BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
October 25, 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.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
There will be an 11:00 a.m. time certain Executive Session.† Item 15 c. is not a public hearing.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Dodge stated he was interested in vacating Templeton Road.† He said last week the Board discussed this item and it came to a tied vote.† He stated he lives on Templeton Road and wants the road the way it is.† He said he knows everyone who lives on this road.† He presented the Board with a petition from people on Templeton Road.† He noted the options to rectify the situation are to either open the road or vacate the road.† He said having a gate for limited access for a few chosen individuals didnít sound right to him. He said no one uses the road as no one knows where the road is.†
Larry Reed, JRH Transportation, Eugene, represented the Swans.† He said they were present about the vacation of Brown Road.† He indicated it is a deadend road and they are asking that 50 feet at the end of the road be vacated.† He said the road goes 17 feet to the Swansí house.† He stated the road will never go through, or it would run between her house, garage and barn.† He added it would also go into Elijah Bristow State Park.† He said in looking at the master plan for the state park, it would be counter productive to ever put a road through the park as it would compromise their security.
Cindy Land, Eugene, continued talking about maintaining the livestock arena for the fairgrounds.† She said the $100,000 in gross revenue that is currently being proposed by the YMCA is a gross number.† She said if they subtract the tangible expenses, she calculated about $96,000 per year for the first year. She wanted the Board to consider that the $100,000 was really about $4,000 per year in revenue to the livestock arena.† She said there was an incorrect amount given to the Board in the minutes from the Lane County Fair Board.† She indicated they said there was only $2,275 in revenue that was generated in 2006.† She talked to the Eugene Kennel Club and they received a bill for $6,138 for their use of the livestock arena for the dog show.† She thought there could be additional funds that could be generated from a livestock arena.
Peter Ferris, Walport, stated he is a statewide advocate regarding the disclosure issue.† He indicated there have been 13 mobile home parks closed in Washington County and 600 people in Bend were displaced.† He said in Lane County they are trying to declare a moratorium until they get help for people.† He said given the law, if an owner closes a park and gives a yearís notice, most of the people will lose their investment.† He added there are no places where they can take their mobile home even if they can take it.†† He said they want a moratorium until January 2008 in order to get the cities to enhance an ordinance or to get the legislature to act.†† He asked the Board to recommend to the cities in this county to pass a moratorium until January 1, 2008.
Dwyer thought there were ways to fix the problem. He thought Ferris should go to the people who have the authority and ask them directly.†
Mary Jacobs, Junction City, expressed her concern about the public income measure.† She said the wording of the proposal was voter blackmail.† She indicated that she and her husband will pay over $400 per year if the tax goes through.† She said that was $400 less that would go into local businesses each year.† She asked if local businesses would not pay as much tax.† She asked why they were enacting a tax that has to go through the state to be collected.† She asked to put a tax on restaurant meals, collected locally and paid by visitors to Lane County.† She thought it would spread the payment to a wider base.† She thought the Board needed to declare what would happen if the income tax measure doesnít pass.
Paul Spain, Eugene, stated he has property on River Avenue.† He said the City of Eugene is going to spend $2.2 million on improving River Avenue Road, designated as a major collector street.† He indicated information from Ollie Snowden, Public Works, said they would close the River Avenue on and off ramps.† He said Lane County Public Works is suggesting that that be eliminated.† He thought they were looking to find an alternative to help improve what is already a terrible traffic situation.† He suggested working closer with ODOT to move up on their schedule and reallocate the funding that was taken away.† He wanted to make sure that the River Avenue onramp remains open.
Dwyer commented they were being used by the process.† He said someone wants to have a traffic design to allow the pending hospital to be able to use different mechanisms.†† He said the estimates and impacts are unknown as to the traffic solutions to be considered.
Spain encouraged the Board to do what they can to help mitigate what is trying to be ramroded down the communityís throats.
Green said they took action in May to withhold funding.† He said they have a serious problem with the Delta Beltline issue.† He wanted to deal with the problem independent of any hospital building. He participated in the River Avenue process.† He asked the engineer to convene a group of problem solvers.† He said they have the option of doing nothing. He wanted to solve the traffic problem in that area. He was disappointed that ODOT didnít do the technical analysis.
Spain indicated the River Avenue project was modified significantly.
Morrison noted that Lane County had no money in the River Avenue project.† She thought the city put a hold on the project.
Spain said the project will begin in 2007.
Rob Handy, Eugene, discussed transportation issues.† He said what is on peopleís minds is potholes and dealing with existing facilities. He said they are not talking about building new facilities as a new priority. He wanted to see the $17 million from the failed West Eugene Parkway project be kept in the community for other projects.† He said given the unpredictability of the Secure Rural School Act funding, he suggested that with Division Avenue Bridge the Board consider Option 6, creating a safety net reserve with transportation funding.
Chris Orsinger, Eugene, represented Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah on the item related to a fire contract with the Oregon Department of Forestry. He thought it was an excellent idea. He proposed that a fire plan be incorporated into a broader habitat and vegetation plan that been called for in the master plan for Parks but had never been developed.† He said prescribed fire is being used in the park not only to reduce fuel loads and the hazard of a wildfire in the future but as a tool to manage habitats.† He said Friends of Buford Park, the Oregon Department of Forestry and Lane County collaborated to implement prescribed burns in the park.† He said with the idea of a habitat management plan that incorporates fire as a tool, they could identify regions within the park that could burn safely.† He indicated that Friends of Buford Park has allocated $10,000 in their budget for next year to try to move forward with assessments that are the preliminary steps in a habitat management plan. He wanted to move forward with the habitat management plan and the fire plan as one and not break the plan off.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 06-10-25-1/In the Matter of Responding to the LUBA Remand of the Decision Enacting Ordinance No. PA 1229 and Supporting that Ordinance by Adoption of Additional Supplemental Findings to Further Show How Modifications to the Lane County Coastal Resources Management Plan Comply with Statewide Goal 16 [LMD File No. PA 05-5506, City of Florence and Shelter Care Homeowners Association].
Kent Howe, Land Management, reported in February 2006 the Board co-adopted a portion of the Florence City Ordinance that amended the Coastal Resources Management Plan.† He indicated the amendment was to recognize changes that have occurred in the Siuslaw River Estuary and change the designation from natural to conservation for sub area ( c)(1) management unit.† He noted that action was appealed to LUBA. He said LUBA issued a decision that upheld the Countyís action on most of the issues raised by the petitioners but remanded the action based on the Goal 16 requirement that the County consider and describe in the plan the potential cumulative impacts of the alterations and development activities envisioned.† He said Oregon Administrative Rule allows that such description may be general but shall be based on the best available information and projections.† He indicated that County staff has worked with the applicant and the City of Florence staff to respond to the remanded issues.† He said the proposed order explains the responses and describes the evidence in the existing record. He thought responding to the remand issues does not reopen the record for additional evidence.† He said the supplemental findings and description of the evidence in the record established that the amendments to the Coastal Resources and Management Plan did not affect compliance with Goal 16 because there is a considerable body of evidence in the record that addresses the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of the change in the management unit designation.† He added that evidence in the record analyzes the cumulative impacts already considered, described and acknowledged in the Coastal Resources Management Plan and shows that the cumulative impacts of the change to the management unit for sub area (c) (1) is consistent with the overall cumulative impacts anticipated in the acknowledged Coastal Resources Management Plan.
Howe explained that evidence in the record shows that due to changes in the ecological condition of the area, the change in designation for sub area (c)(1) is consistent with Goal 16 requirements for comprehensive plans.† He said since they presented the original agenda cover memo, two items came in:† one suggesting language to be added to the board order, and comments about the proposed order.† He thinks the record shows that due to changes in the ecological condition of the area, the amendment to the Coastal Resources Management Plan is consistent with all of the Goal 16 requirements for comprehensive plans, and with those amendments the Coastal Resource Management Plan reflects sufficient consideration of the potential cumulative impacts of the alterations and development activities envisioned by the amendments.† He noted the proposed board order does cite evidence in the record supporting the additional text, but explains how the redesignated area buffers other more productive areas and connects the language to the impact analysis to address the shortcomings identified by the LUBA remind decision.† He said for those reasons, adoption of the original proposed order is recommended.†
Dwyer stated their decision is based upon the record that shows it doesnít relate to Goal 16 directly and any additional action will require subsequent review.
Vorhes said the two issues that LUBA focused on indicated that the decision previously adopted didnít have adequate findings to describe the things this order will do.† He indicated they went back through the record and pulled out the parts that were the substance of the analysis that lead to the Boardís decision.† He said it wasnít articulated clearly and specifically directed to what evidence in the record was indicating what the impacts might be.† He said this order with the proposed findings attempts to do that.† He added for this area specifically, there are code provisions the City of Florence adopted to show what could be done in these areas. He indicated that these provisions include a long impact assessment that leads to a lengthy cumulative impact analysis.† He said they looked at all the studies and facts that were presented to the Board through the course of the proceeding and this Board proposed in the findings a basis for the action previously adopting the ordinance.
Sorenson asked if they were under any timeline for making a decision.
Vorhes responded that remand proceedings are left to the governing body in the remand because they have not adopted in their code any specific timelines or processes for addressing remands.† He said in this case there is a statutory provision that says they have to act on a remand within 90 days.† He said the applicant asked them to move so they are moving within that period of time.† He said in this case they have reviewed what the remand said and what the options were.† He said their recommendation is to do the action without reopening the record or holding any public hearings.† He said they think all of the evidence is in the record that is necessary to address.
Sorenson wanted an expanded process.† He thought there was a mistake made in the material presented and that was why LUBA reversed it.
MOTION: to approve 06-10-25-1.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
b. ORDER 06-10-25-2/In the Matter of Authorizing Submission of a $50,000 Grant Application to the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Grant Application Documents.
Dwyer explained that this was an application for a study grant.
Mike McKenzie-Bahr, Economic Development, noted that the application required the attachment of a board order to the application showing the governing body has approved the application submission.† He said the cost is $50,000 for a feasibility study for ethanol, a major component of alternative fuel.† He said it would fund three studies statewide.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-2.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Morrison was concerned about the outcome.† She said she has seen a lot of dollars wasted to this point regarding this type of activity and wanted to be cautious as to who will get the contract to produce the study.
Stewart said he was supportive of them doing whatever they can for development in the area.† He thought it would be a good idea if they could take the product and create an alternative fuel and make money for the County.
McKenzie-Bahr stated he brought this to the Economic Development Standing Committee and there was a unanimous vote to submit the application.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 06-10-25-3/In the Matter of Ratifying Agreements With the Eastern Lane Forest Protective Association For Fire Response Services For the Howard Buford Recreation Area (HBRA), Armitage Park and Hendricks Bridge Park.
Todd Winter, Parks, noted that this is for three of their facilities outside of the fire protection districts.† He indicated the Five Year Armitage and Hendricks Bridge Parks Agreement were executed by the Public Works Director on August 22.† He said the five year HBRA and Mt. Pisgah agreements were executed by the county administrator on September 16.† He explained that ratification of the agreements by the Board is appropriate for consideration with a catastrophic fire.† He said a catastrophic fire could result in unforeseen expenditures to fire suppression equipment and fire crews.† He indicated if there is a fire at Howard Buford Recreation Area under the current contract, the unit will use all of its resources to fight the fire at no additional cost to the County.† He added if the unit needs to call in a helicopter or an additional fire fighting crew, they would pass the cost along to the County.† He stated if there were no contracts in place and a major fire were to spread, it could be possible the County could have civil liability for the fire spreading to other properties.
Winter explained that annexation within the unitís district boundary would possibly eliminate the additional cost of resources beyond the unitís capacity, if the County had a mechanism for paying full district membership fees or taxes.† He added the boundary changes and annexations cannot occur until the state† completes a study, and the Oregon Department of Forestry estimates this should be completed within a year.† He indicated at that time, Public Works will request that the Oregon Department of Forestry consider including Howard Buford Recreation Areas and Mt. Pisgah, Armitage and Hendricks Park and Short Mountain within the fire districtís boundaries.† He said they do prescribed burns and the Oregon Department of Forestry uses it as a training exercise.† He said it also reduces a fuel load to prevent a catastrophic fire.† He noted in extreme fire danger where it is dry, they work with the Oregon Department of Forestry to close the park.† He indicated they had not called the HBRA within the last two fire seasons.† He noted they did close the park in 2002 and 2003 for about six weeks.†
Winter stated they do have fire protection in place for the facilities.† He said if a bad fire broke out at Mt. Pisgah, they might have to call a helicopter that might exceed the delegated authority of the county administrator or the Public Works director.
Dwyer asked about the cost.
Winter said the cost is $3,419 per year or about $1.41 per acre.† He noted that the Goshen Fire Department covers the structures.
Wilson said these were three year agreements so they would need to change the board order.
Snowden stated the cost falls within his and the County Administratorís authority, but there is no upper limit to their liability.
Dwyer stated that they need to look at capping their liability.
Stewart recalled that Chris Orsinger spoke and wanted to make a management plan that allowed some areas to burn.† He was concerned because when a fire starts, they donít know where the prevailing winds are coming from, the weather conditions and who it is going to affect.† He didnít want to make a document that would open them up to potential problems in the future.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-3 with the correct year on the contract.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
b. REPORT BACK Delta/Beltline Interchange Funding. (NBA & PM 5/17/06)
Dwyer said the reason this has come back was because they were approached for a bridge that doesnít exist for prospective traffic studies that would foster someoneís application for a hospital.
Snowden indicated they came back to the Board because the Board asked them in May to get together with ODOT to look for a way to spend County money to make substantial improvements.† He said they knew at the time that Triad had a process going on with a metro plan amendment on River Ridge.† He recalled when the Board set up this process, the direction was Lane Countyís process would run parallel to Triadís but if there was some opportunity to partner with Triad, they werenít going to shut them off without coming to the Board first to discuss it.† He noted at one time McKenzie-Willamette came to them to use the Division Avenue Bridge in their traffic impact analysis.† He said in order to do that, as part of their mitigation measures of their application, they would need something from MPC that would take the Division Avenue Bridge out of the future list and put it in the regional transportation plan.† He sent out e-mails and had a work session planned to discuss the possibility.† He added in the meantime McKenzie-Willamette decided that they didnít want to have to rely on Division Avenue Bridge as part of the mitigation strategy.† He said on September 16 they submitted a revised traffic impact analysis to the city that didnít consider Division Avenue Bridge, but back to ramp metering on the Beltline ramps.† He said that was under review.† He said that McKenzie-Willamette was going to add more information today.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, stated he was going to Salem and it was his understanding that McKenzie-Willamette was going to submit additional materials that revise their September 15 study.† He said the application is in process but they are still revising their materials and no hearings have been scheduled.
Snowden commented that a couple of months ago it looked like the County and Triad process might converge, but they are separate.† He reported the County staff met with Eugene and ODOT staff and they looked at three alternatives: a split diamond, auxiliary ramp lanes on westbound Beltline, and the Division Avenue Bridge.† He said ODOTís high level analysis concluded that of those three projects, only the Division Avenue Bridge is one that would provide some significant traffic relief and could be separated from the ODOT process.† He said† ODOT starts with a corridor study in the Area 5 planning budget (a two year program).† He indicated that in FY 09 they would start with the environmental process that would lead to a NIPA document.† He thought after talking with ODOT, the soonest for any construction to start would be 2013, if they had money for the project.† He added that they donít have any money for construction.† He asked the Board what they wanted to do with any unallocated County money from the County road funds regarding Division Avenue Bridge.† He recalled this past year they eliminated 10 positions out of the road fund and engineering because they didnít have enough CIP work to keep the positions busy.† He added they are planning on eliminating another six jobs the next fiscal year because if they donít eliminate more positions, the $4 million or $5 million in reserves might not be there.† He asked the Board to take the money to see if they could find partner money to build the Division Avenue Bridge, but their revised estimates are $28 million.† He said they could take direction to take the money for other CIP projects, or to put it aside to wait to see how the Secure Rural Schools legislation plays out before they decide to reallocate the money.† He recommended holding the money aside.
Morrison thought in the longer term, they need to make a note that they have to remove the corridor study money from their United Front package.† She said in looking at the state, the bonding with the Connect Oregon project is on hold.† She noted nothing is moving forward until after the election.† She said they have to look into the longer term picture.† She thought they should put the money into a reserve.
MOTION: to approve Option 6.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Green supported reserving the money.† He was disappointed that ODOT didnít do anything substantive and no scoping had been done.† He commented that they arenít getting any relief from ODOT and this is the biggest traffic problem they currently have.† He said many accidents have happened.
Snowden indicated that ODOT is saying if Lane County wants federal money to provide relief for the Beltline corridor, they have to play by the federal rules, including a corridor study and a NIPA process.† He said if there is no federal money, the Division Avenue Bridge could be a local project that wouldnít involve federal money.† He noted they would still have environmental constraints but they wouldnít be bound to the federal process.
Stewart asked if the traffic speed could be lowered through the area to make the area safer.
Stinchfield indicated they are reviewing the speed zones based on a public request.† He said it is actually 45 miles per hour.† He said they have a request to extend the zone on Delta Highway south of Goodpasture.† He stated they hadnít reached a conclusion on that.
Green thought the easiest solution was to have a dedicated exit lane on both sides of the highway.†
c. ORDER 06-10-25-4/In the Matter of the Vacation of a Portion of Brown Road (Co. Rd.† 1196), Located in the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 6, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County, Oregon, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (19-01-06).
Bill Robinson, Land Management, stated there was public comment this morning from Mr. Reed on the property.† He said the area is 50 feet in length, 60 feet in width and Mrs. Swan is the owner on both sides. He said she petitioned so she could have better use of her property and wanted to reconfigure part of it.† He added that she also wants to sell off one of the preconfigured lots.† He said she would get the barn, shed, the well and the house on the same property and move the end of the road from where it is now 17 feet from her house, another 50 feet further.
Dwyer stated he has a philosophical opposition to vacating any public land without a public hearing.
Robinson said they notified the neighbors about this and they gave six weeks for the neighbors to respond.† He received one call back.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-4.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Sorenson asked if this was approved what the impact would be on the land use of the properties in the area.
Robinson said it wouldnít trigger any land use issue as she currently has multiple legal lots.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
d. ORDER 06-10-25-5/In the Matter of the Vacation of a Portion of Lamb Road,† Co. Rd.† 517 (Originally Demming Road), Located in the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 7, Township 17 South, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County, Oregon, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (17-05-07).
Robinson noted there is about 1500 feet of road being petitioned.† He said it came about because the owner of tax lot 1001 found out the ten acres they had couldnít be partitioned because they didnít have enough square footage. He recalled in 1902 when the road was laid out, it began at Territorial Highway and ran less than a half mile to the quarter section line and jogged up to the north.† He couldnít find in the petition why the road was jogged up to the section line.† He said in 1975 there was a dedication for another 30 feet along the site.† He added in 1947 there was a subdivision along the south side of the section line creating a 60 foot road. He noted the road as physically built and located was on the south side of the section line.† He said they sent notices out.† He stated if they could get 15 people to sign the petition, they could do it without a public hearing.† They received 16 signatures.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-5.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Dwyer was against passing this without a public hearing.
VOTE 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
e. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1235/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Forest" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning That Land From "F-2/Impacted Forest LandsĒ to "ML/Marginal Land", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 04-6308; Dennis) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: November 8, 2006, 1:30 p.m.).
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1235 †for November 8, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
8. HUMAN RESOURCES
a. ORDER 06-10-25-7/In the Matter of Ratifying the Tentative Agreement Between Lane County and the Federation of Oregon Parole and Probation Officers (FOPPO).
Frank Forbes, Management Services, explained that this was the new bargaining unit.† He indicated that this is a two year agreement in keeping with the similar patterns of the other bargaining units.† He said the money is available in the existing budget† He recommended approval.† He added they will be bargaining again next spring.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-7.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. WORK SESSION/Animal Control Code Issues.
David Suchart, Management Services, said they worked with County Counsel and to list items for Board input on how high each priority is.† He said they have resource issues and they are two officers short.† He indicated he would bring the issues the Board supports back in a board order.
Pet Food Tax
Suchart stated it was their recommendation not to do anything but to defer until later.
Sorenson thought the department needed revenue.† He didnít want to pursue a pet food tax.
Wilson recalled when the Board received the Animal Control Task Force Report, they gave staff direction to implement the items.† She said these were the remainder of the list and they are ready to be taken to the next step.
Dwyer said he wouldnít oppose a pet food tax at the wholesale level.† He wanted someone to review where the tax could be implemented at that level and what the success could be.
Green didnít want to work on this as they are still working with the public safety issue.† He commented that he didnít want confusing issues with the public.
Morrison recalled there was an Eco Northwest study dated 2002 that gave that information.† She supported Suchartís recommendation.
Suchart said he could come back with a follow-up memo.
Suchart said there had been discussion about cat licenses and vaccinations for the regulation of domestic and feral cats. He said it is recommended that an ordinance be developed requiring cats to be licensed.
Green supported it.
Dwyer didnít support it.† He commented that it was not fair to have something apply in the rural area that doesnít apply in the city.† He indicated he would support it if the City would follow the same ordinance.
Suchart said the City of Eugene would look closely to what Lane County does with the different regulations.†† He said when they bring this back they will gave a status of the cities.
Morrison thought this was a way to address the subject.
Stewart asked if they had looked into a surcharge of rabies vaccinations.† He said if the goal is to generate money, it might be a legitimate way to do it.†† He added the reason they have people license their animals is to get them back in case they get lost.† He thought they should sell this as a service to people.
Suchart said they are trying to generate revenue because cats are a major resource problem.
Sorenson asked what other communities had for cat licensing.
Suchart said they hadnít done the research yet.† He said if the Board wants them to move ahead with this, they will bring back the detailed information on implementation and cost.† He said they will bring this back as a piece on cats.
Mike Wellington, LCARA, responded that other cities that have cat ordinances are Gresham, Portland, Multnomah County, Spokane, Oakridge, Lowell and Seattle.† He said they are trying to recover some costs but their main charge is to get the cats back out.† He added they do it with a microchip registration.
With regard to regulation of domestic cats, Suchart said they are recommending moving forward to bring it back to the Board.
Under Cats, Suchart said there is a recommendation that the person providing the care be deemed the owner of a feral cat.
There wasnít consensus to bring this back.
Morrison said she had problem with livestock animals.
Green was against enforcing laws with livestock animals.
Suchart asked if they wanted Animal Regulation involved in the fining of livestock animals.† He said these were recommendations from the task force.
Sorenson wanted to move ahead with the idea of a livestock ordinance but put it in the context of being civil instead of criminal so they would have the discretion to issue citations.
Suchart indicated that he would bring this back to the Board.
Minimum Requirements for Pet Shops and Breeders and Other Organizations based on Housing Standards
Suchart recommended rejecting it and letting the housing still stay under Land Management.
There was consensus to reject it.
Unsafe Transportation Regulations
There was consensus to leave it with the Sheriff and Police.
Suchart said they will prepare a memo† in which they state what they believed was said at this meeting.† He added they will put together an outline and a timeline and send it back to the Board.
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 11:55 a.m.