BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
July 9, 2008
Commissionersí Conference Room
Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present. County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
will be an Emergency Business Item. Stewart indicated that Victor Stathakis
couldnít attend the meeting and Stewart pulled item 6 a). Stewart stated that
Fleenor asked for a report from Land Management on tonightís public meeting
regarding HB 3337.
Fleenor requested item 3. B.1) be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dotson, Eugene, said
stakeholders asked for a voice in the property and streets of rights-of-way
annexed to the City of Eugene. He
indicated that the process provided is by petition and signatures were collected
and submitted in accordance with ORS 199. He
noted the Lane County local government Boundary Commission chose not to place
the petitions in regular session and failed to address the positions. He stated
that these were the same petitions that Dwyer requested County Counsel inquire
about and report back to the Board. He
said at that time the County was misled about the petitions by the Boundary
Commission. He recalled on July 1,
2008, control of the unfinished business of the Lane County local government
Boundary Commission transferred to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He
requested that the Board of Commissioners finish and correct the record, or
forward their findings to the election office as required under ORS 199 for
completion and a vote by the people.
asked what happens to the petitions that didnít get acted on by the Boundary
said she didnít know but she would do the research.
McLucas, Eugene, asked why
they are litigating against Jim Gillette. She commented that unlike the last
case, she has personal knowledge and thinks it is an injustice.
She wanted the litigation stopped. She
recalled a transient woman who camped on Gilletteís property got angry when
she was kicked off and prompted by neighbors she retaliated by reporting illegal
residences on the property. McLucas
said it was untrue, as the only occupied mobile home was the one that had a
legal status. She said based on
this acquisition and without verifying with an inspection, the County started a
fine. She indicated they sent
notice on a Friday and Gillette paid it on Monday.
She said according to normal County procedures, it should have stopped
the fine, but it ran for 52 days until the County found time to hold a hearing.
She stated that the fine was unjustified.
She was present at part of the hearing on only the legality of the County
fine, not on the facts of the case. She
said she saw unprofessional behavior. She
added that the County staff has developed a prejudice against Gillette and the
Board has a warped attitude against him. She
said that Gillette would like to settle this out of court to save time and money
and to begin an era of cooperation.
said he toured the property and he has been involved for almost two years
helping Gillette get into compliance. Stewart
said a transient turned Gillette in, but when Stewart went out to Gilletteís
property, Gillette had illegal structures, an illegal septic system and there
were people living on the property in illegal structures.
Stewart said that Gillette would confirm this.
Stewart spoke to Gillette about that and about a person living in a
building that Gillette didnít want to tear down.
Stewart indicated that it has gone through Court and the 52 days was
halted at the time Gillette paid his money, but because he wasnít in
compliance when the hearingís officer made his decision, it reverted back to a
fine for each of those days he was in non-compliance Stewart understood Gillette
has brought his property up to compliance, but it took that action to get it
into compliance. Stewart said the
courts will decide and as soon as there is a decision and that matter is taken
care of, the Board will see where it goes from there.
Stewart said one of the reasons compliance was started was because
Gillette told the Board at the board meeting that he was not going to take the
building down and it was illegal.
Gillette, Eugene, said his
mobile homes were unlivable. He
indicated that he has two legal homes on the property and it was being occupied.
He didnít remember anyone in a camper. He didnít think the fines
should have started. He said he was ready for a hearing but the County wasnít.
He said the judge threw out $20,000.
His attorney recommended he not settle with the County.
He asked why the Board canít just drop the case.
He said he had already paid thousands of dollars.
He stated that the County hasnít been fair.
Vishinoff, Eugene, reported
that there is a dorm proposed at 16th and Moss, one block south of
the arena. He also reported about the hearing coming up on the alley vacation.
He said yesterday The Oregonian mentioned keeping the Olympic
Trials in Eugene permanently. He
heard mom and pop shops didnít do well near the site of the Olympic Trials. He
thought there were media problems about promotion of the trials.
He asked if there was any reason in the future for Lane County to oversee
public involvement so both sides could be heard.
Farthing, Eugene, said since
the July 25 meeting, the Board directed staff to contact Portland State in
anticipation of initiating a post acknowledgment plan amendment to adopt the
coordinated population projection forecast that would come out of Portland State
and a public process. He said since that time eight small cities in Lane County
have filed their own application for that same post acknowledgement plan
amendment to adopt a population projection.
He thought the Board reviewed the direction they gave to staff and the
money allocated. He hoped it was
going through a completeness review, at which time a public hearing will be
scheduled in front of the Planning Commission per the plan amendment procedures.
He said the Board directed staff initiate another process.
He thought the Board should go with what the small cities are pursuing.
He added that all the hoopla regarding the population projections is
coming as a result of one woman in Lowell, Mia Nelson, who was pushing this. He
added that Mia Nelson has her own agenda and it is a developerís agenda.
He said it comes from her attempt to maintain her monopoly on buildable
lands in the City of Lowell. He
encouraged the Board to support the small citiesí efforts to have a public
process and a plan amendment process they are willing to pay for that could be
completed by the end of the year.
Jerry Valencia, Lowell, echoed what his attorney stated. He was directed by Lane County staff to let the legislative process do its due diligence. He indicated he has been involved with this since last November. He thought things were in disarray and didnít know what direction things were going. He said the cities are doing their PAPA and the cities of Eugene and Springfield have invited him to be part of their population forecast. He couldnít see a clear end for the process. He said everyone in the process is a stakeholder: city, state and private people.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Board of Commissioners
1) ORDER 08-7-9-1/In the Matter of Suspending Changes to the Metropolitan Wastewater Service District Boundary and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute an Amended Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Springfield.
B. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 08-7-9-2/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 3 of the Lane Manual to Create a One-Year Term for Public Officials Serving on the Community Action Advisory Committee; Amending Chapter 3 of the Lane Manual to Change Membership Size from 15 to 12; Approving Committee By-Law Changes (LM 3.530). (PULLED)
C. Public Works
1) ORDER 08-7-9-3/In the Matter of Accepting an Amendment to the Bureau of Land Management Right-of-Way Grant No. OR 62104 for Panther Creek Road (County Road Numbers 10, 121 and 1121) and Granting the County Administrator Authority to Sign the Amendment and the Grant No. OR 62104 (19-05-17).
D. Workforce Partnership
1) ORDER 08-7-9-4/In the Matter of Appointing a Lane County Education Representative to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.
MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.
Fleenor questioned the definition of the membership in 3-68. He wanted to see the language cleaned up.
Wilson said the difficulty is that the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene members are appointed by those entities. She indicated not all 12 members are actually appointed by the County.
Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, indicated they appoint all members except for the citiesí representatives.
Wilson explained that the language as written accomplishes the job needed to be done.
Dwyer was okay with clarifying the language.
Wilson recommended rolling this to allow staff to investigate and come back with the language the first meeting in August.
4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
ORDER 08-7-9-6 Delegating Authority to Execute Contracts for the Exchange of County Road Funds for City Funds with the City of Eugene for $4,500,000 and the City of Springfield for $250,000.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-7-9-6.
Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.
Sorenson requested an update from Public Works about the road fund in September, as they get into the planning of next yearís budget.
5. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Dwyer commented that it was a great track meet.. He and Green gave out the medals for the Womenís Javelin on Monday night. He thought the Fan Festival was a great idea. He thought there were some lessons to be learned. He indicated the downside of the Fan Festival was that people would stay where the crowds are and they didnít go out to surrounding businesses. He thought in the future they should have the Fan Festival on alternate days to see what impact it has on the community.
Green reported the local organizing committee will have a post evaluation meeting to discuss what could be done better. He heard about getting people from the site into the community. He added that some restaurants were asked to stay open late and most people didnít travel to them.
Fleenor said there was a news story in The Register Guard regarding a letter that people signed that questioned the governor using his 60 day period to review the WOPR. He said the basis on which he signed the letter was echoed in the letter he sent to Ed Shepard who was in charge of the O & C project in Oregon. Fleenor requested a delay under the principles that he would much rather see real science determine the direction they go with respect to harvesting of timber versus political science. He didnít think judges should be in the business of administering science. He asked the governor to look at the scientific under pinning of the proposal to increase the harvest from 100 million board feet to 700 million board feet in a period of a few years. He wanted incremental increases with evaluations, so as they do increase the harvest, they are careful to ascertain whether they are doing harm or if they are being good stewards.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza.
b. County Administrator Review
Stewart reported that Greta Utecht, Human Services, will be putting together a six month review form for the review of Jeff Spartz. He indicated that it would be discussed at the July 30 meeting.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. REPORT BACK Urban Transition Agreements with Cities of Eugene and Springfield.
Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled at the April 2 meeting the Board asked for this report. He attached the orders and ordinances that were relevant. (Copy in File) recognizing the cities of Eugene and Springfield as the logical providers of services inside the urban growth area. He said the current Metro Plan Policies: 3, 8, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are from the growth management urban services area section of the Metro Plan. He indicated that they derive from the fundamental principle of the Metro Plan that the jurisdiction that is the ultimate provider for urban services is the most logical entity to provide the planning and permit services to those lands within the urban growth boundary until the property is annexed to the city.
Howe explained that the urban transition agreements established the framework for implementing policies that provided for County review and adoption of the city building and land use regulations for applications in the respective urban growth areas after which the cities agreed to administer those regulations. He said staff concluded that revenues generated from the land use and building permit activity in the urban transition area would not cover the cost of providing those services. He noted that less than 10 applications per year involve development that triggers land use applications which donít trigger annexation. He indicated that it amounts to about $15,000 annually. He added that from a financial viewpoint, it doesnít make sense to assume the responsibilities since the fees for any significant development would go to the cities upon the property being annexed and developed at urban densities. He indicated the city regulations would remain effective and they would have to be applied by County staff until they were repealed and replaced by County regulations. He commented that the real issue from staffís standpoint is the appearance of disenfranchisement of County citizens through the transfer of County and building responsibilities within the urban growth area of Eugene and Springfield. He said citizens complained of taxation without representation and they complain about the annexation policies followed by the City of Eugene. He stated that it should be noted the ultimate land use policy jurisdictional authority still remains with the Board of Commissioners for the citizens that live outside the city limits within the urban growth boundary. He recalled that the Board has adopted the Metro Plan policies and the implementing code provisions applied by the two cities. He noted all that has changed is that the Board has delegated the administrative permitting authority to the cities of Eugene and Springfield for the properties located within the urban growth area. He said the citizens outside the city limits are still represented by the Board of Commissioners unless the Board repealed the current land use regulations applicable inside the urban growth area and adopted new ones. He added that the County would be administering the same regulations that Eugene and Springfield current apply under the urban transition agreement, if that agreement is terminated.
Howe said when citizens who live in the urban growth area complain to the Board of Commissioners, the Board has to state that the authority for planning and building are with the two cities. He said the citizens feel their elected officials arenít able to address their issues because they are referred to the applicable city. He added that termination of the urban transition agreements would not eliminate the Metro Plan policies or the implementing land use regulations that might cause the citizen complaints.
Howe recalled there were a number of issues in the draft termination order premised on questions and concerns that werenít part of the agreement. He said the Metro Plan policies remain effective and may be relevant to further board action unless those policies have changed. He said the agreements are not ambiguous and clearly describe the relationship and responsibility to the cities and Lane County around building and land use regulation. He said they donít dictate any result in an annexation. He noted that annexations and surrender of County roads under the statutes are separate issues and unrelated to building and land use permit responsibilities described in the urban transition agreement.
Howe noted the recent legislation described in the draft order addresses how cities exercise annexation and their authority returned to them by the abolishment of the Lane County Boundary Commission and the separate urban growth boundary authority established in HB 3337. He indicated that those legislative enactments and the population forecasting responsibilities are not directly applicable to the subject matter covered in the urban transition agreements.
Howe suggested a city liaison who the Board members could contact to specifically work with constituent problems: dealing with land use and building permits in the urban growth area. He said once the facts are established they could be presented to the Board member and the Board member could explain the reasons to the constituent. He added if the Board felt the city was not correctly applying the process, they could have a joint meeting with the city council and discuss policy direction as necessary.
Howe thought another possibility would be to engage the cities in a policy level discussion about annexation policies and practices to determine if any of the Metro Plan polices are implementing land use regulations and need to be revised to address citizensí concerns.
Howe noted there are three options for the Board. He noted one option is to continue with the existing urban transition agreements with the cities of Eugene and Springfield and use the information and dialogue with the joint elected officials in upcoming discussions on the Metro Plan; to update or modify the urban transition agreements and improve service to the citizens whose property is in the urban growth area.; to formalize a process for the Board to have a city contact or liaison to address constituent issues. He said if the Board chooses that option, it would reaffirm the Countyís role as the governing body with authority to address unincorporated area constituent issues. He stated that it would provide the Board with an effective process to address those issues in the urban growth area if each city could provide the contact liaison position and it would not require the County to subsidize the position.
Howe indicated the second option would be providing advance written notice to the cities to terminate the 1986 urban transition agreement and take back the planning and building permitting authority within the urban growth area and starting the initiation of the Metro Plan policy amendments that would be necessary to make those changes. He said this option would also reaffirm the Boardís role as the governing body with authority to address the unincorporated area constituent issues. He said the Board would have to address the fundamental Metro Plan policies that speak to Eugene and Springfield as the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development within the urban growth boundary. He indicated that the County would be responsible for implementing the same zoning regulations currently applicable and those regulations cannot allow significant levels of urban development outside the city limits. He noted it is governed by a statewide planning program. He indicated that the County would be responsible for answering questions and providing information on regulations on all levels of development including development that could occur upon annexation. He said there would be significant cost to provide such information to non-paying customers. He added upon annexation, development fees would go to Eugene and Springfield. He said the additional cost for providing the service would have to be subsidized by the application fees for non-urban development. He said the County would be subsidizing the cities for this customer service.
Howe reported that the third Option would be to take no action on the matter. He thought it could be the most cost effective for the County but it doesnít respond to the needs of the constituents and the feeling of being disenfranchised. He said staff recommends option 1, to work with the cities of Springfield and Eugene to establish a city liaison position to specifically work with constituent problems dealing with land use and building permit authority in the urban growth boundary and establish a process for working out constituent issues. He said they could develop a proposal for the joint elected officials meeting in September.
Vorhes noted inside the urban growth boundary, the Metro Plan or the city plan describes what the designation is for that land and it will always take a Board action to co-adopt a change to those designations. He said if the plan already shows existing farmland as residential, then the plan has made that policy choice.
Dwyer said they have to determine how they protect the future of Lane County and have a balance so Lane County has the capacity to grow their own food.
Howe noted for the existing urban growth boundary, the area is to be urbanized at urban densities. He said for any changes to the current urban growth boundary, the Board has the role in determining with any other city in Lane County if and where the urban growth boundary is going to change. He indicated that the state is embarking on new rule efforts. He said they are working on a pilot effort in the Portland metro area in identifying urban reserves. He said the new concept is about rural reserves. He said the Board could be involved in identifying rural reserves around the urban growth boundary that they would not be allowed to be expanded into. He thought it would achieve what Dwyer wanted.
Stewart thought citizens feel disenfranchised with the current system. He thought citizens deserved to be represented.
Howe indicated the Metro Plan polices donít allow divisions to urban densities until they are annexed to the city.
Stewart thought it was time to serve notice that those agreements are outdated and should be terminated. He wanted to spend the next year coming up with agreements that meet the Countyís concerns.
Green asked how they shift the paradigm of cities being the logic providers of urban services. He asked how the Board becomes more empowered to give the citizens recourse.
Howe stated the Metro Plan is a three jurisdictional agreement and it takes all three jurisdictions to agree.
Green thought they had to do something where it doesnít take all three jurisdictions. He commented that at the time the Metro Plan was developed, it was a great tool. He said there was a process in place where elected officials could go to resolve the conflicts and that doesnít exist today. He thought they needed to review whether it takes all three jurisdictions to agree. He recalled they had the opt out provision at one time. He said they are being hamstrung by a document but it takes away their ability to delegate the authority to the cities. He said until they have that discussion and action, they will be back at square one. He was interested about the rural reserve and the influence the Metro Plan would have on it.
Sorenson wanted another briefing on the rural reserve concept. He thought the liaison idea was a good idea while they sort the information. He thought they should terminate the agreement. He said one of the major assumptions in the agreement is that cities are the logical providers of urban services. He recalled that statement was made before the internet and before Ballot Measure 5, 47 and 50. He thought the County had the least power between the three jurisdictions. He said since the agreement gives them the opportunity to terminate, their revisiting the basic premise that the cities are the logical providers is not true. He thought for the County to better protect its right, they should take the step of terminating the agreement. He supported the rural reserve. He asked how they could manage growth that has taken place. He stated that he had discussions with some Eugene City Councilors and they were okay either way, but they thought it would cost the County more money. He asked how they would give direction to terminate the agreements.
Vorhes said the termination notice is a letter to the city stating the County is intending to terminate pursuant the provisions of the agreements. He recommended doing it in a board order that directs staff or the County Administrator to send a letter. He stated the initiation of a termination is a simple action. He added that it will take a Metro Plan policy change to make it no longer a factor. He said the regulations in place the Board adopted should be revisited. He recalled in the past the Board has proposed changes to those regulations to make them less onerous on development in the unincorporated area, not triggering annexation.
Dwyer stated that they have to terminate the agreements. He commented that what they currently have is not working. He wanted to send a letter and then a board order terminating the agreements.
Vorhes indicated the Metro Plan is the joint management agreement the Board and the cities have adopted and it will take change to the Metro Plan to change the policies. He thought the Board should discuss who the most logical service provider is and under what circumstances annexations are to occur. He reiterated the County will have to get agreement from the cities to change the policies that are in place. He said if the cities want to change their urban growth boundaries, the Board will have a say and adopting authority at that stage.
Fleenor said he was in agreement with everyone.
Spartz indicated that step one should be to request staff to develop a work plan to lay out the transition steps and tie it into a board order requesting the appropriate termination date for the agreements with the two cities.
Fleenor said since there has been so much legislation since 1986 he thought it was time to revisit the Metro Plan to reflect the current mandatory statewide planning standards including HB 3737. He hoped the metro partners would want to go through the Metro Plan so it is updated. He recommended Option 2, initiating a Metro Plan policy amendment.
Sorenson asked what the current restrictions are for Lane County in embarking on a rural reserve program.
Howe responded that there isnít anything, but they wouldnít have the rule in the OAR that would facilitate it without having it created here. He commented that it is more of a locally driven controlled effort without state rule that gives them the criteria and they would be developing it locally. He said it would be like another zoning designation, but it hasnít been authorized by the state. He said the Rural Comprehensive Plan would become the authority. He added in the Metro area, adjacent to the urban growth boundary, it isnít always the Rural Comprehensive Plan, portions are the Metro Plan and that would involve Eugene and Springfield. He said he would add this to their long range planning.
Sorenson asked what the downside would be to the property owner in establishing a rural reserve.
Howe said they wouldnít be able to develop the property within the next 50 years at urban densities.
Green requested correspondence going out stating they had this discussion and at some point in time they are going to revisit the Metro Plan to make it more contemporary.
Stewart understood during the last three days of June they received a work increase with applications. He added on the last day they received over 150 applications. He commented that there is a large workload just in processing applications the citizens have requested. He said in talking with Howe and Laird, they will send out a letter to those people letting them know of the influx of the applications and they probably wonít meet the timelines they strive for on a normal basis because of the workload. He asked if this item could be contracted out.
Vorhes responded that from a legal perspective it is more costly to come up with the parameters and expectations for someone else. He thought Land Management was best equipped to handle it.
Howe reported that he would bring this back in September.
Vorhes noted the Board was meeting with the joint elected officials next Tuesday and because of regional planning, this could fit into that conversation.
Fleenor asked if the Board acknowledges they have the intent to conduct a coordinated population forecast, if that would preclude each of the cityís PAPAís.
Vorhes said the Rural Comp Plan amendment process is laid out and if an application has come in, it is not subject to a later rule that governs it. He indicated the Metro Plan initiation is governed by the regulations the Board has adopted. He said if there is an application already done, there is going to be debate on whether the County can change the rules once the application has come in.
Fleenor asked if the city is in the process of using a population forecast that was co-adopted by the County, if they are still able to use that number in their PAPA even though it is not a coordinated population.
Vorhes commented that every land use action the Board takes has a coordination function to it. He said any co-adopted plan the County has with a number in it has been coordinated at that time. He added that it may not preclude cities from utilizing population figures however they want to utilize them, without having done a coordinated process.
b. Joint Elected Officials Meeting
Stewart indicated that Fleenor requested information on a public meeting taking place tonight. He said it is in regard to HB 3337 and direction given at the joint elected officials meeting to gather public input. He noted the three topics were zoning, transportation and population projections.
Matt Laird, Land Management, recalled in May at the joint elected officials meeting, HB 3337 and TransPlan issues were on the agenda, there wasnít specific direction from that meeting to have a public meeting. He said there was discussion and some of the Eugene City Councilors wanted to make sure the public was aware of upcoming opportunities to comment and what was becoming available as they were implementing their work program. He said he attends the regional planning coordinating meetings and they have been discussing this and how Lane County is a partner at the table. He noted when it got to the public outreach component, there were thoughts that a workshop would be a good idea to have before then next joint elected officials meeting where they will discuss the work program for HB 3337 efforts. He said a common component to both of those efforts is population forecasting. He indicated it was also listed on the agenda. He noted that Eugene decided to take the lead and volunteered to have their staff set it up. He said Lane County volunteered to have staff be present at the informal meeting session where people could come in and ask questions.
With regard to population forecasting, Laird explained there are three tracks going forward. He said Eugene and Springfield have initiated a Metro Plan amendment for the safe harbor population numbers that are the most conservative numbers. He recalled at the June 25 meeting, the Board rescinded its previous resolution on population forecasting and asked Land Management to continue to have discussions with Portland State University and report back to the Board. He indicated they are still having discussions with Portland State University and they put together a grant application for additional funding from DLCD. He added the message they will tell the public is Lane County has the statutory authority to create a coordinated population forecast. He noted the third track is that some of the small cities have filed a post acknowledgment plan amendment for population numbers on their own. He indicated that it is a plan amendment that will go through the land use process and a Planning Commission recommendation to the Board. He said there will be open public hearings and people will discuss it.
Fleenor thought the Board was not consulted prior to this decision. He was upset to find out Lane County was participating in a process about population forecasting. He thought Land Management was undermining the Boardís credibility to conduct a full, legal coordinated population forecast. He said they have to get their information first before they go out to the public for input. He said they donít know what questions to ask. He was disappointed that they couldnít tell staff about their expectations on Land Managementís participation in tonightís meeting.
Laird said they are trying to find out what the public is interested in hearing or seeing in a work program for a coordinated population forecast. He said it is preliminary public contact and not a finished product. He said this is telling the public they are going to be embarking on an effort to create coordinated population forecasting.
Fleenor asked Laird if this was a decision he made unilaterally.
Laird said they are metro partners with regional planning coordination efforts. He saw this as an effort for Springfield and Eugene to do their HB 3337 implementation and their transportation planning efforts. He added that population forecasting was a subcomponent. He thought it was appropriate for Lane County to be at the table.
Dwyer commented that this is how government works. He didnít want the Board to be committed to anything.
Stewart didnít see anything wrong with Lane Countyís participation except for gathering public input. He added that HB3337 includes population numbers and input from the public about growth. He thought they were oversensitive about the activities that are taking place and he thought it was unfortunate. He said it is important for staff to be reaching out to the public in giving information. He commented that he didnít see policy being made. He noted at the workshop information will be gathered.
Green didnít share Flenorís concerns about a policy being breached or an undermining of the effort. He couldnít make the connection that this workshop would either enhance or discredit what Portland State was going to do. He commented that if they should be guilty of anything, it is the lack of direction the Board gives. He recalled they did have the discussion at the joint elected officialís meeting.
Spartz stated that Laird is sensitive to the fact that the Board has made its policy with the population forecast. He said what happens at tonightís meeting will not limit the degree of freedom the Board has in making additional policy or processes in the future.
Sorenson said he sent an e-mail to DLCD, criticizing their one-sided meetings with the advocates for a population forecast that would favor certain people. He asked about the impact of the Board members learning information through the PAPA process.
Vorhes commented that this was more of a legislative type of decision. He indicated when they are dealing with adopted population figures for the rural areas of Lane County and all of the urban areas of Lane County, it is more of a legislative decision. He added that some of the limitations in the quasi judicial process are not as applicable.
Fleenor stated that this had to do with more of a policy issue. He thought in this instance staff did not avail themselves to come before the Board or the subcommittees.
9. COUNTY COUNSEL
a. ORDER 08-7-9-5/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 2 of Lane Manual to Add Policy Language Implementing the Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act (LM 2.183).
MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-7-9-5.
Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE
from Gary Wagner
received a letter from Gary Wagner, (a disabled person) and his request for
reduced fees to the Parks system. Stewart
worked with Todd Winter, Parks, and because Wagner is under the age of the
golden pass, Winter said that Wagner could participate in a work program to earn
a pass and the ability to stay in some campgrounds.
He is working with staff to do that.
Wagner was concerned for people who are on Social Security, who are
disabled that have no means to make up the cost of living. Wagner thought he was
priced out of being able to use some of the services in the County.
asked Spartz to ask Parks for an e-mail on how many people volunteer to get a
announced that his community dialogue will take place tomorrow in Veneta.
reported a month ago the mill in Creswell had sustained a fire and it was closed
for a period of time. He said they
were in the process of evaluating the losses and the ability to repair and start
up. He said their city council has
pursued expanding the enterprise zone. He
said there are provisions that allow for a 12 mile area to have an enterprise
zone so it could reach to Creswell to bring in and make benefits to the company
to rebuild and keep the 100 jobs in Creswell.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per
Per ORS 192.660(2)(d) for the purpose of deliberations with labor negotiators and per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.
14. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:40 a.m.