BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
September 23, 2009
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Pete Sorenson presided with Commissioner 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.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. THIRD READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1258/In the Matter of Adopting the Coburg/Interstate-5 Interchange Area Management Plan as a Refinement to the Lane County Transportation System Plan and Co-Adopting the Plan as a Refinement to the City of Coburg Transportation System Plan; and Adopting a Severability Clause (File No. PA 09-5027, City of Coburg) (NBA & PM 7/22/09, 8/5/09 & 9/16/09).
b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 09-9-23-3/In the Matter of Approving a Project Design Concept for Pearl Street and Coburg Design Concept for Pearl Street and Coburg Industrial Way as a Part of an Oregon Department of Transportation Planned Coburg Interstate-5 Interchange Area Improvement Project (NBA & PM 8/5/09).
Ed Moore, DLCD, stated that he has nothing to add from what they provided at the work session.
Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled on September 16 the Board directed staff to make changes to the IAMP. She prepared them and they were distributed yesterday. (Copy in file). She said on the 16th they did not have a reading, they had a work session so they need to have a Fourth Reading two weeks from today. She indicated the earliest possible Fourth reading will be October 20.
Petra Schuetz, city of Coburg, said they believe they have locally adopted the intended policies that went through the proper public process. She encouraged the Board to consider the original application as submitted as well as any additional comments ODOT had developed. She said they feel confident that what they provided is sufficient. She stated they are willing to consider an additional idea ODOT has presented in a letter that they submitted yesterday.
Terry Cole, ODOT, explained the letter he submitted. He said the city does not have a shared jurisdiction because the UGB and the city limits are co-terminus and there is not a co-management agreement the city and County have. He said based on that information, they went to their Department of Justice representative and asked whether they could look at the County language as it applies to the Countyís jurisdiction and the language currently in the IAMP as it would be applied to the cityís jurisdiction. He reported the language from the Department of Justice was not incompatable. He said the County was seeking to be more definitive with respect to the phrase one regional commercial development. He noted the city has highway commercial development that if they donít amend their ordinance to define specifically what regional commercial means, it could be open to interpretation and that is the fear the city has with going back through the process. He added the city also has the opportunity to make a better definition as they go through their Comprehensive Plan update process over the next couple of years. He said they feel comfortable they can manage the function and operation of the interchange for the activities that might take place within the city based upon the regulations, codes and policies within the city and they have no problem applying the language the County suggested for the Countyís jurisdiction outside of the urban growth boundary. They propose to take the IAMP plan forward with a subset within the function statement that says within County jurisdiction this is how they will view the function of the interchange, relative to regional commercial expansion into the EFU lands. ďRegional commercialĒ definition to be determined by the County if such proposal is made and within the city they would rely on the language currently in the IAMP. He said the Department of Justice is comfortable that they can move forward and support it.
Stewart asked if it was possible to have a Memorandum of Understanding with the city or have a resolution prepared that reflects concerns included in the findings. He added that they wouldnít have to change the documents and they could adopt the wording as it is today. He asked Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Vorhes thought if they had a MOU between the city and the County that documented the concerns; it could be a document that would solidify what the understanding is.
Fleenor asked what the recourse would be to the County if there is a failure to comply.
Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark responded that he didnít think they could have a binding MOU with the city that would control what their code language means. He said the issue regarding the additional language of the IAMP is how it would play with the city and whether it could limit what they can do.
Cole didnít think they could adopt a definition through an MOU or an IGA. He recalled they have run into a circumstance within ODOT where certain things are land use actions and was not found to be legal or proper. He said they generally look at an IGA as a statement of good intent. He said if they are going to use the MOU process, it is a way to say the city and the county will work in good faith to resolve this. He said it canít be legally binding.
Clark said a problem with a MOU is it would amount to making a land use decision outside of the procedures.
Barry noted the term regional commercial is not in the IAMP unless the Boardís changes are adopted. She said for the cityís highway commercial zoning on the eastside of the interchange and other designations, the city could write an interpretation regarding those zones that might be to the Boardís satisfaction with regard to their concerns.
Cole noted regional commercial was in the function statement.
Commissioner Sorenson opened the Public Hearing.
Judy Volta, Mayor of Coburg, said they care about land use and want to protect the integrity of their town. She said they have an excellent planner and a strong Planning Commission. She indicated that it is not their intention to import any sort of regional shopping center. She said they are just trying to have their IAMP approved. She said they have been caught between different agencies and it means time, money and confusing language. She asked the Board to go back to the original intent. She asked the Board to allow Coburg to proceed. She said they have met the critiera that ODOT has set out and they have worked hard for zoning changes that prohibit growth.
Larry Reed,. Eugene, believed the Countyís decision to amend the IAMP as approved by Coburg is wrong. He said it sets a bad precedent. He said it sets the County up knowing better than the city of Coburg as to what the proper land use is instead of the Coburg City Council. He stated that the amendment is not needed. He said the city limits are built out to the UGB and any change to that must come back to the Board and be approved as a land use matter and it requires the Boardís approval. He said the amendment is not needed because the city of Coburgís current ordnances and policies prohibit big box stores and overbuilding of retail development. He said the city of Coburg testified that they did not want this type of development to lose their small historic character. He said the County shouldnít do the amendment because it could mean that the city of Coburg and the state could lose the money for the safety improvements to the Coburg I-5 interchange. He said if this doesnít get funded and someone gets killed, he is going to come back before the Board to remind them of the decision they made. He recalled the LCDC staff testified they were comfortable with this 99.1 percent. He asked if the Board was willing to jeopardize the good public faith and the money for this project. He thought the Board was moving in the wrong direction.
Jim Anderson, Coburg, stated he owns Truck and Travel in Coburg. He indicated they have been in the community for 80 years and they share everyoneís concerns for a prosperous environmentally friendly community. He has been working on this project for over ten years. He noted others have been involved in this project for a long time and to hit this point now and be lost over such a small issue is discouraging for all of the time that he has put into it and what it means to his business. He thought this was wasteful. He asked the Board to reject the amendment, accept the IAMP as written, accept ODOTís letter and move forward. He stated they have been trying to develop a portion of their property for five years waiting for this moment to happen.
Cathy Engebretson, Chair of the Coburg Planning Commission, asked the Board to move forward without the amendment. She noted there are already restrictions not to build a big box store and ODOT agrees. She added that ODOT stated there are provisions in place to protect the integrity of the project. She asked what the benefit was for dragging this out. She indicated there are time senstitive issues and they donít need to see more delays. She added there will be unintended consequences.
Fleenor asked if they will lose the project if they wait two or three weeks.
Cole explained that the earmark in question at this point is available until spent unless Congress is going through a series of recession considerations, which they are. He noted there is currently funding for the first phase that is the local road improvements. He added there is no money for the interchange improvement to the overcrossing or interchange ramps. He thought the sooner they could get this done, the better.
Fleenor asked about the resource expenditures to adopt the new language.
Schuetz said she didnít know if the city was willing to re-adopt this. She added it would be a three month process because they would need to have more public hearings. She stated the city doesnít have enough money to have meetings. She indicated they ran out of money for this in April.
Clark said if the city council decided it wanted to change its mind and revise the IAMP, they would have to go through a full blown land use hearing and there are time constraints.
Barry said there is a 20 day public notice for each hearing and there might be additional work sessions. She said there could be a change of opinion among the public. She added if the city adopted the changes, they would come back to the Board for a final reading and deliberation to adopt it at the County level.
Fleenor believed if they all wanted to make this happen they could make it happen quickly.
Handy commented that any suggestions the Board is delaying this disappoints him. He said the point of this collaboration is that Coburg brings before them what they would like to do and then they have an opportunity to respond and send it back. He said they are moving forward and he thought they could get this with Coburg expediting their processes. He thought the language the Board is interested in needs to be at the policy level.
Moore said when they brought the issues forward, they thought there was sufficient ambiguity within the IAMP as drafted that would not prohibit regional commercial development. He said in order to make the intent of the IAMP consistent with the language; the proposed changes were put forward. He said having it in the document is easier than having to research it.
Handy wanted to send the message to Coburg to work to incorporate that to see if they can move forward.
Stewart asked if the Board could adopt the amended IAMP on October 21 and if the city could chose to revisit it or say no. He said it seems like they have two plans. He asked if it was okay with ODOT to move forward.
Cole responded that if the Board chooses to adopt an amended version to the selected sections of the IAMP, they will ask the city if they intend to take action and if the city chose not to take action, they would amend the IAMP where those differences are and where they apply to County jurisdiction and where they apply to city jurisdiction with the interpretation that they are not inherently incompatible. He said they would see it as a single plan with a couple of sections where they would differentiate the nuance between the function statement and the supporting policy.
Stewart didnít think trying to delay this buys them anything. He said Moore appears to want to have more restrictions on what the cityís current zoning is, but that is not what they are going to gain if they go down that road.
Barry said the County adopted document would apply to County lands and the city adopted document would apply to city lands.
Cole said they have a disagreement with DLCD with regard to the sufficiency of the language as they move forward and work with the city to try to develop a more final land use plan for their future expansion as opposed to their existing city limits and UGB.
Dwyer thought the process was hijacked by Coburg and the federal government. He wanted to let the project die and they could put the money into something else. He said they tried to fix it but it became uncontrollable.
Fleenor would be willing to dedicate resources or staff time necessary to expedite this, similar to the coordinated population forecast and put this as a high priority. He said if there is additional money for Coburg, he wanted to find money from Land Management.
Stewart didnít want to take the chance of possibly losing the earmark. He believed the protection is there and as they move forward and land use comp plans get adopted they have another chance to protect the concerns they are hearing. He commented that he didnít think they would actually find the $40 million to build the actual bridge.
MOTION: to direct the County Administrator to determine if there is up to $10,000 available to assist Coburg in their attempt to try to move this ordinance forward as quickly as possible.
Fleenor MOVED. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Sorenson closed the Public hearing.
Clark recommended holding the record open until October 7.
MOTION: to approve a Third Reading and setting a Fourth Reading and for Ordinance NO. PA 1258. for October 20, 2010.
Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and setting a Third Reading for ORDER 09-9-23-3 for October 20, 2010.
Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
11. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION & ACTION/Providing Direction on a Process to Develop a Proposed Charter for the Formation of a Lane County Area Commission on Transportation. Marsha Miller; Celia Barry, Transportation Planning & Traffic Manager; Matt Laird, Land Management Manager; Kent Howe, Planner)
Barry noted that any scenario the Board would want to go with would cost staff time. She added that ODOT has been generous with providing support and they are continuing to do that. She said they had concerns if they were to take the lead that it wouldnít be a locally owned process. She said if they were to hire private consultants then Lane Manual Chapter 21 gives thresholds of amounts to pay out contracturally and what process they would have to go through. She indicated she met with all the city managers except for Dunes City and Westfir. She said they were unanimous and strongly in favor of not hiring a consultant and having the chair of the Board of Commissiners sit with the mayors and come up with a draft charter and have the elected officials identify other stakeholders.
Handy said that Fleenor had to leave but Fleenor supported Option 1.
Stewart asked what the law requires for RFPís
Barry responded that it is in Lane Manual 21.117 and 118. She noted there are a few thresholds. She said if it is $10,000 or less they may contract directly with anyone without doing an RFP. She said in attachment D (copy in file) the County could contract with anyone without competitive selection for $25,000 with any qualified architect, engineer, land surveyor or provider of related services as defined by ORS 279(c) 106 for public improvement projects involving a highway, bridge or other transportation, except as in (c). Her recommendation is to meet with the city mayors, as that is what the regional city managers suggested. She said the ACT process will involve the mayors and they are going to play a key role.
Dwyer stated he is funadamentally opposed to ACTS. He said Lane County is a single county and they donít have overlapping jurisdictions.
MOTION: to move to allocate up to $25,000 from the existing adopted budget from Lane County Transportation Planning and Road Funds to hire an outside consultant as a contractor and develop and facilite a proposal for forming a Lane County Act as outlined in Attachment A (copy in file) in the Board packet dated August 31, 2009. It would direct the County Administrator to draw up and sign a contract with Dr. Rob Zako as the outside contractor to facilitate the ACT process and work plan.
Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Stewart didnít want to name the outside consultant. He thought they should go through the RFP process and go through a public process. He said they have an obligation to go through the process. He is concerned that someone seeing this might suspect they didnít follow the process.
Dwyer doesnít want to spend any money at all. He said for transparency they need to be careful about naming a consultant in a board order before they expect them to deliver.
Richardson was concerned because she doesnít know what Zakoís professional title is. She indicated if he is not an architect, an engineer or a land surveyor then they are operating at $10,000 or less. She added if they are operating above $10,000 then they have to ask for three different people to respond or an RFP.
Sorenson said getting them moving forward with someone to work with was a good idea. He didnít know how much money was involved. He thought it was appropriate to move forward with the motion.
Handy said the intent of his motion is to fall under the $25,000 threshold. He wanted to withdraw his motion and restate it.
MOTION: to move to have the County Administrator contact three contractors and ask for a response. They would allocate up to $50,000 from the reserves from the Lane County road funds to hire an outside consultant as a contractor to develop and facilitate a proposal performing a Lane County ACT as outlined in Attachment A, in the board packet dated August 31, 2009. They need to have the qualification for the contractor include that they be a Lane County contractor, if possible that would be familiar with Lane County issues and ACTS, a history and familiarity with ODOT and the TPR and a history with working with different stakeholders throughout the County and the cities and the MPO.
Handy MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0. (Fleenor excused).
12. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
Letter from Lisa Wolverton on behalf of the Lane County Animal Services Advisory Committee.
Sorenson said that Lisa Wolverton is a member of the Lane County Animal Services Advisory Committee. He said the committee authorized this letter. He said they want to work on a new shelter.
Dwyer didnít want to raise any expectations. He said they need to identify the resource and once they identify it they can determine if it is enough and if not, how they can get it. He indicated they didnít receive any response from Springfield.
Stewart said if he could he would improve the situation for LCAS. He didnít see how they can do this with their current model. He didnít think they should encourage the activity at this time. He didnít want to take it out of the general fund on the backs of citizens through taxes.
Fleenor stated the existing shelter is no longer efficient and costing additional money. He commented that to invest in an $8 million shelter is a stretch. He wanted to see more analysis by the subcommittee on how much it would cost.
Sorenson thought it was a good idea to take the tour. He wished there was a different outcome.
13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dwyer announced that tomorrow morning he will be at Public Works feeding everyone breakfast and lunch.
Sorenson announced that next week there will be a goal setting and retreat on Tuesday.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for pending litigation.
15. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m.