BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
April 7, 2009
Commissioner Pete Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Rob Handy and Faye Stewart present. County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Handy asked to pull item 5.c.1) from tomorrow’s Consent Calendar. He wanted the Sheriff to be available to discuss the item.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mia Nelson, Lowell,
said that the population forecasts have to be in a special purpose plan, not in
the rural part of the Comp Plan. She
noted under Lane Code, the Rural Comp Plan is only for areas outside of UGB’s.
She said only the Board could initiate special purpose plans, but anyone
could start a Rural Comp Plan amendment and that was what the small cities did.
She said their arguments caught the attention of the Planning
Commissioners on April 17 last year and they asked Kent Howe questions. She
stated that Howe said that the OAR’s require the forecasts to be included in
the Comp Plan or a document referenced by the Comp Plan.
She thought the Board should direct staff to move to protect the
Board’s authority by adopting the PSU Forecast as a special purpose plan.
She said if they do that, they will never have to deal with another small
city PAPA forecast request because the Board alone will retain the authority to
decide when and how forecast updates are done.
She said if the Board decides that the forecast must be placed in special
purpose plans, then that PAPA cannot comply because it was initiated by the
Board. She said the Board has to figure this out before they do anything with
the small city PAPA. She thought if
the Board tells staff they want them to adopt the forecast as special purpose
plans, they will adopt them. She
hoped the Board chooses to protect their authority.
Robert Emmons, Fall
Creek, thought there were three serious consequences in placing the forecast in
the rural part of the Comp Plan. He
said it userp’s the Board’s authority as sole initiator of forecasts.
He noted Lane Code 16.400 (9) states that only the Board has the power to
initiate Special Purpose Plan Amendments, but amendment to the rural part of the
Comp Plan may be initiated by others. He
noted that the small cities used their PAPA
process to try to force the County to adopt their modified LCOG forecast.
He said it takes away the Board’s ability to control who does the
forecasting. He added the same code
states that the parties wanting a Special Purpose Plan Amendment must offer to
pay the County’s cost in preparing a new forecast.
He said placing the forecast into the rural part of the Comp Plan would
allow the small cities to sidestep this requirement.
He said this means instead of paying the County’s cost, cities can
present their own forecast, prepared any way they choose and force the County to
process their application free. He
said it puts the County in a disadvantage position releative to cities.
He said it allows the small cities to act as”applicants” instead of
participating on an equal footing with the public in a true legislative style
process. He said in the small cities
PAPA application before the Planning Commission, the cities were able to give a
lengthy applicant’s presentation while members of the public were only allowed
three minutes. He added that after
the public spoke, small cities were allowed additional time to make an
applicant’s rebuttal and after the record was closed, the small cities were
allowed additional time for rebuttal. He
commented that the public was disadvantaged relative to small city applicants.
He commented that none of this constituted good government. He said staff
should be protecting the Board’s authority to control how forecasting is done
instead of buying into the code interpretation the small cities want.
He indicated that the Board has the authority to make a code
interpretation that the foecasts must be placed in a special purpose plan.
He said if they fail to do this, then be prepared for cities to force the
County to process other forecast requests in the future whenever and however
Jim Babson, Lowell,
discussed the population forecast. He
said it is discouraging to have to come back to the Board on this ssue. He
commented that the special interest groups are atteming to run around the land
use process and usurp the Board’s authority to adopt population numbers as
part of a special purpose plan.
Judy Volta, Mayor of
Coburg, said as the mayor or a small city, they have worked with the County for
a long time and they don’t consider themselves a special interest group, they
are a member city. She stated that
it is critical for Coburg to be able to have numbers they can go forward with.
She said they have had a wastewater plan that has begun.
She added that they are fighting to keep their school. She commented that
they are a small city that in cooperation with Lane County has had adopted
numbers they have planned on and it is important they are able to see their way
through to this. She said the Board
has the power to be able to say yes to them and be a small city as a regional
employer. She doesn’t want
unrestrained growth, they want planned small growth in keeping with the small
city that could be sustainable. She
asked the Board to work with them with the numbers they have already been
granted as part of their planning strategy.
Milo Mecham, LCOG,
stated that he represents the city of Coburg.
He has submitted written materials for the record. (Copy in file).
He commented there are serious process problems with the projections made
by PSU that the County has for consideration this afternoon.
He said the numbers don’t correspondence to the official state
projection numbers the County is required by law to follow or to make findings
why they should not be followed. He
added that there is nothing in the PSU numbers that explains the process of why
they are deviating from the state numbers. He
said there needs to be findings included in the process and those findings are
not there. He commented the
important thing for the city of Coburg is the deviations in the County numbers
between the official state projection and the PSU projection. He said Coburg
could get a more appropriate population projection without altering the process
or the methodlogy and it would still be legitimate.
He said an important factor to remember is the County and Coburg have
co-adopted population projection numbers that Coburg believes are more realistic
in 2005, when those numbers were adopted. He
said there is no explanation of why the
3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE
Dwyer wanted to know what the Board’s authority was for Land Management. He also wanted Kent Howe to know their authority.
Dwyer asked Spartz to direct staff to keep them on track and not give misinformation.
Sorenson reported that on March 12,
at the Metropolitan Policy Planning Committee, they spent time on the issue of
greenhouse gas emissions and how their unified planning work program would
address local efforts toward reducing greenhouse gases.
He said Mark Pengborn, LTD, sent him a letter and a document from the
Federal Transit Administrattion that transporation accounts for 28 percent of
Handy said they have to be pro active with greenhouse gases.
Stewart commented that the issues
with the population forecast are difficult.
He said he has worked with
4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
5. ONE PAGER REPORTS
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. PRESENTATION/Watershed Councils.
Larry Six, Dana Erickson, Eve
Montenero, Pam Reiber, Liz Volumer-Buhl and Jim Pendergrass. Gave an update on
what they have done the past year with their watershed councils. (Copy in file).
Pendergrass asked the Board to
write a letter of support to have LCOG waive the $125 fee they have to pay per
year. He also asked the County to
contribute to each watershed council.
Sorenson asked if Spartz could
contact the Public Works Director to see if they could use road fund dollars to
provide funding to watershed councils. He
wanted a work session on the riparian, floodplain and urban growth planning.
He also wanted to see if they could give $500 to each watershed council
to come from the road fund. He was
interested in each of the watershed councils sending an e-mail to say they have
appointed someone to a possible task force.
He wanted them to send a request to support or oppose legislation, to
support funding, letters of support to Congress or the Oregon Legislature and
the Board will follow up on the road fund issue.
There being no further business,
Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at