May 6, 2009

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 2-16-2011


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 09-5-6-7/In the Matter of Adopting the Public Works Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Ė Fiscal Year 2013/2014.


Celia Barry, Public Works, indicated that they are to hold a Public Hearing on the Public Works 2010/204 Capital Improvement Program.  She said it is a five year program.  She noted the Board must adopt the CIP at least 30 days before the County budget on June 24.  She indicated the packet contains the draft CIP, Exhibit A to the proposed board order. (Copy in file).  She indicated that the CIP is moving into a maintenance program.  She stated there are no capital projects except for the first year due the decline of Secure Rural Schools.  She discussed the CIP.  She commented that they need to be conservative spending the CIP money until they know of additional revenues coming in. She noted at the February 25 meeting, the Roads Advisory Committee held a Public Hearing and took testimony.  She said there were three people who testified and nine submitted written comments.  She stated that all of the testimony concerned a safety issue on Jasper Lowell Road where there is a steep drop off into the river and they wanted to see a guardrail or other way of addressing it.  She indicated that they were able to incorporate that project into the CIP because of the ARRA funding. She said they were proposing that that project get funded.


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


MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-5-6-7.


Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Stewart stated  he was comfortable with the way the CIP was presented. He understood how they need to preserve the roads.


VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).




a. ORDER 09-5-6-8/In the Matter of Proclaiming the Week of May 17, 2009 Through May 23, 2009 Lane County Public Works Week.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-5-6-8.


Stewart MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. DISCUSSION/In the Matter of Direction to Staff Regarding the Sales of a Parcel of County-owned Road Fund Property Identified as Lane County Assessorís Tax Lot 300 on Map 17-03-04.


Joe Moll gave a presentation regarding the McKenzie River Trust (Copy in file).


Frank Simas, Public Works, reported there is an appraisal that was produced by the trust.  He said it has been reviewed and it appears it is a reasonable appraisal. 


Sorenson asked if this property was needed for the County road system.


Simas responded there is no use they know of in the foresable future.  He said that he asked Todd Winter, Parks, if he wanted it but it has no legal access and he didnít have a way to maintain it with the parks sytem.


Dwyer said if they can enhance the environment, they should do it collectively.  He said there is no reason to exchange money because there is no real benefit to the general fund, the money goes into the road fund.  He wanted to enter into a management agreement where they allow the trust to manage on a ten year basis, have it be performanced based and if they perform, they will extend it for the next ten years.


Sorenson asked  Moll to work with Simas in coming up with an agreement in keeping with the discussion.


Simas thought it could work but Legal Counsel had to work the details out.


Richardson commented that this is a unique situation.  She said if they are going to do a management agreement they would have to look into whether or not there would have to be some fees paid because it is road fund property.  She said they could bring this back to the Board.


Stewart wanted to make the sale and eliminate the process of working together.  He wasnít opposed to working with them.  He said the question is the road fund fees.  He was fine with either direction but he thought it would be easier to sell it.


Simas said they could generate a conversation easement to where the County could retain the ownership of the property but sell a conservation easement that would dictate what could be done on the property.  He said that would remain as a County asset and it would further the purpose of conservation.


Dwyer was in agreement.


Sorenson thought it was a good opportunity.  He indicted that it would come back to the Board.


c. DISCUSSION/Population Forecast Issues.


Sid Leiken, Springfield, explained that this was predicated upon HB3337.  He said it is important to have a good relationship with the County and to have concurrence through whatever timeline they have as they move forward.  He indicated as they put forth their analysis they are finding that the numbers with the forecast will match up to what the Portland State forecast states.  He said the bottom line is that they are on a timeline and things have proceeded quicker than they expected.  He wanted to make sure the County was comfortable.  He asked his city council to delay moving forward to make sure the County was in agreement.  He stated their commitment is to work with the County on the rural reserve concept.  He commented that the community needs to feel comfortable with where Springfieldís future is going.


Greg Mott, city of Springfield, said they canít move forward with their inventory analysis without the population forecast.  He noted the only forecast they have is in the Metro Plan and that is to the year 2015 and it doesnít work for them.  He recalled the same year HB3337 was enacted, the Safe Harbor methodology to do population forecasts was also adopted and it became available to them.  He stated the timing is off for them to complete their action.  He thought PSU thought it would be about 10,000 people.  He indicated that even with the reduced figure for the projection that PSU is providing, the population they gave for the city of Springfield, inside the city limits is larger than their Safe Harbor with the bigger Lane County population figure.  He said what is missing is the population outside of the city limits.  He said that PSU is not conducting that analysis because there is a single urban growth boundary and they are not going to differentiate who lives east or west side of I-5.   He noted their Safe Harbor figure is 82,616.  He said the projection PSU has given to the city is 74,814, if they apply an ongoing long term relationship between Eugene and Springfield being 72 percent and 28 percent of the metro population.  He said the population that exists in the urban growth boundary is 24,263.  He added what would be assigned to them is 6,700.  He said that figure total is 81,600; 1,000 less than their population.  He stated they need it before the end of July because they have to send all of their HB3337 work up to DLCD in July to meet a September 15 joint public hearing with the Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissions.  He indicated that it will then be forwarded for a joint elected meeting between the Board and the city councils.


Dwyer commented the descrpancy is minimal.  He wanted to know what they can do to expedite this.  He was more concerned about where people live than how many there are.  He was willing to work with the city of Springfield.


Mott said they wanted to communicate what their moderate position would be.  He said they want their council to adopt a figure on May 18 with the instruction to come back when the County is completed with their coordinated population effort and adopt the figure the city of Springfield gets. 


Fleenor recalled the Board sent a letter out to Springfield laying out conditions they thought were appropriate.  He asked how the recommendation Mott was requesting was different than the letter.


Mott responded that it was exactly what was suggested in the letter.  He noted their action in the initial phase is taking place sooner with their Safe  Harbor figure.  He said they canít wait until Lane County adopts their figures.


Fleenor asked why they wouldnít consider initiating a Metro Plan amendment incorporating PSU numbers.


Mott wasnít sure they could take the figure now and act on it at this time.  He said they are not certain when PSU will formulate the figures they need for everything east of I-5.  He added the submittals they gave to the state in October when they sent notice to DLCD was based on the Safe Harbor methodology in the figure they had and the city of Eugene was the co-applicant.  He said the submittal they made to DLCD on this action would no longer be consistent.  He said they would have to renotice DLCD they are doing something different than they originally proposed.


Handy wanted to stay the course they are on now and resolve things in a month or two.


Stewart was comfortable with what Springfield wanted to do.


Fleenor thought they should take the draft PSU number and adopt it. He didnít want to reference the Safe Harbor.


Bill Van Vactor, city of Springfield, said they have followed the Safe Harbor process.  He doesnít think they have to put Safe Harbor in the ultimate ordinance. He thought what was important is the number that is calculated and the ability to defend it.  He said the reality is other citizens have appeared before Springfield on this matter and they are uncertain.  He indicated that if they were to go to a different number without a different methodology as defined in the statute, then the concern would put him in more jeopardy with regard to defending it, should it get challenged.


Fleenor thought if they used the Safe Harbor it would delay the process.  He wanted to figure out a quicker way to get them all to the same location.  He wanted to draft the PSU number 81,607, but it didnít include the UTA.


Leiken asked if he should direct the city attorney to look at the legal ramifications.  He wanted to have his city attorney get back to Legal Counsel.  He asked if they could tentatively move forward on this.  He said he wants to coordinate their work with the Board of Commissioners.


Richardson said the process Springfield filed under is the process they followed.  She thought they should keep that number until the Board of Commissioners adopts another number and then move over to that number. She thought a separate question was could Springfield move forward with the numbers they have done through a Safe Harbor process but not call it Safe Harbor and stick with that number until the Board of Commissioners adopts another number.


Fleenor was comfortable as long as they donít set a precedent. 




a. THIRD READING AND SETTING FOURTH READING/Ordinance No. 1-09/In the Matter of Codifying the Order and Rules of Board of Health on Chain Restaurant Nutrition Labeling by Amending Chapter 9 of Lane Code to Include Those Rules (LC 9.711 - 9.730) (NBA & PM 3/31/09, 4/1/09 & 4/14/095(Fourth Reading:  May 20, 2009)


MOTION: to approve a Third Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading for Ordinance No. 1-09 for May 20, 2009.


Fleenor MOVED, Handy SECONDED.


VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Stewart dissenting).


b. ORDER 09-5-6-9/In the Matter of Reallocating Lane County Animal Services (LCAS) Revenue Enhancement Funds.


Karen Gaffney, Health and Human Services, reported that $70,000 is enhancement money to fund a revenue enhancement program, outreach and medical and behavioral treatment.  She gave a presentation. (Copy in file).


MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-5-6-9.


Stewart MOVED, Handy SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0 (Fleenor left room).








Stewart announced that yesterday he had a meeting in Roseburg with Oregon Solutions.  He recommended having the agenda team put this on the agenda for a presentation.  He reported that Saturday the Oregon Plan Fair will take place at Alton Baker Park.    He noted John Woodrowís passing.  He commented that Woodrow was a big animal advocate.


Handy reported that he is meeting with Sorenson and members from the community about ARRA funds and to make sure they are getting their fair share.


Spartz commented that there are not that many grants he is aware of with regard to the ARRA grants. 


15. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of discussing litigation.






There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:00 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary