BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
May 4, 2005
Commissionersí Conference Room
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.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Diane Soberts, Mapleton, said she represented dock owners on the Siuslaw River.† She asked the Board to reconsider the stateís proposal to grandfather those docks and uses currently existing on the state owned waterways in Lane County, specifically the Siuslaw River.† She indicated that it is a time consuming process within the Countyís compliance process.† She commented that the Countyís planning and permit department is ill-equipped to meet their own requirements for this process.† She indicated that there had already been too many mistakes made and money spent to prove whether existing docks are in compliance.† She asked the Board to accept the stateís offer to grandfather existing docks.† She said their group was interested in a fair, effective and efficient process for existing dock owners.
Jeff Jackson, Mapleton, thought Lane County had no choice but to grandfather all current dock owners.† He said not everyone received the original notice.† He said when the process first began in 1998, Lane County failed to notify all landowners.† He noted that many dock owners could not take advantage of the deal. †He added of those landowners who did get the first notice, a lot of incorrect information was included.† He noted there were wrong dock pictures and incorrect tax lot information sent to landowners, and incorrect scenarios.† He indicated that some people who lost docks in the 1996 flood were granted County approval for a dock that was not there, while other landowners who had a dock continuously in the same location before 1982 were deemed to have an unapproved dock.† He commented that considering all the ambiguity surrounding the issue, they thought the only fair thing to do would be to grandfather all docks currently in place.
Guy Hansen, Mapleton, compared the different permit fees from different counties on the coast.† (Copy in file.)† He commented that Lane Countyís fees were out of line compared to other counties.
Barbara McLean, Mapleton, discussed the costs for the docks.† She said they determined that the building fee would be 9.5 cents on the dollar for a 1,000 square foot house.† She added it would be $5,553 for the cost of the permit fee for a 12x24-foot dock, ramp and pilings, or $1.07 per square foot.† She commented that it would cost more in permits than it would to construct the dock.† She noted that the land compatibility fees for docks were implanted in 1998 and she wasnít notified until 2004.† She wanted a fair and equitable settlement.
Rick Barrows, Mapleton, stated he had been on the river for 18 years and the dock had been on the river for that length of time.† He asked why this was coming up with such elaborate costs.† He shared his opinion with what had been previously said.
Gordon Camp, Mapleton, stated he might be charged in excess of $3,000 in fees for a dock that is worth less than $500.† He didnít mind paying the fee the State of Oregon was proposing, and thought Lane County was out of line.†† He noted that there has been a dock at this property for most of the past 45 years.† He suggested allowing everyone who now has a dock on the river to keep it.† He said he would pay the reasonable fee the state was asking.
Jim Bozarth, Mapleton, said that replacing his piling would cost $900, but Lane County Planning requires a special use permit of $1,126 to replace a piling.† He said piling replacement is a matter of public safety.† He commented that the DSL and the Corps of Engineers has a good program that requires a permit be obtained for piling replacement under a maintenance program.† He said there are no fees for those permits.† He thought that Lane County should follow state guidelines and charge no fees for piling replacement.
Sue Bozarth, Mapleton, said a mandate came from the people belonging to the Mapleton Dock Committee.† She said their first choice would be to grandfather the remaining docks on the river that donít qualify for registration.† She said the Mapleton Community Dock Committee formally requests that the Board establish a Siuslaw River Dock task force to formulate recommendations for a fair and consistent permitting of future docks on the Siuslaw River.† She also requested a moratorium on all dock permitting enforcement until the rules and fees are clearly defined.
Morrison indicated that there would be a Board work session on June 1 in regards to the discrepancy and confusion that currently exists.† She understood that everyone would† receive notice on when that work session will take place.
Dwyer said it was unfair that the state at this time would have the counties in charge for prima facia plans, whereby later on they could develop an annual fee.† He said if a dock was there, the County needs to recognize that and should adopt the state standards.
Kate Curly, Eugene, said with regard to the McDougal Land Swap, the citizens identified other options for park services in Santa Clara and have come up with a citizen park proposal.† She noted as the City of Eugene Park and Open Space Department states, Santa Clara has the fewest acres of parks per person and the least developed park system of any Eugene area.† She said they need parks in locations where they make the most sense.† She said the citizens of Santa Clara thought it was a win for the McDougals and for the city.† She added the real win situation was the citizensí proposal.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
a. ORDER 05-5-4-1/In the Matter of Commending Marilyn D. Mays.
Morrison read the resolution into the record.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-5-4-1.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
b. ORDER 05-5-4-2/In the Matter of Proclaiming the Week of May 15 - 21 as National Police Officers Memorial Week and May 18 as Police Officers Memorial Day.
Morrison read the resolution into the record.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. REPORT BACK/Response to Auditor's Management Letter Workplan.
Tom Hunton, Chair, Fair Board, said they would be coming with a proposal to request increased flexibility of how the transient room tax (TRT) is handled.† He recalled that the special projects loan that the Fair Board received was $330,000 for the planetarium project.† He added when they realized it wouldnít come to fruition, they cut the expenditure short and only drew $290,000.† He said instead of the five-year scheduled payback,† it would be paid back fully in less than three years.
Wong indicated that the Fair Board has a goal of financial stability.† He said there are financial issues at the fairgrounds, including an operating deficit that was a citation in the management letter.† He noted there are no cash reserves, but rising expenses due to the same issues the entire county is facing with respect to employee benefits.† He added there were unique expenses at the fairgrounds.† He said the Animal Disease Work Plan is something they have to deal with.† He said there is debt service they are carrying along with a rate structure.† He noted that they try to increase rates on an average of three to five percent per year.† He said he was looking at the next fiscal year at a rate increase that will amount to ten percent.† He commented that there is a question from people in the industry as to the viability of the fair.† He noted for the past two years attendance had decreased by 10,000 each year.† He said the amount of net revenue that the fair is taking off is critical to the Fair Boardís finances.† He added it has decreased by over $100,000 in the past two years.† He indicated the reason for that was not increasing the gate charge.† He added on the expense side the costs are going up greater than inflation, and the cost of concerts have gone up.† He said they are cutting back at the fair this year from six concerts to five.† He said many fairs are not having concerts at all.
Dwyer said there is a point of diminishing returns† He said when they start raising the gate prices to cover expenses and they have lower space, it leads to disaster over the long run.† He commented that if they wanted to entice greater use, they should not raise the price but lower the cost or do something that creates greater participation.
Wong agreed with Dwyer regarding the cost of admission to the fair.† He said they are not increasing the price of the fair and had held to $8.00 for the past three years.† He thought it was time the trade people who use the facility pay a greater amount.† He reported that the Fair Board had implemented various strategies.† He recalled that the Board of Commissioners allowed the Fair Board to move some of the excess transient room tax to the operating budget to establish a cash reserve and address the operating deficit. He stated they have targeted the cash reserve this year at $182,000.† He said they funded critical equipment capital project requirements.† He said they are replacing equipment from when the facility was constructed in 1978.† He indicated that they paid off as scheduled their internal debt that they carried to purchase equipment or energy conservation loans.† He added on the Planetarium loan, given the opportunity, they paid the loan down with the resources available.† He said they have made attempts for increased activity.† He noted there are more scheduled events at the Events Center and they are continuing to get new activities in.† He said it impacts the bottom line but it does not solve the problem
Wong commented that assuming that the Lane Events Center continues with the legal organizational structure they currently have, i.e. a public operated entity with Lane County employees, they would continually have operating deficits.† He thought it would be a rare year that they would make a profit.† He stated there would be citations given to them each year in the management letter.† He noted at one time the Fair Board had an operating profit and had cash reserves until the mid-1990ís.† He indicated that the increase in benefit costs and other costs going up have caused their profits to fall.† He noted at that time they started to reinvest in the facility.† He said there were capital initiatives undertaken that required cash and it came out of the operating budget.† He noted the largest draw for the money was the stormwater collector system.† He said they took $890,000 from the refinancing of the bond from transient room tax money.† He added that there was a shortfall in order to do the project.† He said if they cut too many expenses, they start to affect public safety health issues.
Wong recalled that the Board of Commissioners in a board order committed TRT to the Fair Board in 2002.† He said the authority is for five years and it ends in FY 07.† He said the infusion of the excess TRT has saved the Lane Events Center.† He commented that if it werenít for the TRT, the facility would either be closed or under a private management firm.† He noted that the TRT has filled the gap in capital equipment and capital projects and the operating budget gap.† He said the TRT continues at the same level next year, but in FY 07 it will decrease by about $250,000 because of the way the 2002 bonds were structured.†† He said the TRT is important to the Fair Board and the ability of the Fair Board to have flexibility in the allocation between capital and operations, allowing the Fair Board to manage the facility as well as it can.
Wong reiterated that operating deficits would continue.† He said the continuation of the excess TRT to the Fair Board is critical if they are going to continue to operate it as a public entity.† He said if it were privatized, there would still need to be some TRT put into it for some of the capital.† He added if they were planning on mothballing the facility, they would still need some resources.†† He indicated that there would be a tight line between taking the TRT and putting it into operations so they have an open facility.† He said they need to continue to replace equipment and work on some capital projects and upgrade the facility.† He stated that it is an aging facility, it works and the clients love it, but they are going to have to reinvest in the facility.† He indicated that they would continue to implement the strategies, building up the cash reserve, getting rid of the debt service and looking at ways to cut expenses and do things more efficiently and effectively.
Morrison commented that every year the management letter reports things are worse but they donít try to plan what they are going to do to keep it from continuing.† She said that they donít have general fund monies and there is no probability of them getting general fund money.† She said they need to make decisions on what they are going to do with the facility.† She was pleased that they didnít have to draw on their line of credit. She wanted to know the value of the fairgrounds property and what type of a five-year plan they could put together to get out of the deficit.
Wong reported that the operating deficit at the end of the year is worse case scenario and it is his job to provide the Board with that.† He explained if they take the $183,000 deficit as of March 31, the $100,000 is attributable to the fair not performing at what they budgeted for.† He said the $83,000 is within the $125,000 leeway of excess TRT.† He noted that every county operating a fair has an operating subsidy.† He commented that they have a trade show facility for 11 months of the year and a fair for about a month.† He said the question is whether the Board wants to be in that business.
Stewart said he was concerned about the financial situation.† He thought the county fair was important to Lane County.† He asked if they could do something to help them get out of the financial situation that still allows them to provide the county fair.† He asked if they could take the facility, capitalize on the location and if it is valuable enough, looking at trading it for a different location that might be more advantageous.† He noted there were other people looking into the possibility of a convention center.† He wanted to get to financial positives and to stop relying on TRT money.
Wong commented that they would never get out of an operating deficit as long as the facility is operated by public sector employees.
Bob Zagorin, CVALCO, thought to look at budget issues, they have to look at the big picture. He said they have to look at the role that the fairgrounds play in the community and as part of the tourism industry.† He added that it plays an important role in terms of a tradeshow facility in the tourism convention industry.† He said as a fair board, they want to maintain their role as a tradeshow facility, but doesnít think it is an appropriate site for a regional convention center.† He said they have to as a county and regarding economic development, increase the TRT instead of maintaining the status quo.
Green said the Board was not engaging in any outside prospects about co-locating on the fairgrounds that would go towards helping subsidize some of the operation.† He commented that there is a large opportunity for sports with youth 12 to 17.† He thought there might be a way to market that and they arenít trying to promote it.
Wong commented that they are gun-shy because of the issues that had happened under the past administration.† He said that the Fair Board had not taken any assertive action and he is waiting for direction from the Board of Commissioners.
Morrison noted they have a different Fair Board and a new member on the Board of Commissioners.† She thought they should start pursuing new ideas.
Zagorin said they need a regional sports facility and a regional convention facility with a hotel.† He said they would need a private developer to grow the industry instead of just reaping short-term profits.
Dwyer commented that the fairgrounds belong to the people. He said they have certain expectations as it relates to the fairground.† He didnít want to sell the fairgrounds as it belongs to the people, but wanted to make it self-sufficient.† He said the problem is related to all facilities.† He didnít want to subsidize something that receives property taxes.† He recommended a countywide amusement tax that would tax items that exceed $5.00.† He also wanted to have a dollar tax if an event is held within the City of Springfield, where the City of Springfield would get 75 cents and the County would get 25 cents.† Respectfully, if it was held within the City of Eugene, the City of Eugene would get 75 cents and the County 25 cents.† He added if it were a County event within the City of Eugene, the County would get 75 cents and the City 25 cents.† He said if it were a County event held outside of the city limits, the County would get the whole dollar.† He said they would reserve that fund for the operation of the fair in perpetuity.
Hunton wanted direction from the Board on whether they want to keep the fairgrounds where they are currently located.† He wanted to know if the facilities were going to be upgraded as within the next five to ten years, there is major reinvestment needed to stay at the location.† He said they need to have a long-term discussion.† He commented that the trade shows need a place to be provided for in the community.
Morrison indicated that they would have to deal with the PERS liability issue.† She noted it would take $40 to $60 million to repair the facilities to make them competitive.† She asked where the money would come from.† She also asked if they move the facilities, what the cost would be.† She asked if they sold the fairgrounds, would they recover the costs of the move and would the community support it.
Mike Schwartz, Fair Board, commented that the facility is old and it is not a convention center, but an event center that is a Class B facility.† He added that every year they need maintenance, and things wonít get better.† He said the Board of Commissioners needed to give direction as to what they want to see as a Board.
Steve Ward, Fair Board, commented that the fairgrounds are run on a shoestring.† He said if the Board made the decision to sell the property before a replacement property was selected and developed, they would lose their customers.† He noted there is competition for their major customers.† He added if the Board wanted to remain in this type of business, he asked the Board to direct them to look for a new location.† He thought the fairground property came up to highest and best use.† He commented that if the highest and best use of the property is no longer an events center, then that is the most critical driving decision for relocation.
Stewart thought the fair was important and he wanted to stay in the business.† He asked if they could do a better job if they looked at some of the opportunities.
Hunton responded that the Fair Board had no attachment to a specific property.† He commented that there is a substantial amount of deferred maintenance in the facility.† With regard to the TRT, he said even though the events center takes a majority of the TRT, the hotel and restaurants arenít sure the fairgrounds are bringing them in to stay overnight.† He said they wanted flexibility as to the TRT that has already been committed and is forthcoming.
Dwyer agreed that the Fair Board needed more flexibility with the TRT.† He said there are things needed and the people own the resource and the community wants to keep it.† He said they have to find the money and then ask the people if the fairgrounds are important to them by supporting a bond measure to refurbish the fairgrounds or a value added tax.† He said it is important to the community.
Zagorin asked for direction.†† He was open minded with Stewartís proposal.†† He wanted the Board to commit to keeping the fairgrounds open as a public facility.† He said the location in the metro area has significant difficulties that have to do with animals.† He added there were advantages for being in the metro area because they have a facility that had everything in one site.† He said proximity to public transportation is key.† He added that having the trade shows present with all of the commercial displays is a big part of the financial stability of the fair.† He said if they remove this part of the fair, they would have to re-create the trade show facilities.† He didnít know if moving the fair part without the trade show facilities would work.†† He wanted the direction to continue operating at the current location as a public facility, to minimize the loss.
MOTION:† to move Zagorinís recommendations, plus examining other alternatives that wonít disrupt what they are doing.† The alternatives include a sports aspect, co-location and generating new revenue through partnering with the community in developing an amusement tax that would fit their needs, and come back with other ideas and concepts as to what they could do.
Dwyer said it is a regional problem and they needed a regional solution.† He thought all the alternatives needed to be reviewed.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Morrison reiterated that the Fair Board is being directed to a status quo and at the same time, look at possible ideas for co-location opportunities and for other things to be placed at the fairgrounds that would have costs attached, the amusement tax and any other creative ideas the Fair Board might have.
Dwyer noted on page 2 of the supplemental material, it mentions the balancing out, including paying off of the Planetarium loan, establishing cash reserve, internal debt service, and the capital improvement plan.† He added that this was also part of his recommendation.
Morrison wanted to take this separately.
Dwyer withdrew his motion, Sorenson withdrew his second.
MOTION: †to operate the fairgrounds in the current location and giving the Fair Board direction to plan on continuing operation in its current place, notwithstanding looking at other alternatives.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Dwyer added they would not sell the fairgrounds and need to ask the people want they want.† He wanted stability to stay and operate and work out the problems that relate to the challenges.† He said they would stay where they are.
Sorenson wanted the Fair Board to take this discussion and write it up into a formal board order that could be taken back to the Board so they could get the clarity that everyone wants.† He thought the Fair Board was asking for flexibility with the use of the TRT and he was in agreement.
Stewart was not in favor of the motion as stated, but wanted a motion similar to what Zagorin had stated: that they are committed to the facility for the foreseeable future.† He wanted the Board to make a motion that they are committed to letting the Fair Board use the TRT funds as they see needed to make it happen.† He also wanted to give the Fair Board the ability to explore all options and come back to the Board and see what they think is best for the fair, the fairgrounds and the community.
Dwyer withdrew his motion and Seconded Stewart's motion.
MOTION:† to approve the Fair Board committing to the current facility for the foreseeable future.
Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
MOTION:† to allow the Fair Board the flexibility for the TRT, with an annual review.
Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
MOTION:† to continue to explore all future options that would allow for the continuation that would be available to them as a Board.
Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
b. DISCUSSION/Review and Possible Reassignment of the Functions of the Management Services Department.
Van Vactor outlined background information on how they dealt with the Department of Management Services over the years, starting in 1963 when Lane County was changed from a general law county to a home rule county.† He noted that change gave the Board of Commissioners discretion to organize county departments in any fashion.† He indicated it was up to the Board to do what they wanted.† He said since 1992, Human Services was merged with Management Services and have operated with that type of configuration.† He added the Board of Commissioners led the effort in 1990 to create the Department of Human Resources to focus on human resources.
Van Vactor explained that they put three alternatives in the memo.† He said Option 1 is consolidation of partial service area alignment or a strong county administrator position where they align services by a service area: category 1, infrastructure; category 2, human resources; category 3, finance, budget; category 4, deeds, records and elections; category 5, animal regulation; category 6, intergovernmental relations; and category 7, for the Board of County Commissioners.† He noted a pro identified is that it might have the consequence of eliminating a department director and it might save money.† He said it aligns service areas by function and it would allow the county administrator to direct most of the support service functions to the organization.† He said the cons include five director point relationships and he thought his work was already overwhelming and it would be difficult adding five additional directors.† He indicated a belief in checks and balances and that it would be appropriate to have some of the responsibility in different areas where budgeting is concerned.
Van Vactor discussed the cons of consolidating into one county administration department.† He defined the responsibility of a department head to be a champion for their department and their functions.† He said if there were problems, it was difficult being a champion and a critic and disciplinarian of the function.† He added the county administrator has a responsibility to rule under contract disputes.† He noted a second option was to create a Human Resources Department.† He said the pros would be to allow greater organizational function and oversight on critical county functions, which reduces a layer between the policy makers and the Board and the manager, and reduces the responsibilities of Management Services.† He said the con would be that it creates a department with normal department costs.
Van Vactor explained that Option 3 was a status quo.† He said they tried different options and did an internet search of other counties. He thought somewhere between Option 3 and Option 2 was the best way to move forward.† He said the pro for the status quo is they could go forward with recruitment.† He said the con is that they will continue to have a department that has unrelated service areas and it is difficult to recruit in that position for career professionals.
Van Vactor said other options they discussed included sending LCARA to the Sheriffís Office.† He added they also looked at assigning support services to a single department like fleet service.† He said another option was to consolidate budget and finance and assigning those to county administration.† He thought finance was an important function and needed to have its own finance manager.† He wanted to keep the current arrangement with budget and county administration.† He recommended Option 3.
Dwyer wanted to see them do an analysis.† He said they need to look beyond counties, but look at cities that have elected commissioners and how they operate.† He didnít mind the commissioners being assigned a department to manage to utilize some different thinking.† He thought it would take away some of the responsibilities of the county administrator.
Green commented that this is about what is going to happen in the future. He thought if they wanted to know what works well, they should ask the people who are doing the job because sometimes that is where the best ideas come from.† He was in agreement with Option 3 but wanted to think more out of the box.† He commented that in todayís world, people are following a career path in human resources, not Animal Regulation or other departments within Management Services.
Stewart leaned more toward Option 2 to see if it was a viable option.† He thought it would relieve the work in the department.† He wanted to focus on peopleís interests and improve the situation.
Sorenson commented that altering the structure of Lane County government would have to be a bigger discussion.† He said as they grow and the nature of responsibility gets more complex, they would see new pressures.† He wanted to see the pros and cons of making the decision.† He asked how they were going to spend money efficiently.† He thought Animal Regulation should be separate from people and money.† He favored the status quo.
Dwyer also leaned toward the status quo, examining how they could increase their level of expertise, and provide better level of efficient services to the citizens of Lane County at an equal or cheaper rate.
Morrison wasnít opposed to looking at other models.† She wanted the financial ramifications of those realignments attached to it.† She had concerns about each of the commissioners being responsible for certain areas.† She thought the possibility of having an assistant county administrator could work, defining what the two positions would oversee, and that they might be able to work it out without there being an increase in overall costs.† She wanted† to make sure when they make decisions, that they have good information in front of them.† She wanted to see other models and the costs attributed to them and how the structure would look.† She wanted something to come back within 60 days with there being an assistant county administrator, or a different Option 2.
Van Vactor asked what the Board wanted to do with the recruitment of the budget analyst position as they were in the middle of recruitment.† He thought if they didnít fill that position, that some of the money could fund an assistant county administrator.
Dwyer said if there is a need for a budget analyst, that they need to fill the position.† He wanted to move forward with the analyst position.
Sorenson thought that the system they have under the Lane County Charter with the county administrator is better than the individual opinions of five commissioners.† He said they should continue with what they are doing.
Van Vactor recommended that they continue this discussion.
(The following discussion took place in the afternoon:)
Dwyer wanted to look at other options, not impeding on what they were currently doing.
Morrison indicated that they would continue to fill the position of management analyst, and at the same time go forward at the possibility of re-alignment of the Management Services Department and whether to have the restructuring include an assistant county administrator.† She wanted the analysis with any financial ramifications.
Sorenson was also in favor of going forward with the management analyst hiring process.
Dwyer indicated there was consensus to give Van Vactor direction to move forward with the hiring process.
Green agreed to look at other opportunities.† He said they should look at the benefit of having an assistant county administrator.† He asked where they would get the money for the position. He also wanted to know if they needed to have something in addition that might create a separate position around human resources.† He said it needs to come back with a good plan and a separate analysis† and analytical approach on what an assistant county administrator would do and the duties of a pure human resource director.
Van Vactor wanted the Board to have a broader discussion.† He added if they didnít proceed with a management analyst, that that could create a funding source.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1212/In the Matter of Adopting a Conformity Determination Amendment to the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) Pursuant to RCP General Plan Policies - Goal 2, Policy 27 a.ii., Goal 2, Policy 27 a.vii. and Goal 4, Policy 15, to Rezone 83.58 acres from Nonimpacted Forest Land (F1, RCP) to Impacted Forest Land (F2, RCP) for Four Parcels Identified as Tax Lots 4100 (15.69 acres) and 4200 (23.19 acres) on Lane County Assessorís Map 19-01-08, and Tax Lots 1800 (26.01 acres) and 401 (18.69 acres) on Lane County Assessorís Map 19-01-17, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (File: PA 04-5276, Kronberger) (NBA & PM 3/16/05 & 3/30/05).
Bill Sage, Land Management, reported that the Board heard this application on March 30, 2005 and the record was held open until April 13.† He noted the Board received two addendums after the public hearing: on March 30, 2005 and on April 14.† He indicated on Monday he sent the Board a deliberations guideline that puts together the record and makes it a simpler process.† He explained that there are two applications being applied for.† He said one is to be considered under circumstances that there was a difference between the map diagram and the text of the ordinance, and the second was because of tax lots that were not recognized in 1984.† He added that there was other consideration that should have been reviewed.† He said both come back to the foundation that the F1 zoning should be reviewed under Goal 4, Policy 15 to determine by characteristics whether it should be F1 or F2 lands.
Sage suggested making a determination under the legal lot issue, using the four characteristics for F1 land and the four characteristics for F2 land to arrive at whether they think the zoning would have applied in 1984 when the map and the diagram were put together and would it apply now that they know there are four tax lots on that parcel that they didnít recognize in 1984.
Sage explained with the deliberation guidelines, there is also a need for the Board to assign findings of fact, regardless of which decision they make.† He said with the first option, if they find in favor of the applicant for either of the two options, then the recommendation is they assign the findings of fact to the applicantís agent and have them write the findings.† He stated if the Board denies one of the two options, then staff would write them up.† He added that the ordinance and findings donít discuss the issues the Board is discussing today in order to make that determination.† He indicated that the Planning Commission made one recommendation to the Board that is a policy issue and it is written into the ordinance and was discussed at the public hearing.† He said they looked back into the legislative history at the state and local level from 1983 to 1986 and made a determination that because of the changes the state and county did, that legal lots that existed during the period from 1983 to 1986 were considered by the Board to be legal then and to be legal today.
Stewart thought the County erred in recognizing whether the legal lots existed.† He believed the lots existed in Option 1.† He commented that they didnít acknowledge that the lots existed so they made an error by assessing that zone as a 200-acre block without acknowledging the four lots existed.
Sage indicated that this was a conformity determination to see whether or not the right zone was established in 1984 and whether the Board thinks that a different zone should be established.† He noted the Lane County Planning Commissionís recommendation was to apply a common sense interpretation of the 1983-1986 definition of a legal lot.† He said in Lane Code 13 and 16 (based on the clarification of ORS 92 by HB 2381 in 1985 and Lane Countyís adoption of three ordinances in 1986 in response to the enactment of HB 2381) that discreet parcels lawfully created by recorded deed, a real estate contract prior to 1983-1986 were not merged during that period and are today discrete legal lots.† He indicated that they didnít do legal lot verifications in 1984 and the maps that were produced by LCOG during that time didnít recognize them.† He said they are discussing a change in the zoning based on the information now that they didnít have then.
Sorenson asked how this compared with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this should be denied.
Sage responded that the Planning Commission didnít get this far.† He said when they were looking at the discrepancy between a plan diagram and the text of the ordinance, they thought the plan diagram (without considering any of the F2, Goal 4, Policy 15 issues) where this comes up is one that should be considered the Boardís intent at the time.† He said they looked at what they thought the Boardís intent was and whether or not F1 was a more suitable zone at that time.† He noted it was their conclusion that it was F1 and† it went with a map diagram instead of the admission of the text with the tax lot being included.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, noted that the Planning Commission looked at Option 1, the correction of an inconsistency between the text and the map.† He said that is where they focused on the Boardís intent when the action was taken and left it at that.† He added they moved the other issue about whether there were separate legal lots, expressed a recommendation on that but then didnít move forward onto the second alternative for changing the plan designation and zoning for the property.† He indicated that if there was an error that was involved, there were more legal lots there that might have changed the analysis back in 1984, if the County had known about that, and then go forward as to what the policies say about how to decide whether it should be F1 or F2.† He said it is not two applications but two alternative theories for forwarding this application.† He asked if there was a discrepancy between the action taken in 1984 on what the map said and what the text seemed to say, and the discrepancy on how to resolve that.† He said they could choose to resolve that, but if they donít, they could still move forward to the second theory.† He added that at the time there was the parcelization of four legal lots and had they known about it then and used the policies on whether to go F1 or F2, how they† would come out today using the same policies with the knowledge of four parcels instead of one.† He said they could make motions about what they think about these various steps in the process if they want to take up the parcelization issue and reach a consensus that they agree where they have a mix of positions and if they assume that, how they think they would come out and whether it should be F1 or F2 using Policy 15.† He said they could take action on the separate steps, but he recommended that the Board do it in a tentative form so they get down to approving the ordinance.
Sorenson asked why the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial.
Vorhes indicated that they were not convinced that there was an inconsistency and they thought the diagram should rule and not the text, and the text wouldnít change the outcome.
Sage explained that they were adopting maps in 1982, 1983 and 1984.†† He said that staff and the Board were in the room when the drawings on the maps were voted on.† He said in some cases when they came back, they had a CPR process.† He noted that there were approximately 1,200 of them at the time.† He noted the Planning Commission and the Board met in joint session and went back through it.† He added that some were a response from LCDC when they were reviewing them.† He said they went back to look at all the larger properties and changes were made.† He noted in order to be clear on what properties were going to be rezoned, the ordinance states to go to Exhibit C that would list the properties in the text.† He said at that time it was called tax lot 401 and they didnít put that property onto the text list.† He indicated that the Planning Commission had to determine whether or not they thought the exercise they had in marking out the old zoning to put the new zonings in, indicating the area as being rezoned, was the paramount activity or the supplemental activity of the text.† He asked if the error was made in drawing lines or leaving off the tax lot by the typist.† He said they would go with the map, as it was the more defined piece of evidence for them.
Stewart commented that the County had erred in not recognizing the tax lot existed.
MOTION:† to recognize the County made an error.
Vorhes recalled with the separate legal lots that existed, had they looked at them and realized them in 1984, that it would have been addressed.† He noted that it doesnít address whether there was an inconsistency between the map and text that was adopted at the time.† He added the Board could choose to not express an opinion on that one.† He said if they decide there was parcelization (and it is enough reason to move forward), to look at the policy issues and decide if should it be F1 of F2.
MOTION:† to tentatively approve Option 2 of Ordinance No. PA 1212 and approving a Third Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading and Deliberation for June 15, 2005.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Vorhes explained the motion accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission that there were four lots, and it agrees that it has characterization that would make it F2, had they known about the parcelization at the time.† He said it would address both the parcelization pattern and the allocation of deciding whether it should be F1 of F2, all at the same time.† He recommended that it be tentatively approved, directing the applicant to draft findings of fact.
Sorenson commented that the facts that were presented in the testimony would show that it is F1 land, not F2 land.† He didnít think the facts justified this.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
b. THIRD 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).
Van Vactor indicated from the Joint Elected Officials meeting there were questions that were asked.† He said they are working on them and have not yet completed the answers.† He recommended rolling this for another reading.
MOTION:† to approve a Third Reading and setting† Fourth Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance No. PA 1221 on May 19, 2005.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Board of Commissioners
1) ORDER 05-5-4-3/In the Matter of Supporting the Mission and Efforts of "Communities for Healthy Forests."
B. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 05-5-4-4/In the Matter of Approving Exhibit A, the Lane County Annual Health Plan for FY 2005-06.
C. Public Works
1) ORDER 05-5-4-5/In the Matter of Awarding Requirement Contracts to Various Contractors to Establish Unit Prices for Rock Material Needs During the Fiscal Year 2005/2006, Prospective Contract No. 05/06-M&S-51.
2) ORDER 05-5-4-6/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Sahlberg Equipment Co. in the Amount of $579,996.00, for the Purchase of Four (4), New, Rubber Tire 4x4 Tractors with Boom Mounted Mowers, with No Trade In (Contract No. FY04/05 FS-07).
3) ORDER 05-5-4-7/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Peterson Machinery, Co., in the amount of $87,008.00 with Trade-in, for the Purchase of One (1), New Integrated Toolcarrier, Contract FY04/05 FS-06.
D. Youth Services
1) ORDER 05-5-4-8/In the Matter of Approving the Contract Between Lane Workforce Partnership and Youth Services in the Amount of $120,000 to Provide Education and Workforce Development Services for 30 Youth, and Approving the Creation of 1 FTE Employment Specialist Position Within Youth Services.
Sorenson requested that item 9 A. 1. be pulled.
MOTION:† to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
A. Board of Commissioners
1) ORDER 05-5-4-3/In the Matter of Supporting the Mission and Efforts of "Communities for Healthy Forests."
Sorenson asked who the community members were.
Morrison noted that Sue Kupillas was reaching out to other counties and chambers of commerce participants.
Sorenson said they should get a better idea of who the community is and where they get the money.
Dwyer commented that it was not unreasonable to have a list of who the community members were and what entities they were with.† He recommended attaching the sheet to this board order and bringing it back to the next board meeting on the Consent Calendar.
Green supported the request as long as it was not a tactic.
The item was pulled.
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
Morrison indicated the Board received two letters: one from Donna Smalley and one from Melba Durant about Hulbert Lake Road.† She noted that Public Works was already scheduled to bring this matter back with recommendations from the public meeting that took place in Junction City.
Stewart stated that he also attended the meeting in Junction City.† He noted that a question was asked† about who the owners of the properties were along the road and no one was from Benton County.† He asked if the people were okay with legalizing the road and creating a minimum right-of-way.† He noted that not one person who was present was against this.† He noted that Melba Durant discussed the bypass road.† He thought that the meeting went well and that the people want to have the road repaired.† He said the† concern was taking homes and pump houses.† He noted that they could do repairs with a minimum amount of road width and the additional rightĖof-way would fall within the fence lines and side ditches.† He said that people didnít voice opposition.
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 11:50 a.m.