc committee.† He thought they would meet every two weeks to work through the issues to be examined.† He said they have to determine the right method to raise the money to provide the services.
Morrison thought the goal is to make everyone understand what the costs are, what the publicís reaction might be, and with education to make everyone understand and move it forward.
Dwyer thought this needed to move forward for the common good.
Green was present via telephone and was disconnected.† He was in agreement with the vote that was taken.† He asked if this pre-empted the discussion at MPC.
Morrison indicated that this would happen before they would take their action at the sixth reading. She noted at that point in time MPC could come into place for conflict resolution.
g. ORDER 05-6-1-4/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-5161, Ronald and Patricia Tendick).
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained they had taken the Boardís tentative direction and drafted the orders for approval.
Van Vactor asked why there was language in it on coordination with the state that was raised under Public Comment.
Howe explained that in both orders in front of the Board, the last paragraph makes it clear that the waiver of provisions that Lane County is adopting with this order is specific to Lane Code local land use regulations.† He said the applicants still need to address the state rules and requirements by making a claim with the State of Oregon, where they need to have some dispensation done by the state regarding compensation or waiver of the statewide land use regulations.† He said they are in the process of waiving the Lane Code regulations but there are still state regulations that also apply that the state needs to waive.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, noted that under normal circumstances before Measure 37, the code provisions the County had in place had been acknowledged that they were in compliance with state statutes, administrative rules and goals.† He said when they get to Measure 37 and waive the provisions that provide compliance with the state statutes, administrative rules and goals, there is overriding of every land use decision when they review the actual application for approval of a dwelling or a partition.† He added that there is a provision in the statute that says they have to do it in compliance with the goals and guidelines of the statutes.† He explained that in order to avoid a challenge to the approval at the County level that doesnít follow all the specific requirements of the statewide goals, getting a waiver from the state becomes necessary in order to clear for County approval of the building permit.
Vorhes explained that a waiver is not a land use decision.† He noted there are subdivision regulations and the statute lays out the platting requirements for the subdivision or partition.† He said that would take place at the time of the application.† He explained that if the state has not waived the decision by the time the application comes to the Board, they would be faced with a decision that would become a land use decision.† He said they might face a challenge because the state regulations had not been waived.† He said the question is who has waiver authority for the regulations that limit these types of actions.
Stewart asked what other counties were doing with regard to processing claims.
Howe indicated that this language was similar to Clackamas Countyís language† in orders approving waivers; where they also state the applicant should apply to the state for waivers of any applicable state regulations that affect that property.
Stewart asked why the claimants couldnít have the properties that landowners were entitled to.
Vorhes indicated that they had that ability before the statutes, administrative rules and goals were enacted by the state.† He said the difficulty is if they were to go to a zoning different than EFU or F2, statewide statute and administrative rules define agricultural or forestland regarding the use of the land.† He said if they were to change the zoning, they would still face the potential challenge that what they approve still has the layer of state regulation that hasnít been waived that is applicable to that land.† He said with the Measure 37 waiver, they are saying that the system that is in compliance with the statewide goals is changing and they are waiving some provisions to ensure compliance with the statewide goals.† He added in order to do what is proposed, there needs to be a waiver of the state regulations that restrict the use of the property because the County doesnít have the authority under Measure 37 to waive those.
Stewart wanted to make sure before they require people to get a state waiver that it is really necessary.
Morrison wanted to know what other county orders look like before they pass orders for Lane County.
MOTION:† to move the Measure 37 orders to next week.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Stewart asked if they changed the zone on the property for the people who are asking for waivers, do they need to change or amend the comprehensive plan.† He asked if there was any ability to recognize a Measure 37 claim having an effect on the Comp Plan and how they might address it.
Vorhes stated the difficulty in changing the Comp Plan and changing the zoning is that it takes care of what from the Countyís perspective is necessary if there is consensus from the Board about doing that and what is necessary to ďwaiveĒ the restrictive land use regulations.† He said it could include Comprehensive Plan policies that would limit the ability to develop land.† He noted in the resource land area the difficulty will be the state layer of regulation and how much the County could actually waive those regulations.† He thought there was a possibility to review all of the actions taken on specific properties to review them in the context of the overall Comprehensive Plan.† He didnít know how those actions would affect those properties with regard to Measure 37.
Stewart indicated in the Measure 37 claims they have, the County could have zoned the property to what the people had the right to do in the past.† He asked if they could do anything without making it a labor-intensive expensive process.
Vorhes responded that they would have to deal with the Measure 37 claim on an individual basis.† He noted that each claimant would need to show the restricted land use regulations that caused the reduction in value currently, not what might have been in place when they bought the property.† He added that the waiver goes to the restricted land use regulations to remove, modify or not apply those regulations in order to allow the person to use the property for a use they could have made of the property at the time they acquired it.† He said it wasnít clear to give the authority to go back and rezone it to what could have been done then.
Stewart commented that as the Board they set the direction.† He wanted to come up with what he thought the people voted for and a reasonable way for them to go through the process.
Vorhes indicated that they have a provision in the order that says if they get down to the specifics and find that a piece of County regulations get in the way of developing (reducing the value of two acre parcels by limiting the ability to build) they could come back and† waive it.
Stewart asked if there was a possibility, when someone comes in for certain zoning, that instead of different requirements that they could waive it.
Howe commented that some of the fundamental planning principles and the way they zone the land is a broad brush.† He said they didnít do spot zoning.† He said that Measure 37 is changing things by waiving regulations.
Stewart said it is his goal to improve the Countyís image and to work on a process.† He added that he deals with these matters on a daily basis.
Morrison suggested that she and Stewart be walked through to see what the process is so they understand what the public would have to go through.
Van Vactor commented that if Gee or Tendick had owned the property in 1973 and had taken the initiative to incur the expense for a zone change with a partition request for a building permit, it would have processed and they would have had it.† He said it is not a situation where Lane County made a mistake, it is a situation where the citizens of Oregon adopted SB 100 in 1975 and then the voters changed the rules.
Vorhes indicated that the language of the measure that is restrictive in use, might give flexibility to rezone the property, but there would be the layer of state regulations that apply to that land as well.
h. ORDER 05-6-1-5/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-5162, Kenny and Marta Gee).
This order is moved to next week.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *
A. Approval of Minutes:
May 4, 2004, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
October 27, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 30, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 5, 2004, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. County Administration
1) ORDER 05-6-1-6/In the Matter of Adopting Policy Considerations for Lane County Involvement in Sustainable Business Practices.
2) ORDER 05-6-1-7/In the Matter of Commending Recipients of the Lane County Cultural Coalition's Cultural Opportunity Grants.
C. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 05-6-1-8/In the Matter of A Refund to 2000 Chambers LLC in the Amount of $12,889.56.
2) ORDER 05-6-1-9/In the Matter of A Refund to Boulders on the River, Inc. in the Amount of $74,916.15.
D. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 05-6-1-10/In the Matter of Approving the Submission of a Continuum of Care Grant Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Amount of $1,994,303 for the Period of January 1, 2006 Through December 31, 2007.
E. Management Services
1) ORDER 05-6-1-11/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Mark Kimball Mathis for $3,000 (Map #21-35-16-12-01200, Junction of Sanford St. and High Leah Drive, Oakridge).
2) ORDER 05-6-1-12/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Randolph A. Allen for $500 (17-02-33-44-01421-901, 5660 Daisy St., #2, Springfield, Improvements Only)
F. Public Safety
1) ORDER 05-6-1-13/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Memorandum of Understanding Between United States Marshals Service, District of Oregon and Lane County to Establish an Ad Hoc Fugitive Task Force.
G. Public Works
1) ORDER 05-6-1-14/In the Matter of Awarding Requirement Contracts to Various Contractors to Establish Unit Prices for Rock Material Needs During Fiscal Year 2005/2006, Contract No. 05/06-M&S-51A.
2) ORDER 05-6-1-15/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for an UnNamed Road† (20-03-36)
3) ORDER 05-6-1-16/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 1196 (Brown Road)† (19-01-06).
4) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 05-6-1-17/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing Date for the Vacation of a Portion of Oak Road (Co. Rd. #373), Located in the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 36, Township 20 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County, Oregon† (20-03-36) (Public Hearing July 13, 2005, 1:30 pm).
5) ORDER 05-6-1-18/In the Matter of Alteration of a Portion of River Road (County Road Number 200), Including the Intersection With East Beacon Drive (County Road Number 577), From Carthage Avenue, Northerly to Beacon Drive, and Being Located Within Section 2, Township 17 South, Range 4 West and Section 35, Township 16 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette Meridian.
6) ORDER 05-6-1-19/In the Matter of Removing the Load Posting for Fir Butte Road Bridge at MP 0.667.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *
MOTION:† to approve the Consent Calendar.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
10. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-6-1-20/In the Matter of Appointing Designees of the Community Mental Health Director to Direct a Peace Officer to Take a Mentally Ill Individual Into Custody According to ORS 426.233.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-1-20.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
11. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-6-1-21/In the Matter of Creating a Classification and Salary Range for Payroll Specialist.
Jan Wilburn reported that they had a request for a new classification for finance operations.† She said they were looking for a classification of expertise in central payroll processes.† She noted they had increased complexities with PERS changes, researching new technologies and PeopleSoft.† She said this position would be a resource to various departments in the county.† She stated they looked to similar classifications in Marion County and they proposed a Grade 26.† She indicated that the funds for the position were available.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-1-21.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
12. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
Morrison noted that Dwyer gave her a letter about the sister county program with Germany.† She gave this to Sorenson to follow up on home stays.
13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Morrison attended the WIR conference in Tacoma.† She participated in a conference call regarding re-authorization.† She noted that it was moving forward.† She announced she was going to Washington D.C the last week in September.
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 11:55 a.m.