July 8, 2009

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 7/21/2009


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.




a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 09-7-8-5/In the Matter of a Possible Restriping of Hayden Bridge Way as Part of the Harlow Road-Hayden Bridge Overlay Project.


Ed Chastain, Public Works, explained that part of Harlow Road /Hayden Bridge from Pheasant to 19th Street is scheduled for resurfacing.  He said within the section between Manor and Fifth Street, they noticed there were auto crashes involving rear end and turning movement for the majority of the types of crashes they saw on that section.  He thought they could be best mitigated by the addition of a center two-way turn lane.  He indicated that meetings were held with the public and they received comments.  They developed three recommendations:  the first was to do nothing but to leave what is currently there. He indicated that was preferred by most of the residents that front the road.  He added that they wanted to retain their parking.  He noted there were some neighbors interested in turn lanes at the intersections.   He noted the second alternative was the staff recommendation to construct a two-way turn lane for the length from Manor to Fifth.  He indicated the third alternative was the one the Roads Advisory Committee recommended: a compromise in the section between Manor and Castle.  He reported that most of the homes front the street and that is where the majority of the people live.  He said it was an area where they could retain parking.  He added from Castle to Fifth Street they would recommend a two-way turn lane treatment.


Commissioner Sorenson opened the Public Hearing.


Rod Park, Springfield, urged the Board to go with Option 3.  He said it would give a turn lane from Fifth to Castle.  He stated that it is important to get into a turn lane to turn off onto Third Street.  He indicated that there have been a number of accidents in that area.  He said as it currently stands, traffic has to be blocked waiting for the oncoming cars to pass so they could have an opening to turn onto Third Street.


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


Dwyer stated that he has heard from many people who live along that street.  He noted that the street will become annexed by the city of Springfield.  He thought Option 3 would be the most logical option.  He indicated that it doesn’t keep people from parking in front of their properties.  He also thought doing nothing was an option.  He supported Option 1 or Option 3.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-7-8-5 with Option 3.


Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Chastain thought most crashes were at the intersection so Option 3 was a good compromise.


Stewart supported Option 3, as it was a good compromise.


Fleenor also supported Option 3.


VOTE: 5-0.




a. WORK SESSION/Discussing Policy Direction and Revenue Options for the Release and Dedication of Access Control Strips.


Michael Jackson, Surveyor, reported that the Surveyor’s Office was looking at ways to increase fees.   He noted that this is for an annex control strip.  He said they are typically created during a platting process to help regulate traffic for future development.  He indicated that currently Lane County does not have a fee for releasing, it is just brought to the Board.  He said the fee is the cost of doing business.  He added that he checked with the city of Eugene and the city of Springfield and they do not have a fee to release control strips.  He also contacted the city of Ashland, Portland, Oregon City, Medford and he found no one else who charged for the release of a control strip at this time.  He indicated there is a situation where there was a cost for releasing one, if the strip was on an urban growth boundary.  He added there are few parcel strips that are active that have a ten year shelf life.  He explained that when a developer creates a subdivision, they put in a one foot strip along the edge of the roadway, built out of their development dollars.  He added that if any future development goes in next to that parcel to utilize the road within ten years time, they would have to pay a portion of the costs incurred in development. 


Jackson noted an option would be to implement a new fee of $350 to recover costs incurred or they could choose to implement a new fee.  He said the final fee would be based on actual costs incurred by processing and includes a fee like a special benefit fee.  He indicated that they could leave the current policy as it is.


Jackson noted there were different projects that were taking place in his department.  He recommended coming back to the Board to discuss them as one item.


Dwyer thought with control strips, if the County paid for the road, they should be able to recover some of those costs.  He said the current procedure they adopted was due to Ayres Road.  He said there was a frontage fee for the property owners.  He commented that the current policy they have works.  He wanted to see all the options that they could do best, as it relates to vacating alleys and roads.


Fleenor wanted full cost recovery.  He wanted to also implement a new fee of $350 to recover costs incurred in processing plus a special benefit fee as applicable, so there is a finite amount of money that covers the cost.


Handy wanted this to come back.  He wanted to see options around a special benefit fee.  He wanted to know what other counties were doing.


Stewart was interested in seeing further research.  He wanted to make sure they recover the costs for processing.





b. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING & PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA No. 1260/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Consistent with Policy G.3 in Chapter III, Section G, Public Facilities and Services Element; Amending Table 6, Table 18, Table 19, Map 3 and Map 8 of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Metro Plan Amendment) (Applicant Springfield) (Second Reading & Public Hearing July 22, 2009, 5:30 p.m. Springfield Library Meeting Room).


MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance PA No 1260 for July 22, 2009 at 5: 30 p.m.


Handy MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.








Fleenor indicated that he had discussions about trying to get a tour of the second floor of the Community Corrections Center.


Sorenson announced that next week would be a down week.


14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


Per ORS 292.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of potential litigation.




Con Magnuson


Fleenor said they have received e-mail correspondence from Con Magnuson.  He said there is confusion about the status of his permitting and what he was going to be charged for the permits.  He recalled that Magnuson was before the Board and he gave testimony. 


Dwyer recalled that they were going to charge him what the charge would be at the time he made an application, not years later. Dwyer said Magnuson agreed to pay what it would have cost when he started.


Matt Laird, Land Management, reviewed the webcast of the October 22, 2008 meeting.  Laird said Magnuson made his case that he should be charged for a fee from 1999.  He said there was no motion or direction of any kind.  Laird’s research showed that the County did not prevent him from making an application in 1999.  He recalled the airport overlay zoning was done as part of the periodic review and long range planning but it did not prevent him from dividing his land.


Fleenor asked if they could take care of this issue today.


Laird recalled the direction was to process this application.  He said it is difficult to process applications when there are costs and people don’t want to pay them.


MOTION: to create a board order that clarifies that they will provide Con Magnuson the permit costs that existed in 1999 for the application he is currently seeking.


Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Stewart thought it was the County’s responsibility because Land Management hadn’t been able to upgrade their codes and they thought it was a burden on Magnuson.  He remembered agreeing to charge the fee at the price when he started his process.  He supported this motion.


VOTE: 5-0.


There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 2:15 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary