BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

April 17, 2007

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 9/3/2008

Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

A. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

B. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS

 

1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-1/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 (Brewer1, PA06-7165).

 

2. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (PA06-7181, Cone Investments).

 

3. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-2/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 (Decker3/PA06-7188).

 

4. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-3/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 (Decker1, PA 06-7185).

 

5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-4/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (Decker2, PA 06-7186).

 

6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-5/In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (Decker4/PA06-7187).

 

7. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (PA05-6589, Demers, Gregory).

 

8. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-6/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 06-7180, Egge).

 

9. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-7/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 (Eubank/PA06-7179).

 

10. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-8/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 (Graham, PA06-7166).

 

11. PUBLIC HEARING/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 (PA06-7172, Heceta Lake).

 

12. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-9/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 (Humphrey/PA06-7335).

 

13. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-10/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 (Hunt, PA06-7167).

 

14. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-11/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 (Keepers2/PA06-7175).

 

15. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-12/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 (Kempf/PA06-7189).

 

16. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-13/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 (Kilmer/PA06-7339).

 

17. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-14/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 (Mathews/PA06-7176).

 

18. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-15/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 (Mentzer, PA06-7169).

 

19. DELIBERATION AND ACTION/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 (PA06-7177, Mosby2).

 

20. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-16/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 (Slusher/PA06-7174).

 

21. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-17/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 (Sly, PA 06-7184).

22. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-18/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 06-7183, Springfield Country Club).

 

23. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-19/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 (Vilhauer/PA06-7178).

 

24. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-20/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 (Webking, PA 06-7182).

 

25. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 07-4-17-21/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 (Whitney, PA06-7173).

 

C. CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS/MEASURE 37 CLAIMS (NO TESTIMONY)

 

1. DELIBERATION AND ACTION/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 (PA06-7323, Barnes) (NBA & PM 3/13/07).

 

2. DELIBERATION AND ACTION/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 (PA06-6975, Barrowcliff Partnership, Ltd.) (NBA & PM 3/13/07).

 

3. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 07-4-17-22/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 (PA06-6951, Dowdy) (NBA & PM 3/13/07).

 

4. DELIBERATION AND ACTION/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 (PA06-6896, Green2) (NBA & PM 3/13/07).

 

5. DELIBERATION AND ORDER 07-4-17-23/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 (PA06-6830 Johnson2) (NBA & PM 3/13/07).

 

6. DELIBERATION AND ACTION/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 (PA06-6846, Titus) (NBA & PM 3/13/07).

 

Stewart asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

 

Sorenson said he received a telephone call from Leslie Wolf, but he never spoke with her.

 

Green received an inquiry on someone representing Titus requiring an appraisal for clarification.  He said they got the problem resolved.

 

There were no conflicts for Fleenor, Dwyer or  Stewart.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that today they plan to process 33 claims.  He said they are providing opportunity for citizens to comment on 27 claims in a public hearing format.  He added six additional claims were rolled over form March 13.  He said there are four claims recommended for denial.  He noted that Demers and Mosby2 are incomplete. He added that Cone Investments and Heceta Lake do not appear to be valid because there does not appear to be any reduction in fair market value from the enforcement of restrictive land use regulations.  He noted that Jarmillo had withdrawn and Pavolick had asked that their claim be placed on hold indefinitely.  He stated of the 27 claims, staff mailed notice to the property owners within 1500 feet between March 23 and March 28 and it meets the code requirements.  He said they conducted the analysis of the pertinent Measure 37 requirements on the claims and summarized the information in the staff reports.  He said the analysis addresses the requirements of ownership, date of acquisition, current zoning, and the zoning regulations at the time of acquisition and some form of competent analysis of fair market value reduction resulting from the land use regulations that have been applied to the property since the current ownerís acquisition.  He added for those claims that did not provide an appraisal, the County Administrator has waived the appraisal requirement because they provided a competent analysis of value reduction such as a real estate brokerís opinion of comparable sales. 

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Brewer

 

Rozelle Burcher, said her property directly abuts this claim.  She  commented that she is not against a property ownerís rights as long as it doesnít interfere with her rights.  She said this doesnít take into account her rights.  She didnít understand how this land zoned F2 with soil for timber production could have 40 houses.  She thought the highest and best use of the land is timber production. She said changing a forest in her backyard to a subdivision would disregard her rights.  She said her propertyís southern border is steep and she was concerned about runoff onto her property.  She said it would adversely affect the lifestyle for her family. She indicated she did her due diligence before purchasing their property.  She said they checked the surrounding areas and looked at the zoning and there wasnít a subdivision planned for any area near theirs when she bought the property.  With regard to value, she said forcing her to live near a subdivision will decrease the value of her home.  She values her home and the peaceful setting and the lack of dangerous traffic. She commented that granting the Brewerís request will force her to choose between uprooting her family with emotional and financial hardships or living with the chaos of construction and the destruction of her chosen way of life.

 

Harry Hance, said he has lived in the area for 30 years south of the development.  He said he had no objection as far as Measure 37.  His objection was about the planning process later on.  He stated that he wants a say when the time comes up.  He commented that the septic systems in the area are poor.

 

Cone Investment

 

Barry Smith, said he represents Cone Investment Limited Partnership under Measure 37. He said they looked at staffís report and staffís recommendations.  He said there are two errors or things that should be reconsidered.  He said the first deals with the acquisition date that was used.  He said Cone first acquired the property in 1969 as a general partnership.  He added in the early 90ís they converted their general partnership to a limited partnership and that was the date staff used as the acquisition date for Measure 37 purposes. He submitted supplemental materials last week addressing this point.  He said staff didnít take into consideration the laws and when a partnership becomes a new entity.  He wanted the opportunity to have the file sent back to County Counsel to consider the application in light of those comments. He thought if County Counsel reviewed it, staffís recommendation might change from using the 1993 date back to the 1969 date..  He noted the second problem is they first looked to see if there is value reduction.  He stated for value reduction purposes, they go back to when a family member acquired the property as long as there is continuous ownership.  He noted in Coneís case, the family held partnership that was acquired in 1969  and would be a family member under the law.  He said it should have been a valid claim with the waiver back to 1993, but the acquisition date for the current owner should be used as 1969.

 

MOTION: to continue this matter to May 1 with a hearing on May 22.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

Vorhes said he looked at the letter and one of the difficulties is the statutory provision that the property acquired by a partnership is property of the partnership and not of the partners individually. He said addressing that issue and the evidence they have in the file is that the first acquisition was by Cone Lumber Company and at some point Cone Investment came into the picture and there is not a clear transaction between them.  He stated the latest deed in the file was to the current limited partnership.  He didnít know if the previous owners fit within the family definition when it is an entity to entity transaction.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Decker3

 

Larry Reed, JHR Land Use  Planning, Eugene, stated he represents the Deckers of Alvadore.  He said this pertains to all four of the Decker claims.  He reported that the Deckers purchased the small nursery in Alvadore beginning in 1959.  He said the town was platted in 1912 under the name of Fern Ridge and they believed it was a good investment then and they still do. He added after 1959 the Deckers continued to purchase legally platted lots of record.  He said their thought was if there was ever a need for money or to give land to their children, they could sell off some of the platted lots.  He indicated that staff is recommending approval of these claims and they concur.

 

Decker1

 

David Brink, stated that he is an abutting neighbor to the properties.  He said he was in favor of the claims.  He commented that he was in support of adoption of the order.  He stated that this was the definition of why Measure 37 was enacted by the legislature.

 

Decker2

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Decker4

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Demers

 

Mona Lindstromberg, Veneta, was pleased this claim was being recommended for denial.  She noted in the staff report the applicant had not paid the processing fee.  She added it was not the first time Demers has filed such a claim and has failed to prove ownership.  She said they have not substantiated loss of value. She asked why they were processing claims from Demers who is making a habit of filing Measure 37 claims and taking staff time when he is not providing any adequate information needed to make any valid decision on his claim.

 

Vorhes said when they started batching the claims to come to the Board, in the past they had given a memo to the County Administrator and he would take action to deny them. He said instead of separating them out, they are brought to the Board.  He added the analysis has to be done in either case to substantiate a letter of denial.

 

Egge

 

Barry Smith, stated he represents Vernon Egge.  He recalled that Egge acquired the property in 1980 from his mother who acquired it in the 1940ís.  He said that staff recommended approval waiving the regulations back to 1980, when it was zoned FF20.  He concurred with staffís analysis. 

 

Eubank

 

Doyal Eubank, said his grandparents purchased the 35 acre piece of property in 1952 and it has been in the family ever since.  He indicated it is now in his fatherís revocable trust.  He said the 35 acres currently has four legal houses on it and had those prior to the mid-seventies.   He wanted to be able to divide up the 35 acres into four legal lots that would each contain a house. He added they werenít asking for a change of use, they wanted to pass off the ownership for estate planning purposes.

 

Graham

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Heceta Lake

 

Mike Van, said he is President of Coastal Western Land,  a partner in the property since 1986.  He wanted a continuance to submit court cases and law on when a partnership ceases to exist.  He noted that this partnership has been in existence since 1986.  He said they file a tax return with the State of Oregon and the IRS.  He said the partnership has never ceased to exist and all of the same people are involved except for one partner who died and one who got divorced.  He added there have been some transfers for estate planning purposes to an LLC by some of the partners, but he wanted his attorney to research this matter.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 1 with a hearing on May 22.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Jim Dobson, recalled last week the board heard Piper was a continuation from March 20 and the only difference today was the six holdovers were on the docket, but there are no sign up sheets.

 

Humphrey

 

Allene Humphrey, said her concern with the property at Fall Creek is that it is a Century Park and they donít want to sell it out of the family.  She couldnít figure out how to equally let her children have their share of her estate.  She wants to divide the property into five lots.

 

Ron Funke, Eugene, said he had several people ask that he represent them on Measure 37 claims and the types of claims he has chosen to represent are cases where the surrounding parcelization of the land is already denser down to 2.5 acre parcels surrounding it along the Jasper Lowell road.  He said this is an example of development happening around them.  He said now Humphrey wants to match the development that currently exists and that it is a legitimate use of Measure 37.

 

Hunt

 

Verne Hunt, said he wanted to give each one of his three kids 10 acres of land, to either live on or to sell.

 

Keepers2

 

No one signed  up to speak..

 

Kempf

 

No one signed  up to speak.

 

Kilmer

 

Ron Funke , stated this is a situation where the Kilmers have owned the property for a considerable period of time.  He said it was zoned AGT 5 when they bought it.  He said there are two families that currently live in two mobile homes.  He said they want to split it into three parcels so they could have three legal residences. He noted in the area there are between 25 and 30 acre parcels developed.

 

Mathews

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Mentzer

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Mosby2

 

Mark Haneberg, stated he is the attorney for Lola Mosby. He reported that Mosby has owned the property since 1966 and at that time the only regulation was that a subdivision would have to meet a 6,000 square foot minimum.  He indicated that it is currently zoned forest land with numerous land use regulations including an 80 acre minimum.  He stated there was evidence for a loss of value to due to the land use regulations.  He noted there are no comparables because Measure 37 speaks of a situation where land could be sold free of regulation and it would be more valuable.  He thought they presented enough evidence of ownership and valuation for this claim to be decided. He said the applicant is interested in the compensation end of the measure. He said the only alternative would be development and it doesnít seem consistent with the will of the people.  He hopes the legislature will resolve the uncertainties with Measure 37.

 

Stewart said they have set codes to handle Measure 37 claims.  He said they put in realistic requirements including requiring an appraisal.  He added the appraisal requirement could be waived by the administrator if they provided enough information to show a loss of value.  Stewart said when it comes to a living trust, they want to see the document to make sure the person they are giving rights to still has rights and control of the property.  He said the requirements havenít been met. 

 

Haneberg said they could provide pages of a document.  He said if there is a fundamental disagreement about what the Board should do or compensation, he hadnít seen a pathway to resolve those differences.  He wanted to wait until the legislature clarified the measure and then they will comply.

 

Green asked if there was any new information that was submitted for this claim.

 

Howe said they donít have information regarding the deed for the living trust and they donít have value reduction analysis.

 

Slusher

 

Trey Burns, stated the determination of reduction in value under Measure 37 is different in each county..  He hoped the reduction in value was affected by the zoning laws in effect.  He hoped each county would determine the reduction in value.

 

Dwyer noted that staff recommended adoption of his claim.

 

Sly

 

Sheryl Balthrup, said she is the representative of the Slys.  She asked to keep the record open to May 1 and a hearing on May 22.  She indicated that she just received the staff report.  She noted staff recommended approval, but she wanted to clarify the recommendation.

 

MOTION: to keep the record open to May 1 with a continued Public Hearing to May 22.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Springfield County Club

 

Barry Smith, stated he concurred with the staff on this claim.

 

Alfred Cockerline, said he lives 300 feet from the Country Club and is opposed.  He didnít think there was a loss of value.  He said the golf course is underwater a lot of times during the year.  He didnít see how they could get any other zoning.

 

Smith indicated while a lot of the County Club is in the flood zone, the value is only on the portion above the floodplain and that is why there is a small value in reduction.

 

Vilhauer

 

Mike Van, said he is Ed Vilhauerís agent.  He concurred with the staff report on the Vilhauerís claim

 

Webking

 

Barry Smith, stated he represented Ivone Webking.  He concurred with staffís report.

 

Yvonne Webking, recalled in 1964 she and her husband purchased 243 acres near the Eugene airport along Highway 99.  She said since she lived in Eugene, she thought it would be wise to purchase the parcel.  She thought they could either sell or develop the property.  She said her husband died in 1970 and she was counting on the property to provide for her in later years. She recalled in the 1970ís she learned the airport condemned 160 acres and she had no legal recourse.  She stated she struggled through the years to find buyers.  She is fearful the property will be condemned again.  She stated that last year she learned the property could qualify for Measure 37. She asked the Board to honor her Measure 37 claim.

 

Whitney

 

No one signed up..

 

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

 

MOTION: to move staff recommendation with the exception of Mosby2 and Demers.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

MOTION: to deny the Demers claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0

 

MOTION: to deny the Mosby2 claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Barnes

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Dwyer asked if there was any new information.

 

Howe indicated the applicant submitted additional information:  Lynn and Thelma Barnes acquired the property on March 5, 1959, at which time the property was unzoned.  He said it is currently E-40.

 

Dwyer asked if the information submitted was enough to change from denial to approval.

 

Howe said there had been  a competent form of value reduction.  He added that the County Administrator waived the appraisal.  He said the claimant has the dates of acquisition and value and it appears to be a valid claim.

 

Dwyer asked if there were any claims where staff recommended changes.

 

Howe indicated that the Barrlowcliff comparative market valued was provided.  He added that the claimant has consented to a waiver of 180 days and asked that the claim be put on hold. He indicated that it was at the request of the claimant in a letter.  Howe said Barrlowcliff wanted to see what legislative changes might occur.

 

With regard to Barrlowcliff, Vorhes said the limited partnership from the date of acquisition for purposes of waiver might be changed.  He indicated that the chart shows valuation was an issue, but the additional information seems to address that.

 

Howe stated that Dowdy submitted additional information regarding property reduction.  He added the County Administrator waived the appraisal.  He indicated the attached order would waive the restriction and he recommended adoption.

 

Stewart indicated staff recommended denial on Green2.

 

With regard to Johnson2, Howe said the applicant asked for additional time to submit information to satisfy requirements.  He said the conclusion is it is a valid claim.

 

Howe reported with Titus, they submitted additional information and provided an appraisal.  He said it stated the current value of property, but it didnít show an analysis of value reduction.  He added the County Administrator didnít waive the appraisal and they donít have a valid claim.

 

Barnes

 

No one signed up to speak.

 

Barrlowcliff

 

Thomas Brandt, Marcola, commented that since this was being denied, he didnít have much to say.

 

Jim Babson, asked why the claimant wanted to put this on hold.  He thought the Board was justified to act on this.

 

Dwyer stated they wanted to wait for the law to change and it was a legitimate reason to postpone the claim.

 

Vorhes explained that in the past some claimants asked to put their claim on hold and the Board agreed.  They didnít ask those claimants why they wanted to put their claims on hold.  He commented that the risk is low in not making a decision. 

 

Dowdy

 

No one signed up to speak..

 

Green2

 

Steve Green, stated that he came to the Board on March 13 and his was the only claim on the list that was being denied.  He was asked to bring an appraisal back and he did what he was supposed to do.  He said this was the first time he heard about the special use.  He indicated that his family has owned the property since 1967 and the land use changed 20 years later.  He said they werenít allowed to subdivide.  He added that they went through the process of getting a second dwelling on the property.  He wants to subdivide the second dwelling off to give relatives.   

 

Howe explained that the reason they are not recommending the claim is that there is an ownership issue.  He noted their records show Green and his wife acquired the property in 1998.  Howe said Greenís wife had ownership to 1960.

 

Vorhes recalled the earlier staff report didnít have evidence in the record of ownership of the family, all they have is the trust deed of 1998, establishing a mortgage.  He added it doesnít say when they first acquired the property. He noted the only evidence they have in the file that shows ownership by the Greens is the trust deed of 1998.

 

MOTION: to allow Steve Green additional time to work with staff to see what is needed.  He said this would be held over with the record closing on May 1 and the hearing on May 22.

 

Steve Green waived the 180 days.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Jim Babson, Eugene, asked if Ed Turnekey could be added to this current application or if they would have to refile.

 

Vorhes said it depends on what the applicant asks for. He added if the ownership is only looked to as a compensation date ownership and the waiver is only something the current applicants Steve and Nicole Green are asking, using their request for a waiver to their date of acquisition, then this Boardís order would only reflect to them, to their date of acquisition. He added there are risks involved in not addressing all of the owners of the property at the same time.

 

Johnson2

 

Mike Reeder, Eugene, stated he was agent for the claimant.  He agreed with the supplemental staff report.

 

Titus

 

Stewart explained the claim was recommended for denial because of the value statements.  He said it doesnít meet what they have been approving in the past.  He said the code calls for an appraisal and the County Administrator has the ability to waive the requirement if there has been enough information submitted based on a market analysis and a credible agent stating that there has been a value loss.  He said the loss might not meet the Boardís requirements.

 

MOTION: to extend to May 1 for Titus to provide more information and a continued hearing to May 22, waiving the 180 days.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

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

 

Barnes3

 

MOTION: to move approval of the Barnes3 claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Barrowcliff

 

Claim to be asked to put on hold indefinitely.

 

Sorenson thought there should be a limit on how long this should be put on hold.

 

Fleenor wanted to continue to roll this instead of having an indefinite hold.

 

MOTION: to grant applicant his wish to place this on an indefinite hold.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

Dowdy

 

MOTION: to approve the Dowdy claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Johnson2

 

MOTION: to approve Johnson2 claim.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

With regard to the Barnes claim, Vorhes indicated there was not an order in the packet.  He thought the board tentatively approved the claim and an order will come back on the Consent Calendar in three weeks.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.

 

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary