June 14, 2006

2:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 3/14/07


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



a.         SIXTH READING AND SETTING SEVENTH READING Ordinance No. 1-06 Amending Chapter 4 of Lane Code to Add Provisions for a Lane County Public Safety Income Tax, to Adopt Administration and Collection Provisions, To Renumber Differential Tax Provisions, and to Set an Effective Date (LC 4.500 through 4.571)


Van Vactor recalled that two years ago when they formed a public safety district at the end of the 04/05-budget process, the initial steps required a Metro Plan Amendment and process through the Boundary Commission.  He stated they didn’t make any progress on the Metro Plan Amendment because it required the cities’ consent.  He said they received Springfield’s consent, but not the City of Eugene.  He indicated that Mayor Piercy offered to work with them to try to solve issues with the public safety program.  From that a Public Safety Task Force was formed.  He said their goal is to improve the public safety system and provide stability to Lane County government.


Jim Johnson, consultant, reported that the Public Safety Task Force was established by the Board with the assistance of the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield.  He said they spent time reviewing the criminal justice public safety system within Lane County.  He noted that all of the cities participated, along with two members of the Board, the District Attorney and the Sheriff.  He said the use of illegal drugs--the abuse of alcohol and use of meth--are the most important factors associated with criminal behavior and frequent interaction with the public safety system.  He said the task force recommended that for at least the next five years the Lane County Public Safety System should focus on the impact and the effects of illegal drugs, alcohol abuse, and meth in Lane County.  He said they have recommended four goals:  that the Lane County Public Safety System should concentrate on special action to target illegal drug producers, dealers, users, and property criminals.  He said they should make efforts to reduce family violence which results from illegal drug and alcohol abuse.  He said they should enhance treatment programs and provide additional prevention programs.  He said they looked at programs and services to enhance the public safety system in Lane County and recommended a budget enhancement of $24.53 million to address the impact of illegal drugs on the public safety system.


Johnson indicated the budget would fund programs and services specifically designed to address drug production, distribution and use in Lane County.  He said $15.28 million would go toward targeting illegal drug producers, dealers, users and property crime criminals.  He said there would be additional jail beds for adult and youth, more detectives for property and violent crimes and more resident deputies.  He indicated about $2.88 million would be devoted to reducing family violence.  He said it would include a domestic violence prosecution team, more supervision of domestic violence offenders, more staff at the Child Advocacy Center and more help for Relief Nursery.   He added that $2.9 million would be used to enhance treatment programs for adults and youth, including drug and alcohol sex offenders and more mental health. He noted that $1.62 million would enhance prevention programs, including Healthy Start and more mentoring.  He said that $5 million is devoted to court facility improvements.  He said the Board had accepted the recommendation of the Public Safety Task Force.


Doug Harcleroad, District Attorney, commented that the public safety system is overwhelmed because Lane County is crime ridden.  He reported that Lane County’s 2004 crime rate ranking among similar counties shows Lane County with a vehicle theft of 84 percent.  He noted the average is 50 percent.  He declared that property crime is out of control.


Wilson recalled that the Board had considered earlier a sales tax and a gross receipts tax and through the public hearing process and Board discussion, determined that those were not acceptable measures for the problems they had just discussed.  She noted that at Board direction they worked on a charter amendment.  She said the charter amendment is designed to limit the Board’s authority on any income tax they impose.  She said it would make the income tax rate no higher than 1.5 percent of net income unless there was a citizens’ vote.  She said if the voters approve the charter amendment, the Board’s authority is capped at 1.5 percent of net income.  She added it requires that any income tax that the Board were to enact would be dedicated for public safety to protect the citizens from the effects of lost revenue or to reduce criminal activity.  She said income taxes under the charter amendment would be used for the current public safety services plus the new programs as recommended by the task force. 


She added that any increased revenue would be focused on the four goals of the Board.  She said the charter amendment also requires that any income tax include some property tax relief.  She indicated the charter amendment also establishes that income tax revenues have to go into a dedicated public safety fund so their use is guaranteed for public safety purposes and it provides that there will be a reserve amount (rainy day).


Wilson explained the ordinance would use the methodology by which the charter amendment could be implemented.  She said it sets out three different kinds of income tax.  She said the Board’s goal was to make an income tax that was as broad as possible so that everyone who benefits from public safety services gets an opportunity to help contribute to the support.  She said there is a personal income tax, an income tax on non-residents, and an income tax on business.  She indicated there is equity provided so that if they pay a business income tax, there is a credit for the personal income tax.  She explained that the personal income tax allows a deduction:  $5,000 for residents who file jointly, $2,500 for those who file singly and a low-income exemption at a rate of $20,000 combined adjusted gross income.  She noted that the non-resident income tax is designed to tax income activity within Lane County.  She added there is an exemption for businesses that have a gross business income of less than $25,000.  She noted the ordinance in front of the Board is set at a one percent tax rate.  She said currently Lane County is still receiving money form the federal government from the Secure Rural Schools Act.  She said the ordinance is premised on some continued receipts of those funds for the calendar year 2007.  She indicated that the ordinance also requires that a portion of the actual property tax revenues that are received be transferred into the public safety fund.  She said the ordinance contains a credit for property taxes paid at the rate the charter described.  She noted there will be a requirement in the ordinance that the property tax credit gets transferred into the public safety fund and be dedicated in that method for public safety services.


Wilson indicated the Board could adopt the ordinance and it wouldn’t take effect until and unless the charter amendment is approved.  She said the other option is for the Board to simply wait to enact any ordinance until after the vote has occurred.  She said that waiting will either cause the income tax to be delayed until July 2007 or would require putting something in place between enactment and whenever they get it working.

Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Don Lance, Creswell, stated he is the Tax Director at Monaco Coach.  He was in support of the new tax.  He said they cannot ignore crime.  He stated that Monaco is a company that supports and takes pride in the community.  He said while a county income tax would result in a financial burden, they will support it as they believe the cost of not supporting Lane County public safety is far higher.  He thought the proposed income tax was a good choice as a revenue raiser because it fairly spreads the financial burden over the entire community that benefits from the services.  Also, income taxes take into account one’s ability to pay.  He encouraged the Board to provide as much guidance as possible in the tax return instructions for the computation of the property tax credit.  He commented that it would be confusing for most taxpayers.  He added that they needed to be careful with the effective date because there are computer issues dealing with employers withholding the Lane County tax.  He asked the Board to use the money wisely to make their community safe again.


Teresa Kloehn, Eugene, stated she was a victim of crime in September.  She indicated the person that took her purse was a drug user.  He took her money and bought drugs.  She didn’t want to pay more taxes but she said if it means the streets would be safer then she would be paying more taxes to have safer streets.  She added Victim Services stood by her during the ordeal.


Ramona Christensen, Junction City, commented that the tax is the fairest tax they could give the citizens.  She was in favor of it.  She wanted safety in the community and noted that meth is at the base of a lot of the problems.  She indicated that she as well as her neighbors had been victims of crime.


Darlene Kline-Dolby, Eugene, stated she supports an income tax ordinance that includes an exemption for low-income residents.  She said they are no longer safe from crime.  She commented that most of the crimes committed are by drug addicts.  She said they need more treatment programs, more officers, jail beds and prosecution and to get tough in Lane County’s approach to crimes.  She said the Board needed the courage to protect the law-abiding tax paying citizens who elected them.  She didn’t want it sent to a vote but to enact the ordinance and make Lane County a safe place to work, live and play.


Ron Davis, Cottage Grove, stated he has two small businesses.  He said he is looking at an increase in his license of 140 percent from the State of Oregon.  He commented that multinational corporations are getting tax breaks and the low income tax payers are being hit the hardest.  He said if this doesn’t pass, something needs to be done.  He suggested looking at a management audit.  He said people in rural Lane County don’t even know the Board is proposing an income tax.  He suggested assessing all the big corporations with a property tax, as that is a steady flow of money.


Jim Hale, Eugene, stated the need is clear and time is here.  He said they have had the urgency in law enforcement for 20 years and they are overdue to fix it.  He said they need a new tax and they need to be careful how they craft it and put it in front of the public so they will support it. He said the language he provided would have them tax a married couple at $20,000, which was the original intent. He suggested giving residents the full $1.28 back to the residents, and property tax relief only on residential property.  He believed that businesses that pay taxes are not overtaxed with their property tax.  He wanted to make sure that no one in the future could change it.  He recommended reviewing his information (copy in file).  He commented that they need to find a way for the citizens to support the police.  He said they need an overall solution that the voters would support.


Elaine Bryson, Vida, stated she is the Family Resource Center Coordinator for the McKenzie School District. She was in favor of the public safety initiative.  She said it focuses on the immediate need of the law enforcement issues and recognizes proven prevention programs.  She commented that parents who are involved and students who feel they are connected with their parents are not going to be coming into the juvenile justice system.  She said all the programs struggle to maintain funding.  She supported the opportunity to expand programs in Lane County to work to support children and families with solid consistent funding.


David Hinkley, Eugene, commented that they cannot operate the County on $1.28 assessed value.  He said the problem is the proposal is a loser because he rents.  He said he pays his property tax when he pays his rent.  He said there is no incentive.  He added that the Board has no credibility with the public. He understands there is not enough funding but the problem is that they have been crying wolf for so many years because when things don’t pass, the County finds enough money to do things.  He said they weren’t funding public health high enough.  He said the basic problem is there is not enough money.  He thought it was time for the County to work with the legislators and get the property tax laws changed.  He said they could look at income taxes after that.  He said the Board needed to tighten belts by taking a ten percent cut in their salaries.   He said they needed to look at other ways to do things.


David Hit, Pleasant Hill, stated he was a drug court graduate in 1999 and is now a productive person.  He thinks drug court provides a turning point in people’s lives because those who agree to participate know they have a problem and know they need and want help.  He said this year drug court had enough funding for 52 indigent slots and 72 people are in those slots.  He said drug court has 110 people.  He said that new grant awards will provide an additional 26 slots but it is not enough.  He said it works and money should be put into it.  He thought there should be federal money allocated for mental health in children.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to approve a Fifth Reading and Setting a Sixth Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance 1-06 for June 28, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. in Harris Hall.


Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE:  5-0.


c. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-6-14-6/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 05-6580, Howarth).


Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


There were none.


Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that this application is 330 acres, two miles south of Veneta on Vaughn Road.  He indicated it is zoned F2.  He said the property was acquired in 1973 and at that time it was unzoned.  He said they don’t have an appraisal, there is no value reduction analysis that was provided and no title report.  He said the applicant wants to divide it into lots that are less than 80 acres each with a dwelling.  Howe said what had been provided was a recorded document guaranty. He said it didn’t state who owns the property, it only lists some deeds that are recorded for the property.  He indicated they have some deeds and a statement of value reduction from the agent but the agent has no expertise.  He stated the value of reduction they are claiming is $3 million or $12 million.  He said if the Board finds this accurate with the date of acquisition, there hadn’t been enough information to determine if there had been a valid claim.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Joe Willis, Portland, stated he represents the applicant.  He said the guaranty comes from the title company and has all the deeds.  He said the Howarths own the property and live on it. He said the Howarths have had the property since 1973.  With regard to value reduction, he said if there were no restrictions as it was in 1973 when they acquired it compared to the restrictions that are put on today, there is a huge value difference. He said when they filed their report, they didn’t submit it under the ordinance but under Measure 37 because it gives the applicants a chance to go to court for relief for just compensation including attorney’s fees and expenses.  He said the Howarths were prepared to go to court.  He asked the Board to grant this claim.  He said if there are serious issues about the title report, he could walk the Board through it.  He said there was no issue regarding diminution in value.


Lloyd Holtcamp, Veneta, stated that he lives across the street from the property and received notice of the claim. He found an option to purchase the property by Fern Hollow Farms.  He asked what role that played in the Measure 37 process, of if the original owner had to be in control of the property.


Willis indicated that Measure 37 defines owner as a person who has an interest in the property.


Van Vactor asked if the Howarths have sold the property.


Willis said they had not sold the property.


Morrison commented that because someone puts an option down, it doesn’t mean they own the property.  She asked if the property was held in compliance with Ballot Measure 37.


Willis stated the title proves that the people were entitled and owners since 1973.


Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 06-6-14-6.


Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.


Stewart asked if the option agreement meant anything.


Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes, said the difficulty in this case  is with the date of the option agreement and the window of time the title company reported on deeds and contracts of sale, this one doesn’t show up.  He said the title report didn’t show it as an interest or a contract affecting the property.


Dwyer stated he was a no.  He said the option was with the person who gives the earnest money. He said unless they could provide the information, he didn’t think the burden had been met.   


VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).


d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-6-14-7/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 05-5537, Silke).


Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


There were none.


Howe explained that this property is located next to Dunes City and Siltcoos Lake.  He said it is 14 acres is size and currently zoned RR1 with a one-acre density. He said in their code, the limitation is two-acre minimum land division size.  He noted the property was acquired in 1977 and at that time it was unzoned.  He said that Silke wants to divide the property into lots smaller than two acres, each with a dwelling.  He said the state has waived the two-acre minimum land division requirement which was adopted by the state in 1996 and they have incorporated into their code the administrative rule that sets the limitation for minimum land divisions in rural residential zones at two acres.  He said the states indicated the goals were in effect in 1977 and any subsequent development applications would have to address the goals.  He said they would allow the divisions down to one acre in size.  He indicated that all of the code requirements have been addressed and the applicant has provided title reports and deeds.  Today they received supplemental information from the applicant regarding the reduction of value analysis.  He said it appears to be a valid claim.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Bill Kloos, Eugene, distributed evaluation data.  He said lots in this category that are one acre in size are worth the same as lots of two acres in size.  He said the property has been zoned R1 but through LCDC they waived the policy and it was subject to a two acre minimum.  He said they want to go back to what the current zoning is, a one-acre minimum.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-6-14-7.


Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


e. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-6-14-8/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 05-6581, Bernheim).


Howe reported this property is about 546 acres located three miles east of Creswell on Rogers Road.  He said there are four tax lots and they are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use E-40. He said the dates for  acquisition are in  the table on page 2 of the supplement (copy in file).  He indicated they received two title reports that were provided at the time the application was made and they received an additional title report yesterday.  He said it appears that tax lot 105 and 106 were conveyed in 1969 to International Paper and then Bernheim required interest in those properties in 2005.  He said those properties represent approximately 24 acres and are currently zoned E-40.  He said there wouldn’t be a change in the zoning regulations from last year to this year in the E-40 zone, so there wouldn’t be a valid claim on those two tax lots.   


Howe explained that it appears on tax lot 100 that the interest was acquired in 1966, but it wasn’t recorded until 1977.  He said another deed described the same that was signed in 1976 and also recorded in 1977.   He said if the interest was acquired in 1966, the property was unzoned at that time and tax lot 100 is approximately 363 acres in size.   


Howe noted that tax lot 101 is the only lot in which the information hasn’t changed since the application was submitted.  He said it was acquired in 1959 and unzoned at that time.  He said it is 160 acres in size.  He added there was a one-acre portion that wasn’t acquired until 1980 and at that time it was zoned FF 20 that would have allowed a single family dwelling on a vacant legal lot.


With regard to value reduction, Howe explained the information consists of the applicant’s agent providing a copy of six multiple listings of properties.  He noted that three were located on McBeth, Chesm and Briggs Hill Road in Eugene, one in Fall Creek, one in Pleasant Hill and one in Dexter.  He said no value reduction analysis had been provided.  He said it represents a rough estimate to show a difference in value between small properties compared with large properties.   


Howe noted in the correspondence received from this claim, questions have been raised whether Bernheim still has possession interest in the property. He said staff’s recommendation is that they need more information to determine if it is a valid claim. He added that the application is past the 180 days and the applicant has waived the timeline to this date certain.  He noted they received additional information today at 2:00 p.m. from the applicant.


Commissioner Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.


Stewart declared that he had met with a neighbor yesterday to discuss this.  He received a phone message.  He read it into the record.


There were no other ex parte contacts.


Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.


Liam Sherlock, Eugene, stated he had not seen the applicant’s materials.  He indicated it is a proposal to permit a 157-house subdivision on rural agricultural lands.  He said the Board must deny the application.  He said the applicants bought one piece of the property too late and sold the remainder too early for a Measure 37 claim to be sustained.  He said the first item he provided was a 1976 deed that conveyed lot 100 to the Bernheims.  He said the statewide planning goals had been in effect for a year by that time, and Goal 3 prohibits non-agricultural development on agricultural land without an exception to the goal.  He said the largest lot is not acceptable to a Measure 37 claim.  He said there was an interest that the Bernheims had from 1966.  He said the only document he had seen relating to 1966 is a bargain and sale deed from the predecessors to the property, the Simonsons to Eugene Escrow Services.  He added the only other document they have indicating  ownership is the 1976 deed.  He said that meant the Board couldn’t approve this portion of the claim as a matter of law.


Tammy Ellis, Creswell, said she had been told by the Bernheims that he sold the property to the McDougals and they purchased the property with a partnership to do a large-scale development.  She looked up the property and it was shown for sale in the fall of 2004.  She indicated that Bernheim left the home and it was vacated.  She said in 2005 she wanted to talk to Bernheim about renting the house and she was told that it had been sold and in someone else’s hands.  She added in spring there was a one-ton flatbed with a stock trailer placing cattle on the land. She asked the driver and she was told the land was bought by Fernhallow Farms and it is owned by Greg Demurs.  She asked that this entire claimed be denied.


Judy Walker, Creswell, stated she had known the Bernheims for over 30 years.  She said in 2004 Bunk Bernheim asked if they wanted to help dispose of his farm equipment because they had sold the property and they had two months to move out.  She said her husband helped him clean the place out.  She said that Bernheim gave her husband equipment and sold the large herd of cows.  She said Bernheim made trips from his residence in Central Oregon back to Rogers Road to sell the property.  She noted the closing date was in November 04.  She said he discussed the plan to live on the property until they get around the Measure 37.  She commented that to divide the land would have a devastating effect.  She indicated that water is an issue.  She stated the current owners are not the Bernheims, but the McDougal group and she asked the Board to deny the request.


Krista Crooner, Creswell, opposed the Measure 37 claim.  She said the current ownership was Frontier Resources that had purchased the Bernheim property and had cattle put on the land.  She added on June 1, 2006 it was confirmed by Mr. Demur that he would be the production manager on the project.  She said it wasn’t clear that the Bernheims suffered loses.


Norm Pendell, Creswell, said his property is across from the Bernheim property.  He indicated there was no appraisal with the file but comparables.  He stated that they didn’t follow Lane County’s procedures.  He commented what was presented was a smokescreen, just small pieces that supported the claim.  He said it was proposed that the Demurs have an interest in the property.  He noted there were Frontier signs on the property that stated no trespassing.


Philip Dills, Creswell, stated his property fronts the Bernheim property.  He indicated his neighbors had concerns about the division of 155 lots.  He said there were water and quality of life issues.  He added the values of the existing homes would be affected.  He said it could cause further degradation of the Willamette watershed.  He added that portions of the property would not qualify for development because of wetlands.  He noted that flooding is occurring.   He asked the Board not to allow this to go forward.


Pete Klauster, Creswell said that he had lived in the area for 19 years.  He stated that the request for a wavier had hit the neighborhood hard.  He said the testimony and County staff’s recommendation have made it clear that a waiver on the entire property is impossible because County staff had issued a report that stated the waiver on lot 101 was unsupportable because they don’t have enough information that tax lot 101 is owned, but not by Bernheim.  He thought the County must deny any application for a waiver on lot 100.  He said the request for transferability is in the courts and there is no precedent for granting transferability statewide.  He said the letter demanding a waiver from the Portland attorneys should be turned down on both counts.  He said he knew Bunk Bernheim for many years and Bunk spoke often about his plans to get on with his life and partition the Shady Side Ranch.  He said his vision of the Shady Side was smaller versions of what he had.  He said the County has to deny this request.


Amy Pendell, Creswell, stated she is a property owner within 1500 feet of the claim.  She went to County records about the property and found there were numerous sales and transfers of deeds that had been omitted from the documents that were given to the commissioners by the claimant’s attorney.  She said the documents showed that the Bernheims had not consistently had ownership of the property for the tax lots.  She spoke with an attorney and he concurred.  They spoke with the real estate agent that represented Frontier Resources LLC and she concurred the papers were signed and the transaction was closed on June 14, 2005 and the property was sold.  She said property could be sold and not recorded.  She commented they were trying to get around the Measure 37 claim.


Darold Here, Creswell, stated his property is below the area.  He said the surface run off water is high and every year it is flooded.  He indicated he had to put in a new well because his well went dry.


Steve Dignam, Creswell, was against the application.  He had the same issues as others.  He said paragraph 3 a. of Measure 37 says Measure 37 doesn’t apply to a public nuisance.  He asked how many people it took from a community that are upset and feel their rights are being taken away.  He said the project is a public nuisance and should be denied under Measure 37.  He also had the same ownership questions.  He thought the application has enough weaknesses that it shouldn’t be supported.  He noted the Bernheims weren’t present and if they had a serious interest in this project they would be present to testify or respond.  He urged the Board to defer voting on this as there was additional information submitted.


Joe Willis, Portland, stated he represented the applicant.  He said what they gave the planning director was a guaranty that every document of record is present. and it shows the title is in the applicant.  He said that Bernheim is recovering from surgery.  He indicated that the tile report states he is the owner.  He said Bernheim did grant an option but it is not an interest in property.  He asked the Board to grant the Measure 37 claim.


Green asked why Frontier signs were on the property.


Willis indicated they are leasing the property.  He indicated there is an option that is outstanding but it was never exercised.


Stewart asked to get a copy of the lease.  He wanted to know if it had continued ownership, what regulations had been imposed, and if there was a monetary loss.


Morrison concurred with Stewart.


Van Vactor said they received testimony that the property was sold by the Bernheims on June 14, 2005.  He asked if they sold the property on that date.


Willis stated the Bernheims did not sell the property.  He said there is an option outstanding that they did not exercise and they have leased the property.


Van Vactor said the title report that came in today describes the Bernheims as owner but it is called property profile information, which says information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed.  He commented that other title reports had been more specific that the title was vested in someone.


Joseph Schaefer, Attorney, said they provided the deeds for tax lot 100.  He got a voice mail from Van Vactor asking them to bring something that shows the Bernheims still own tax lot 100 because the title report submitted with the claim is from 2005.  He called First American Title Report to get the information.  He said the title company was saying the current deed was the same from 1966--in favor of the Bernheims.


Stewart wanted staff to review the deeds to make sure that lots 100, 101, 105 and 106 have had continuing ownership.  He also wanted to know about the dates that are in dispute--1966 and 1976 for tax lot 100.  He also wanted to know about lots 105 and 106 and the 2005 date.


Morrison asked staff to break it down for each deed and transaction.


Vorhes said the Board had asked for the submittal of additional information in the form of a lease.  He wanted to know about how the analysis of the title in lot 105 and 106 accounts for some of the documents that were submitted.  With the title report they received yesterday, on tax lot 100 that showed it was quitclaimed out from the Bernheims to International Paper after the date described by the title company.  He suggested giving the applicant a week to submit the additional information, and giving everyone an opportunity to respond to that and what came in today.  He wanted a week for that and the applicant would have a week for rebuttal.  He said it wouldn’t be a continued hearing on July 12, but give a position to deliberate on what has come in the record through that time with staff analysis.


MOTION: to allow the applicant one week to June 21, 2006 to submit additional information, keep the record open for  responses to the material that comes in up to the June 21, giving the applicant from June 28 to the following Wednesday to respond in rebuttal only.


Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.














There being no further business Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:00 p.m.




Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary.