BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
April 26, 2006
Commissionersí Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-4-26-10/Commenting to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the Region 2 Modernization Proposal for Priority Projects for the 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, explained the Board considered projects on this.† He recalled there was a Public Hearing on September 21, 2005 to establish a list of large projects.† He added on December 14, 2005, the Board held an additional Public Hearing and took testimony.† He indicated the board order was approved, noting six projects on the priority list, and forwarded that to the Region 2 staff of the state.† He said they put out a straw proposal in February with a proposal to distribute funds around Region 2 projects.
Stinchfield noted the action today was an order with a letter that supports the list as proposed by the Region 2 staff.† He indicated that modernization funds in the state are restricted.† He said this proposal adds funds to projects that already have some funding allocated.† He noted the I-5 Beltline project is under contract.† He said this would add $3.5 million to that project for a future phase.† With regard to I-5 Coburg, it has $14.5 million of funding identified between federal and county sources and this proposal would add $6.2 million to that project.† He noted there was an error in the agenda cover memo in the text.† He said the list is $6.2 million.† He added there is an interchange improvement project on Beltline at Coburg Road that is funded in the current STIP at $4.4 million and this proposal would add $2.2 million to get it to where the state thinks it needs to go to contract.
Stinchfield indicated there are two development STIP projects and both had some funds allocated.† This proposal would add funds.† He noted the Beltline study has $1 million allocated in the current STIP and this would add $1.5 million, totaling $2.5 million to what the state thinks it will take to finish the NEPA process in 2009.† He noted the Highway 126 Porterf Creek to Noti project has $500,000 allocated for development work and this proposal would add another $500,000.
Stinchfield thought the proposal was consistent with the priorities the Board had adopted and staff is recommending support.† He noted the all area meeting that will be held to discuss this proposal has been set for June 9, 2:00 p.m.
Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Welch, Elmira, was present on behalf of the Eugene Association of Realtors, the Springfield Board of Realtors and the Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors.† He said they reviewed this, supported the proposal and would like to see it go forward.
Terry Connolly, Eugene, was present on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce.† He noted that, consistent with their previous testimony on these projects, they urged the Boardís support and the new level of funding.† He said they thought each was important not only to Lane County as a whole, but to the metropolitan area for purposes of moving people, goods and services.† He indicated that the West Eugene Parkway was not on the list.† He added it did not affect the fact the money had already been programmed for the project.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-4-26-10.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-4-26-11/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 05-6181, Weber).
Steve Hopkins, Land Management, explained that the property contains 52 acres near Cottage Grove.† He indicated it is zoned F2, but when Edward and Marie Weber acquired an interest in the property in 1975, it was zoned AGT 5.† He noted they could have divided the property into five-acre lots and placed a dwelling on each lot.† He indicated it is currently in a trust and the issue regarding the ownership of the trust has been resolved.† He said they could consider Edward and Marie and the trust to be the same ownership that had been continuous.† He noted the issue for the Board to decide is whether or not the submitted evidence for valuation is competent and reasonable.† He indicated they had provided two appraisals, one under the current rules.† If they divided it into five-acre lots each lot would be worth so much.† He said if the Board agrees that is competent evidence, the claim should be waived.
Van Vactor commented that the appraisal on this was somewhat thin in that they had given an opinion value based on hypothetical conditions on ten lots, $200,000 each totaling $2 million.† He added there was no direct linkage between the land use regulations that restricts the development of the property and the opinion of value.
Dwyer thought there had been a diminution of value because the zoning was changed.† He commented when these people purchased the property, the purchase price reflected their ability to do that.
Sorenson didnít think the appraisal stated what Measure 37ís evaluation was about.† He also didnít think the landowner was deprived of money.
Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.
Michele Weber, Eugene said she represented the owners.† She stated that they had provided a market appraisal.† She also provided a map that showed the topography and the feasibility of putting in a road.† She recalled about 20 years ago Weber tried going into five-acre parcels but because of the zoning he was unable.† She thought the staff report accurately represented what they are trying to do.† She said they want to go back to AGT 5 as it has stayed in continuous ownership and the Webersí ability to develop the land had been restricted from when they first acquired the property.† They thought they should be allowed to do so.
Caleb Standover, Cottage Grove, asked why Weber didnít talk to the neighbors.† He thought there would be less concern if he had.† He didnít think ten more houses would make a difference.† His concern was the scarcity of water in some places.† He didnít know how many people could access the water supply.† He thought Measure 37 was wrong.† He thought Weber had the right to maximize his income.
Carol Hoines, Cottage Grove, said he bordered the Weber land.† He said he spoke with Weber briefly.† He indicated that Weber was not going to take all of the trees off.† He thought he should be granted five-acre parcels. Hoines commented that he had never had problems with water in the seven years he had been there.
Greg Fox, Cottage Grove, commented that it was important not to use apple pie mathematics.† He thought all factors should be considered in arriving at just compensation.† He noted that the acres would require a roadway and it would be substantial that would use up more than two acres.† He thought the appraisals were high, as the high costs were for lots ready to be built upon.† He noted what they have are not lots ready to build.† He didnít know how the appraisal could be $2 million when there was no infrastructure done on it.† He was concerned about water, as it had been deemed water restricted by the Watermaster.
Sorenson asked why Fox was opposing this.
Fox didnít think the appraisal dealt with the value of the land.
Dwyer explained if they were going to pay the Webers then they would have to consider all issues.† He said they were not going to pay the Webers.
Green asked if Foxís property was affected by this proposal.
Fox thought everyoneís property on the hill was affected.† He said there are people who donít like this.
Green explained that not all counties are treating these situations the same.† He indicated they were doing the best they could and they have to follow what the law says.
Sorenson commented that the appraisal was not waived.† He said the applicant got an appraiser to give a valuation but it was a hypothetical appraisal.
Van Vactor noted that as unclear as Measure 37 is, they will have do deal with it.
Dwyer commented that an appraisal is an opinion a value in time.† He said if they were going to pay the claim then he would worry about the appraisal.† He said the market would bear with what he is allowed to do.
There being no one signed to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the public hearing.
MOTION: ORDER 06-4-26-11.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Sorenson indicated he was a no because he thought the applicant hadnít met the burden of proof.
Dwyer was supportive of this.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
17. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Stewart announced that this weekend in Oakridge is the Tree Planting Festival.† He spoke about the new amphitheater.
18. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
19. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.