BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

1:30 p.m.

December 12, 2007

Commissioners’ Conference Room

APPROVED 9/17/2008

 

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

 

18. PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 13-07/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 9 of Lane Code to Add New Definitions and Violations to Establish Enforcement of Solid Waste Regulations for Littering, Violation of Posted Restrictions of Use, Non-Payment of Fees, Destruction of Property, Interference With Official Duties, Failure to Disclose Identity, and Giving False Information (LC 9.005, 9.015-9.028, 9.990) (NBA & PM 11/28/07).

 

Jeff Bishop, Waste Management, explained that the Board is being asked to approve amendments to Lane Code Chapter 9, establishing certain violations in and authorizing the Public Works director to delegate enforcement duties for those violations.  He indicated the violations are related to illegal dumping, theft and damage of vandalism to County facilities including transfer sites and related violations including interference with an enforcement officer.  He added it is similar to the authority Park Rangers have inside County Parks. 

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.  There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. 13-07.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.

 

b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 17-07/In the Matter of Adopting Provisions and Fees to Assume Authority Under Senate Bill 417 for Special District Boundary Changes as Mandated by Senate Bill 417 and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (NBA & PM 11/28/07, 12/5/07).

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled SB417 directs Lane County to be responsible for processing applications for special district boundary changes starting January 2, 2008.  He said the operative statutory provision is ORS 198. He added that currently the Lane County Boundary Commission processes special district boundary changes under ORS 199.  He indicated there were significant differences between them. 

 

Howe recalled that the Board had its first reading on November 28 and staff wanted to provide the Board the ability to make a conscience decision on whether to justify the statutory requirements or codify them.  He said by having the first reading, it provides them that option today.  He recalled they started working on this in September and they worked out a contract with LCOG.  He recognized the difficulty they would have with the timelines.  He indicated that a public hearing was necessary with the Planning Commission to meet the timelines for the Board to adopt by December 12. He noted on October 5 the county administrator, county counsel, county clerk and Land Management staff went to Marion County to explore their process.  He added on October 25 they met with Finance and Audit and October 31 they released the first draft of the code language for the Planning Commission hearing November 20.  He indicated the Board had the first reading on November 28.  He said they worked together to facilitate a new process requirement.  He added the goal was to provide citizens with an understandable process for special district boundary changes.

 

Howe noted that Marion County had not adopted code language to implement the statute.  He said they wanted something more user friendly than the statute.  He recalled the testimony at the Planning Commission was mostly irrelevant in that it was directed to city annexations issues. He thought they could have avoided going to the Planning Commission.  He said they recommended not adopting the code, but to collect fees for cost recovery and provide a reduced fee for single property owners and to pursue developing ideas of Eugene and Springfield. 

 

Howe explained that they wanted to make the process user friendly and they wanted to get complete applications in order to provide a good product but they realized adopting code language would require maintenance. He said the increased specificity in the proposed code could lead to legal challenges and in the process a number of fundamental policies came into question.  He said the Board was provided with draft code language and the Board had a first reading.  He added that all of the legal notice requirements have been met.  He said that staff and counsel are recommending the Board not adopt the code.  He stated if the Board wants to continue with the Public Hearing, they could do so to allow public participation and determine at the conclusion whether to adopt or not.  He recalled that they don’t need to adopt code to implement ORS 198. 

 

Howe noted the document  in front of the Board is the ordinance packet material, and the order that relates to the processing of boundary change applications and the companion is the order for changes to Lane Manual for fees. He recommended collecting fees to cover the cost of providing the service and the order for fees can be discussed after they decide how to proceed with the proposed code amendments for the order of adopting the guidelines.

 

Dwyer asked if an addition of a kitchen or bath or a new roof would trigger annexation.

 

Howe said it wouldn’t.  He stated that the County’s responsibility is limited to special district annexations.  He added that annexations of cities to incorporate into the city limits are done by the city and Lane County is not involved.

 

Dwyer thought they could take it back through the 190 agreements.

 

Fleenor asked what they have to do to launch this January 2.  He asked what the minimum was they had to do today.

 

Howe said they didn’t have to do anything today.  He  indicated they could implement the statute on January 2, but he recommended they adopt the fees to cover the cost of providing a service.  He said the order (instead of the ordinance) is a proposal that would take the work they did on the ordinance and use it as guidelines for staff to follow.   He said they put it in a process the citizens could understand and if they were to move forward to use guidelines instead of code,  it would be beneficial for staff and the citizens.

 

Fleenor asked if they anticipated a large number of applications after January 2.

 

Howe said based on the experience of the Lane County Boundary Commission, there would be one formation of a district per year.  He said with dissolutions, mergers and withdrawals, there is one every five to ten years.  He indicated the activity will be in the Eugene Springfield metro area with an annexation inside the city.  He added that they will have to do a concurrent annexation to the special district of either the Metro Wastewater or the Willamalane Parks District.  He noted there are about 45 annually.  He added there are five to ten annexations into a fire district per year.

 

Green asked what their role is as the Boundary Commission given the city is processing the claims.

 

Howe responded that the Board would have no role because the city will perform that function, except if it is Eugene/Springfield, then there is the concurrent special service district annexation.  He indicated they have given the Board three options, but without the County having experience in processing these types of applications, the cost recovery is being used locally.  He noted Option 1 is a flat fee cost recovery. He said it is based upon the public hearing process.

 

Andy Clark, Assistant County Counsel, explained the numbers in Option 1 involve an opportunity to be limited to one public hearing.  He added in other circumstances there will be a two hearing requirement.

 

Howe noted that Option 2 is a graduated cost recovery fee mainly to alleviate sticker shock.  He indicated that these were smaller annexations. 

 

Fleenor asked if they are practicing full cost recovery, if it would be logical to see a graduated increase as the acreage went up. He thought they were subsidizing the smaller acreage.

 

Howe indicated that under the graduated fee cost recovery, the fee for less than one acre is $2,080 and it increases by acreage up to 100 acres at $8,800.

 

Howe stated Option 3 was the non-cost recovery that would represent two times the fee the current Lane County Boundary Commission charges.  He indicated they supported Option 1 for the fees.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Jim Seaberry, Eugene, said he stood outside the McNutt Room last month talking to Kurt Yeider, City of Eugene, after a work session on this subject.  He said the question came up about modification to an improved piece of property in the unannexed area of River Road/Santa Clara or any UGB.  Seaberry said they were misled about the desires of people who wanted to remodel their homes in the River Road/Santa Clara area and the permitting process was not what they heard.  Yeider told Seaberry a kitchen or major modifications to the plumbing triggers annexation.  Seaberry thought the Board would want to request that all UGB residential annexations would first be submitted to the Lane County Board of Commissioners for its official approval and that the County vacate the street upon the effective date of the city’s annexation of that property in the UGB.  He said any annexation of County streets by the City of Eugene need a public hearing before the County Planning Commission.  He said the Board of Commissioners cannot give the streets to the city, only that portion of the street that adjoins the properties being annexed.  He said all future annexations along that street could be contiguous. He said that cities cannot annex non-contiguous property.  He said the County would not be losing its tax base properties.  He said what the city did was cause him to lose his right to a public hearing before the city council on annexation.  He said they disallowed the city residents a public hearing in its new annexation process taking effective January 2, 2008. He believed the commissioners should vote on every annexation that contains a street that the County authorizes.

 

Fleenor asked if they do that if it would increase the cost of processing annexations if they went to the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Commissioners.

 

Howe said it is not related to special districts.

 

Wilson said it would be a request for the city awaiting their processing of an annexation until the County could go through this kind of process.  She noted it would increase the cost. She said it is the desire to have the Board of Commissioners weigh in on the city annexation or whatever proposal is in front of the city.

 

Fleenor asked if the language could be placed in an IGA agreement or if it would be part of the annexation process.

 

Seaberry said they need to get a request from the city to authorize the taking of the County’s roads.

 

Dale Ledyard, Eugene, said they used the Boundary Commission to annex properties into the rural fire district to provide fire protection to the citizens if they want to build.  He said they currently have three properties that are up for annexation.  He indicated it required the fire district bring them into their contiguous boundaries.   He said it would add to their tax base.  Their concern is the process to annex into a rural district be accessible to the citizens, clearly defined, easily understood and in a timely manner.  He said they could provide fire protection so they are annexed into the district.  He wanted someone to help facilitate their customers getting into the fire district.  He supported an ordinance or a process the County has.

 

Rob Handy, Eugene, stated he wasn’t a happy camper.  He was disappointed at the lack of materials and timely information from staff.  He was disappointed at the Planning Commission in that they had a similar challenge in not getting materials until the last minute.  He stated that he is a neighborhood leader from River Road and has been for years.  He said people have been aware of this hearing coming up and they asked him what was going on and what there was to comment on.  He didn’t know what to say because he hadn’t seen the materials.  He was disappointed in the staff’s summary about what went on at the Planning Commission.  He said there was a robust conversation and he asked if those issues were communicated to the Board.  He said part of being educated is to bring in different aspects. He was disappointed in his county commissioner and his leadership on issues that affect River Road.  He hoped for more involvement.  He said there are impacts to Willamalane, but he asked about impacts to the River Road Parks District. He thought issues around street annexation should be addressed.  He said the city is looking at extra territorial extensions. He hoped citizen input wouldn’t be discounted as irrelevant.  He said the information is not coming before the Board or the public.  He said staff is overworked but he asked how they are going to do something for not only the County, but the city and the residents.  He said people went to the legislature to change things for the Boundary Commission and it wasn’t transparent or accountable.  He thought he would see something better.  He commented that he wasn’t off on the right foot at the County.  He hoped now that it is before the Board, leadership will kick in to rebuild trust.

 

Lauri Segel , Eugene, said it is difficult for the citizens to follow what goes on with the staff report.  She said this information wasn’t in front of the Planning Commission.  She said it didn’t show in Lane Code where the provisions would be. She added that there is no information in the code regarding what portions of ORS 198 were meant to be addressed. She said in the end the Planning Commission recommended the Board adopt the statutes’ direction. She added that the record was left open at the Planning Commission for a week and deliberations were set out a week to allow staff to be more articulate about the proposal.  She said it was disappointing to hear that everything that was heard at the Planning Commission was irrelevant because it was not true.  She stated citizens brought up relevant issues and the Planning Commissioners struggled to understand their role.  She noted at the end they agreed with the citizens that there was not enough material in front of them to consider being able to give a recommendation of approval.  She thought the city issue that was applicable is the street annexation policy.

 

Fleenor said he campaigned on abolishing the Lane County Boundary Commission.  He worked with Chris Edwards and Vicki Walker to make it happen.  He didn’t want to do this wrong.  He proposed considering an ad hoc committee to put something together that would do what they want as a community.  He said they have to be careful and take their time.  He thought they should adopt some fee base.

 

Segel recalled that they recommended to the Planning Commission that they implement the statutes directly.  She said what staff presented was incomplete and problematic.  She wanted to see the County policy be more stringent than the statute when it comes to public notice.  She wanted to see notices posted in places besides the newspaper and on a bulletin board at the County. 

 

Dwyer said the bill in the legislation will not save all annexation problems.  He explained if they quantify the amount of annexations they do as a County, they are only dealing with special districts, not with the cities.  He said it has nothing to do with the cities.  He commented that it started with island annexations.  He said unless they deal with the issue of  their expectation regarding roads, the roads belong to the County.  He added if it is contiguous, then they need to limit authority to the part of the road that serves the purpose, not beyond that.  He wanted full cost recovery for fees. He indicated they have limited authority under this legislative bill.

 

19. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. ORDER 07-12-12-18/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 60 of the Lane Manual to Adopt Fees Relating to Formation of Special Districts or Changes to Special District Boundaries and Functions (LM 60.812).

 

MOTION: to adopt Option 2 of  ORDER 07-12-12-18.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

ORDER 07-12-12-19 Providing Guidance for Processing Applications Relating to Special District Boundaries Pursuant to Senate Bill 417 and ORS Chapter 198.

 

Wilson said they could have the approach that they are complying with state law with the work the staff has done in terms of developing guidelines.  She added that they would recognize staff would use those guidelines to try to help the citizens through the process and that is what is in this board order.  She added the second option they have would be to amend their earlier order to add a delegation of authority to the County Administrator.  She added that if they are successful at getting intergovernmental agreements, to have the two cities do the simultaneous annexation with respect to the Metropolitan Wastewater Service District and Willamalane.

 

Fleenor asked if they could amend this and replace it at some future date after they have had meetings with the cities.  He thought this could be a transitory order that gives some direction to the process.

 

MOTION: to move ORDER 07-12-12-19.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Wilson explained that these guidelines aided staff in learning what their new jobs are going to be and the coordination they need to have among County departments. She thought this was a good effort to help the citizens.  She indicated that the guidelines have citations to the specific statutes that are relevant.

 

Sorenson asked if there would be an opportunity for public comment for people who wanted to give their perspective on this.   He supported these motions because he thought they needed to have a policy in place before the end of the year.  He was concerned that this started out as an ordinance and they aren’t adopting an ordinance, they are adopting two orders.

 

Dwyer said it was a public process but they had been left out of the discussion about the 190 agreements.

 

Green said they need to have a discussion about the 190 agreements in terms of what they agreed to 20 years ago so issues about streets could come to light.

 

Sorenson thought they should move toward an ordinance to have in place protecting the public’s rights.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Fleenor recommended when they have a work session that they invite Mr. Seaberry and Ms. Sigel as they bring an invaluable perspective that would be helpful.

 

20. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Fleenor announced that he was having his Coffee and Conversation at Robbie’s Window Box Café in Veneta tomorrow.

 

Dwyer reported that on Friday morning at Food for Lane County, they will be giving away turkey dinners.

 

Stewart stated that he Van Vactor and Green were invited to go to the U of O for a press conference.  He said the USA Track and Field has awarded the 2012 Olympic Track and Field Trials along with the 2009 and 2011 USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships to the Oregon Track Club.

 

21. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

Stewart reported that he received a 2007 City of Eugene Appreciation Award presented to Lane County regarding safe affordable housing for low income persons.

 

22. OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary