BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

September 12, 2007

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 8/4/2009

 

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

 

16. PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a. ORDER 07-9-12-13/In the Matter of In the Matter of Considering a Ballet Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove, or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 70-5975, Miller-5975).

 

Stewart asked if there were any ex-parte contacts.

 

There were none.

 

Matt Laird, Land Management, said this property consists of 11.16 acres.  He noted the current zoning is E-30 Exclusive Farm Use zoning.  He recalled that when the property was acquired by the owners on March 23, 1964, it was unzoned. He indicated there were no issues with this claim.  He noted that they provided an analysis indicating there was a reduction in value.  He added there were no LLCís or any type of issue with ownership.  He stated that this appeared to be a valid claim.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Paul Vaughn, Eugene, stated that he was present on behalf of the Millers.  He thought this was a simple Measure 37 claim.  He indicated that the Millers acquired their property in March, 1964 and they have owned it continuously.  He said there were no issues involving trusts.  He stated the property was unzoned when they acquired it.  He noted in their claim they stated how they intend to develop the property and it is a modest development.  He added their property is about 12 acres with one existing dwelling that they reside in.   He said they would like to divide their property into three parcels and develop a dwelling on two of the parcels.  He added that even if Measure 49 were to pass, this would still be a valid claim.

 

Cliff Miller, said they purchased their property in 1964 and they have lived there all along.  He indicated that they want to develop their property so they could get additional income. 

 

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

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 07-9-12-13.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 9-07/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 5 of Lane Code to Revise the Administrative Civil Penalty Process Regarding the Appeals Fee and Civil Penalties Involving Commercial Gain (LC 5.005, 5.017) (NBA & PM 8/29/07).

 

Craig Starr, Land Management, explained that this was following Board direction regarding changes to their compliance process.  He said the ordinance would add a definition in Lane Code 5.005 for a case involving commercial gain and 5.107 would establish that the maximum daily civil penalty for a case involving commercial gain would change from a current limit of $1,000 to a limit of $2,500 and all other cases the daily maximum of $1,000 would remain the same.  He noted Lane Code 5.107(7) would eliminate the requirement that accrued civil penalties be deposited in order for someone to submit an appeal and it would add a time limit of 60 days within which they would be required to refund the appeal fee if someone appealed and was successful in their appeal. He noted Lane Code 5.107(10), would add the recovery of any unpaid portion of the new appeal fee in addition to the accrued civil penalty.  He said the new appeal fee is set up in Lane Manual, but it allows someone to deposit $100 of the $1,500 fee in order to appeal. He added if they appeal and lose, the additional $1,400 is collectable.  He added that there is a companion order to this ordinance.

 

Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.

 

Jim Gillette, Eugene, commented that if this would have been in effect he wouldnít have been here.  He thought it was a step in the right direction.

 

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

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. 9-07.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0.

 

17. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a.  ORDER 07-9-12-14/In the Matter of  Amending Chapter 5 of the Lane Manual to Revise the Monetary Penalty Calculation and Appeal Fee and Add Compliance Certification Policies (LM 5.010, 5.020, 5.025, 5.030).

 

Starr noted in Lane Manual 5.010, they added the definition of a case involving commercial gain.  He noted Lane Manual  5.020 adds language that provides for a multiplier of three, for cases involving commercial gain up to the daily maximum penalty of $2,500.  He added that with all other cases the limit would stay at $1,000 per day.  He said Lane Manual 5.025(2) was where they deleted the existing appeal fee of $100 that accompanied the requirement to deposit the accrued penalties to that date.  He added that they established the new appeal fee of $1,500 plus the provision for a $100 deposit in order for someone to appeal and make the rest of it payable if the appeal is lost.  He added that Lane Manual 5.030 is a new paragraph.  He indicated they are establishing the process the Board asked for when they send out an order.  He said it will include a form an individual could complete and send back to them, certifying they have eliminated the problem and it will establish a placeholder for them when they receive it.  He indicated the receipt of that document will establish the end of the penalties.  He added that if they find they havenít completed it, the fact they submitted it doesnít interrupt the accumulation of penalties, they would continue through that period of time.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 07-9-12-14.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

b. REPORT BACK ORS 190 Agreements.

 

Starr reported that this was a follow-up at the request of the Board.  He said Dwyer raised the issue of terminating the190 agreements.  He said Dwyer thought it could be done easily with a one year written notice.  He included a copy of the agreement with Springfield and Eugene.  He drafted a letter that could be sent to Springfield and Eugene. (Copy in file).

 

Van Vactor recalled that after the Boardís discussion about Parks SDCís, he brought up the topic at the last SEL meeting and both Angel Jones, city of Eugene and Gino Grimaldi, city of Springfield didnít know where the governing bodies were at, but they encouraged the Board to send a formal letter, making a request that the cities collect the SDCís.

 

Dwyer commented that they will expand their urban growth boundaries at the Countyís expense.  He said all land outside the UGB is under the Countyís domain. He said they want control of what the County will look like.  He added that they are responsible for all of the County.

 

Van Vactor recalled that until the Metro Plan changes, the cities are the logical provider for urban services and when property is proposed for development between the city limits and the urban growth boundary, the cities would be the most logical, as was past policy.

 

Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, said this Board will have to co-adopt any change to any urban growth boundary.  He didnít think the new legislation changed that.  He said the urban growth boundary is co-adopted outside of the city limits.  He added that the Board has taken action on urban growth boundaries within city limits because it is jointly established between county and city.  He stated that the Metro Plan policy is the policy that drives annexation prior to new development within the Metro area.  He said it will take a change by all three jurisdictions to change the policy.

 

Starr said notice will take a long time because there will be some implications with Lane County and the cities if the termination notice is given of undoing things that were done in the 80ís when the agreements went into place.  He said it will be an additional work load for Land Management because they havenít been doing the planning work or dealing with the building permits.

 

Fleenor asked if providing notice of intent would send a notice that they might want to re-examine these.

 

Van Vactor indicated that if they gave notice, they would be wiping out any long range plans and they would have to shift resources to get it done within a year.

 

Sorenson asked what the down side was for giving notice now.

 

Starr responded that assuming the Board was serious about giving notice; they would have to start working to get prepared with the necessary planning and building to resume providing services in the areas.

 

Sorenson asked if they donít give notice what would change.  He thought the County needs to rethink whether it is an entity constrained to provide only services the state deems the County will provide and fund.

 

Van Vactor indicated they donít lose tax money and the rate is the same.  He commented that at times he didnít think the cities understood the concept of partnership.

 

Sorenson thought the County needed to rethink whether it is an entity constrained to provide only services that the state deems the County should provide.

 

Van Vactor thought the Board could formally communicate with the two cities.  He thought they should ask the cities to have a conversation and cooperation, and if they donít cooperate, then the Board could say something.

 

Stewart indicated that they have a joint elected officials meeting to discuss the issue.  He agreed it is frustrating when they send letters and the County doesnít get any response. He was willing to send off the 190 notification that they are going to do this so they could start the process.  He was willing to take one more step to have a joint elected officials meeting.

 

Dwyer thought if they were serious to get the city councilsí cooperation, that they should send the notice to rescind the 190 agreements.   He added that they donít have to affect the notices.

 

Vorhes noted an interpretation was if they issue the notice, it is terminated 12 months from the notice.

 

Sorenson asked what the downside of  terminating the agreements would be.

 

Starr responded the downside would be the work to get ready to take on the duties and the additional work load they would see in Land Management.  He commented that they are already struggling.  He thought there might be enough work to warrant adding a staff person to make things better. He added the bigger downside is that it is part of a web of agreements that joins the County and two cities in many areas and if they start picking at it, he wasnít sure what else it would affect.  He couldnít predict where this might go. 

 

Sorenson encouraged the Board to move in that direction.  He didnít think they could terminate the agreement on the basis of what they had heard today.  He wanted to send the letter and have a meeting to talk about terminating the agreement.

 

Fleenor wanted a check list of items that needed to be done by a time certain or they will terminate the agreement.  He thought each of the 11 issues the Board chose needed to be brought in front of the governing boards to be discussed.

 

Van Vactor recalled that in the past they have had a common work plan that the three governments agree to. He didnít think the cities would agree with all 11 issues, but Lane County as an equal partner could get three or four of the issues in the next year.  He thought it could work with benchmarks.

 

Stewart proposed sending a letter to the cities mandating that they have a joint elected officials meeting, including the 11 issues, Park fees, road SDCís and the new state law about the Metro Plan.  He said if the meeting canít get set up by January 31, Lane County will send a letter that they will initiate the 12 month process to eliminate the 190 agreements.

 

Dwyer said if they expand the urban growth boundary it will expand agricultural land inside the UGB.  He said once they do that there will be no more agricultural land.

 

Van Vactor thought they could add prime farm lands to the list.

 

Dwyer commented that anything short of serving notice was not worth it.  He wanted to let them know the Board was serious.

 

Fleenor was also comfortable about serving notice.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled that he was in Land Management in 1986 when the urban transition agreements were developed.  He commented that undoing that will be a large work effort to take back the responsibility into the County work staff.  He said they would be charging fees to pay for staff, but he said there would be a yearís worth of work before they ever charge a fee in getting the transition created to implement Lane County taking over that responsibility.  He commented that it is a large workload and it would have ramifications on the existing long range planning work load they currently have.  He noted there would need to be code language the County would need to adopt.  He added that they have adopted the Eugene Code for the Eugene urban growth boundary area and they have adopted the Springfield Code for the Springfield urban growth boundary area.  He commented that there would be many unintended consequences.  He thought the Board needed to engage the elected officials to get them to talk about the real policy implications of the Metro Plan.

 

Dwyer thought serving notice was the best way to effect serious dialogue between the cities.  He thought they could serve notice of their intent and if they donít have any serious dialogue between now and a year from today, then they will terminate the 190 agreement

 

Sorenson wanted to send a letter to the cities.  He wasnít comfortable making any other decisions without Green being present.

 

Stewart said he and Sorenson want to prepare a letter to send and bring it back for review at the next board meeting.

 

Vorhes thought they could give reasons in the letter why they want to terminate the agreements.  He said if there was a termination and the County took over administration of building and land use permits in the urban growth area (outside of the city limits) there might be development that could go on that would meet land use approval or a building permit without annexation.  He added that there would continue to be the situations where the first step of vacant property is annexation and the city would eventually end up with building and land use permits for that area.  He commented that the cities donít have jurisdictional authority outside of the city limits.

 

Fleenor wanted a letter like Sorenson and Stewart have identified with five identified benchmarks along with a process within six months so they have a process and time frame.

 

Dwyer wanted to send a copy of this meeting to each city councilor to let them know the Board is serious.

 

Stewart stated this would be brought back next week.

 

18. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Fleenor announced he will have Coffee and Conversation at Robbieís Window Box Cafť Veneta tomorrow.

 

Stewart reported that Cycle Oregon is in Cottage Grove.  He said on Thursday and Friday the American Leadership Forum will be in Cottage Grove.  He said he is a member and they will be meeting in EWEB on Friday.  He announced that tonight is the final scheduled Listening Tour in Springfield at the Willamalane Center.

 

19. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

a. Zippo Logs M37 Claim.

 

Stewart stated that he received a letter from Mike Reeder, attorney for Zippo Log Mills and they have formally requested the continuation of the processing of their Measure 37 claim. 

 

Vorhes recalled that the Zippo Logs claim was within the period of time where the statute is covered.  He said for what Measure 37 says, it extends the period of time before which the claimant will have a compensation claim they could file in Circuit Court under Measure 37.  He said there might be a slight risk if they decide to go to circuit court.

 

Sorenson thought they should ask Land Management to give them an update on the claim in the middle of November and at that point they could decide what to do.

 

Vorhes said they discussed coming back to the board after the elections to update the Measure 37 claims.  He said they could come back on November 20.

 

Sorenson wanted a letter sent to Reeder letting him know the Board will be reviewing this on November 20.

 

LRAPA

 

Stewart received a letter from Merlin Hough from LRAPA, with the EPAís lowering the standards for fine particulate matter. He has reviewed the Countyís codes and made recommendations to lower the limits.  He wanted to give direction to Legal Counsel to make those corrections in their code to make them compliant with the EPAís new regulations.

 

Wilson recommended Hough coming to a meeting to explain this for the Board.

 

Fleenor said he received a letter from the Port of Siuslaw from Mark Freeman.  He said the Port supports the Board of Commissionersí Planning Commission recommendations on Sites 10, 15 and 16 for consideration for dredging and the ongoing dredging of the Siuslaw River.  He said they were asking for the Boardís support.

 

Stewart asked to bring that back for next weekís meeting.

 

20. OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:10 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary