BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
August 3, 2010
9:00 a.m.
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 9-1-2010

Commissioner Bill Fleenor presided with Commissioner Bill Dwyer, Rob Handy, Pete Sorenson 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  

 Item 5.F.1) is pulled from the Consent Calendar until August 18.

 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Gillette, Eugene, said he heard a letter was sent to him but he hadnít seen it to review it.  He indicated that he will talk to Stewart about it.  He stated that it is time for this to come to an end.  He hopes this will be behind him.

Ann McLucas, Eugene, concurred with what Gillette had said.  She commented that there has been disrespect toward Gillette.  She witnessed a county official roll her eyes.  She stated that Gillette has rough edges but he served the community as a fire fighter and he has his property open for people to use.  She commented that he has done a service to the community. 

Tom Hunton, Junction City, spoke on behalf of video lottery funds for the Camas Country Mill.  He commented that staff was amazing in helping them.  He said that he has a fertilizer and seed business in Junction City and they are transferring it to grow local food.  He indicated that he is now raising wheat for flour and there are bakeries that are interested in the wheat.  He noted that they will have a budget shortfall at the end of this project.  He thought this was the opportunity for new jobs and for healthy food for the community.

Charley Tilt, Eugene, Humming Bird Wholesale, spoke on behalf of the Camas Country Mill.  He said he is a co-owner of a business, selling organic bulk food.  He indicated they are trying to get a local processing facility.  He noted there is more wheat growing in the valley this year because grass seed farming is not in good shape.  He said they want to give farmers more stability and to process and sell their food to a consumer that understands their situation and is interested in their financial welfare.  He added that his business has grown by 20 percent since 2003.

Dan Armstrong, said he is part of the Lane County Food Policy Council.  He indicated that there are opportunities for job growth with regard to food.  He said he had a series of three town hall meetings on food security and the result of those meetings is the need to build their local food system.  He indicated that tens of thousands of acres have opened up for farmers in the valley.  He said that Tom Hunton is one of the most foreword thinking farmers he has ever run into.  He said it was important that video lottery funds support  this and he hoped the Board will support this.

James Henderson, Hummingbird Wholesale, supported the project. He said they did an extensive survey through the valley to see what types of flour the bakeries use, how much and what they would pay for it.  He said 24 bakeries use millions of pounds of flour and it doesnít include the large bakeries.  He said there is interest in local whole wheat flour.  He wanted to present to the farmers an opportunity to make money and not feel bad about what they are doing to the land. He asked the Board to back this product as there are a lot of customers waiting.

Sue Hunton, said she is a teacher and has connections with the Springfield School District. She thought it was an opportunity to start thinking about agritourism and teaching the children about home grown food.

3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE 

Sorenson thanked everyone for making wheat a reality.  He announced the Board will have a big meeting on August 17 about the revenue picture and costs and how they can provide services to the community within the bounds of their budget.  He asked to have an energy audit on the Countyís buildings.  He thought savings could occur by not heating or cooling for one additional day during the week.  He thought they could get that with four ten hour work days.

Handy stated that he is committed to helping businesses and resource lands as they reorient with the changing times. 

Stewart said with the ambulance service and code changes, he wanted to see staff bring back a report quarterly on any impacts of code changes on the costs of transporting and unforeseen circumstances of people waiting for transport.  He understands that there are misunderstandings among parties.  He was led to believe that one party believes they wonít be able to take calls they have been taking.  He thought it was appropriate to communicate and have an open dialogue with all ambulance providers.

Dwyer commented that people were ill served by the Boardís decision from last week regarding ambulance service.  He said it will be more expensive for mom and pop to get ambulance service and if it requires an EMT, it will be more expensive.  He thought it will put people out of business.  He commented that it is not the governmentís role to disrupt the private sector.  He thinks they will regret the decision they made. 

Fleenor said if they had modifications to the ambulance ordinance that they should do it now.  He wanted a report back to the Board before there is Department of Human Services approval. 

4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

None.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR   

BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * 

A. Approval of Minutes:
March 31, 2010, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
July 13, 2010, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

B. Board of Commissioners

1) ORDER 10-8-3-7/In the Matter of a Declaration of Environmental Concern by Lane County Board of Commissioners August 3, 2010.

2) ORDER 10-8-3-1/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Lane County Commission for the Advancement of Human Rights.

C. Fairgrounds

1) ORDER10-8-3-2/In the Matter of Awarding a Three Year Revenue Contract for $450,000 to Big Green Events for Catering and Concession Services at the Lane Event Center.

D. Health and Human Services

1) ORDER 10-8-3-3/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to the Community Health Council.

E. Public Works

1) ORDER 10-8-3-4/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Lease with Marc Sales & Leasing, LLC, Regarding the Lease of a Parcel of County-Owned Surplus Road Fund Property Located on River Avenue, Eugene, and Identified as Tax Lot 501 on Lane County Assessor's Map 17-04-13-22.

F. Youth Services

1) ORDER 10-8-3-5/In the Matter of Appropriating 1.5 FTE Temporary Positions to the Youth Services MLK Education Center, Fund 260.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *

Sorenson asked to pull 5. B.2) for a separate discussion.

MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.

Handy MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

5. B. 2)

Sorenson stated Mr. Knefaty was the only member of the commission who did not resign before the current round of appointments.  He didnít think it was correct to say that they were appointing him to the Board, he was serving out his term.   He recommended taking his name of the board order.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-8-3-1.

Dwyer MOVED, Handy SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

6. COUNTY COUNSEL

a. Announcements

Richardson said she was 80 percent completed with the Urban Renewal District letter, but she has to talk to Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, before the next Board meeting.

7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

None. 

b. REPORT BACK/Justice Courts.

Spartz distributed two documents. (Copy in file).  He reported that Lane County is divided into three justice court districts as determined by the Board.  He recalled that Justice Sinclair retired and the Board requested the governor (who makes the appointment when there is a vacancy) hold off several months while the Board looked at reorganizing the Justice Courts with fewer districts. His recommendation is to reduce the number of courts to two by either combining Florence and Central Lane or combining Oakridge and Central Lane. He estimated the savings would be about $50,000 per year.

Dwyer thought it made more sense to combine the Oakridge and Springfield. Districts.

Stewart was supportive to move forward Alternative 2b.  He asked if they could consider the clerkís function and setting it up separately.  He wanted to know what the costs were and who would do the supervising.

Spartz said the judges would handle the caseload work and all of the workflow would be managed under a single system, supervised by the clerical function.  He thought they would need someone who would be the supervisor.

Sorenson thought they should have one district instead of three.  He also supported Alternative 2b.  He wanted an update six months ahead of the filing deadline for any justice court judge position.

MOTION: to approve Alternative 2b and request an update on this six months ahead of the filing deadline for any justice court filing.

Sorenson MOVED, Handy SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Fleenor wanted a report back from legal counsel on whether it would work for their department to supervise the court clerks.

c. ORDER 10-8-3-6/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract for a  Strategic Investment Project Selected Through the 2010 Economic Development RFP Open Cycle and Authorizing the County Adminstrator to Sign Project Contract.

Mike McKenzie-Bahr, Economic Development, reported that this was the result of an annual open cycle.  He indicated that one project that was moved forward was the the project of the Camas Country Mill for $96,872.  He indicated that the application was brought forward to create quality jobs with family wages.  He added the funding available is $923,797 in the video lottery account.  He indicated that they receive quarterly payments.

MOTION to approve ORDER 10-8-3-6.

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

8. PUBLIC WORKS

a. FIRST READING AND SETTING THE SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 6-10/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 13, 14, and 16 of Lane Code to Add and Revise Definitions and Other Provisions to Be Consistent with Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules and to Make Certain Correction and Clarification Revisions (LC 13.010, 14.015, 14.050, 14.170, 16.090, 16.210, 16.211, 16.212, 16.213, 16.214, 16.233, 16.238, 16.243, 16.246, 16.250, 16.252, 16.258, 16.264, 16.290, 16.292) (File No. Pa 10-5133 and PA 10-5259). (Second Reading/Public Hearing 8/18/10, 1:30 p.m.).

MOTION to approve a First Reading and Setting the Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 6-10 for August 18, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. 

Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

Handy noted in the staff report there were two issues the Planning Commission had.  He said there were questions about siting biomass processing facilities and the affect on air quality and public health and the issue of complying with siting standards for amendment language around crops and livestock.

Schulz said they will go back and provide further information.

Dwyer indicated that they didnít mention the Veneta Airport.

Schulz said that these code amendments are housekeeping, as in errors and typos.  She wasnít clear on the issue of the airport in Veneta.

Dwyer wanted to make sure the Veneta Airport was included.

Fleenor noted that Tom Lanfear indicated  the ordinance for the Eugene Airport was not correct.

Rafael Sebba, said the Planning Commission opted to move this forward.

Fleenor asked if they should add issues that are not controversial.

Schulz responded that is the process the Planning Commission is recommending.  She said it was brought up and discussed and this is what was reflected.

Fleenor asked about the results of the land use work group and if they could imbed those issues in that PAPA.

Sebba said the longer they look at the code, the more things they find and whatever the Board approves could always be changed.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign Some or All of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Oregon Department of Transportation, the City of Coburg, and the County Regarding Access Management on Pearl Street, Van Duyn Road, and Coburg Industrial Way North.

Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled that last week she was asked for a fine tuning of timelines and language to delete any reference to Phase 2 of the I-5 Coburg Interchange Project from the transportation plan or RTP and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan or MTP, the capital improvement plan for the MPO area.  She said the Board asked for an updated letter to the Federal Highway Administration.  She indicated that it is in the packet along with the proposed motion for the two MPC members to take to MPC on August 12.  She said that was provided in Supplement 5.  She added that Supplement 6 and 7 is  to provide information requested for July 28.  She indicated there are copies of three IGAís with ODOT, legislative changes to delete reference to Phase 2 and to specify that only improvements on the west side of I-5 and Coburg would be covered in the IGAís.  She noted that supplement 7 is legislative changes to the Countyís Public Worksí Capital Improvement Program and a board order.

Sonny Chickering, ODOT, reported that there have been additional discussions at the staff level since the last meeting.

Barry said they had a Transportation Policy Committee meeting yesterday and there were some actions taken.  She said ODOT brought two amendments to the TPC administration and they did not require MPC action.  She indicated they were approved and designs to move the Boardís agenda forward for deleting Phase 2 from any consideration within the MTP.   She noted $150,000 was taken out for protective right-of-way from the MTP and the project description was changed to more specifically state that only the westside of the I-5 improvements are included and the amendments designated ODOT and not Lane County as providing the match consistent in what is in the CIP.  She added they moved the right-of-way acquisition budget for the westside improvements into a separate project so those could go forward.

Dwyer asked why the match went from the County to the state.

Chickering said he needs to keep the project moving while the continuing discussions go on so he can meet timelines that he was already committed to, assuming the project is approved.  He said that he had to move some funds from preliminary engineering into the right-of-way category so the right-of-way acquisition process could begin. He said to avoid further amendments later, he made a change in the project description so they are moving forward with what appears to be the desire of the Board.  He said the description is only work for the westside of the freeway; and he removed $150,000 for right-of-way or access control issues on the east side.  He said he changed the local match to ODOT because to date, the Board has not elected to return the $1 million into the CIP.  He believed that they need to show a match for the federal earmark in the document.  He said it wouldnít be appropriate to leave it as a County match because it wasnít in the CIP.  He said it was consistent with his statement last month that they would proceed using an ODOT match if necessary.  He said if the Board wants to put the $1 million back in, he would be willing to switch.  He said it is not about control but showing the match for the earmark.

Barry indicated the TPC voted they would not support regional transportation amendments that do not follow guidelines in the currently adopted RTP.  She said the MPC members will receive that information.

Paul Thompson, LCOG, explained that  the adopted RTP states the amendment to the RTP should be processed during the RTP update process every four years and only when essential in moving a project forward should amendments be considered outside a normal update sequence.  He said they are entering an update sequence, scheduled for adoption in November 2011 and yesterday they voted not moving forward with other amendments outside of the update process at this time.  He said the language was inserted in the RTP in an effort to recognize that the RTP is a systemwide plan and the appropriate way to make amendments is to do it when they look at the entire system over the entire planning horizon. He said it is intended to be a 20 year plan to address the anticipated transportation improvements and investments needed over the long term and trying to look at individual projects.

Handy said he has a different view on the RTP amendment process.  He said there are four categories of amendments possible for the RTP amendment process.  He thought they would be able to amend the RTP for changes to local transportation plans that need to be reflected in the RTP.  He said these changes could be based upon changes in local comprehensive plans or addition or deletion of federally funded or regionally significant projects from the local TSP due to changes in local priorities.  He said there is room to follow through with their amendment to Phase One RTP to make it consistent with the MTIP.    He said the CIP is clear that it doesnít include the bridge and it is clearly west of the bridge.  He asked why the other IGAís donít have the same clarity and consistency around how the project is described.

Barry responded that they are consistent and they specify Phase One, west of I-5 which means that anything east of I-5 or the bridge replacement is not included.

Handy wanted to do more fine tuning of the IGAís.

Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark said he read through Barryís changes and he doesnít have the same concerns about making the language identical.  He said the language they have chosen is clear about the intent.  He has no argument against using the same language that is proposed for all of them.

Handy wanted to do a  refinement of the IGAís before MPC does its work.

Barry said in looking at Handyís references, she couldnít find them and needed more specifics.

Clark stated there was a risk by trying to do too much via e-mail without the whole Board giving instructions.

Barry indicated the overpass bridge has been removed.  She asked for the specific language for the IGAís.

MOTION: to move that the Board of Commissioners request MPC to 1) regarding the MTIP, change the I-5 Coburg project description to ďlocal street network improvements and right-of-way acquisition west of I-5 and change funding amount to $15.6 million; 2) with the RTP change the I-5 Coburg project on Table 1a financially constrained list as follows: change the I-5 Coburg project description to ďlocal street network improvements and  right-of -way acquisitions west of I-5 and change funding amount to  $15.6 million; 3) ask MPC to approve the letter to the Federal Highway Administration at the August 12 meeting.  Additionally the Board of Commissions request the city of Coburg engage with the Board of Commissioners early and often with scheduling all related issues with future Coburg plan amendments that address consistency with the code changes, the IAMP, TSP, the RTP and include a broad based citizen task force element and that the Board of Commissioners be involved in a task force and included in the front end of the analysis and options to consider future phases and plan decision making and schedule a work session this fall.

Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

Handy said this is to make the changes to both the MTIP and the RTP financially constrained list so the project descriptions are consistent in both of those documents.  He said the IAMP is more complicated and complex and they should work on that with Coburg and ODOT.  He wanted to keep Phase 2 separate.  He said it was about strengthening the MTIP and RTP so they are the same and to send a letter to FHA to get the pieces in place and they can come back with the IGAís after those things are done.

Stewart stated that he is the commissioner that represents the area and he spends a considerable amount of time attending the meetings.  He asked if that would remain his responsibility to remain a participant as a commissioner on different planning efforts or should they look at  a different commissioner. He asked if it posses a conflict because the Board adopts or co-adopts plans.

Clark didnít think it would change the conflict of interest rules.  He didnít think having two representatives was a problem.  He thought it was best to keep the Board apprised as to what is going on.

Handy said he is asking the Board to have a separate work session on the IAMP related issues and to address information they received in the past few months.

Stewart wanted a better feel as to what the members of the Board are expecting.  He has been a part of some of the processes in this matter with ODOT and others.  He asked if Handy should be a participant in these meetings.  He didnít want Coburg to take this in the wrong way because they have had participation to date in these different areas.

Handy noted the refinement plan work Coburg had broad based citizen elements, where the IAMP work was a narrower group of people.  He said they could always benefit from having a broader stakeholder and citizen element.  He said they need to identify things that need to be relooked at with the IAMP issues and that could be a separate work session for the next TSP update.

Fleenor asked if it was something that staff could be monitoring to see if there is any trigger points, to check back early and often based upon what they perceive to be the  Boardís interest.  He said staff does attend the meetings that Stewart has been attending.  He thought staff could automatically be the point person.

Barry said typically the planning efforts on the interchanges have a set process they use.  She said they have a project management team element with staff and they have a steering committee element of elected officials.  She added that they have a stakeholder element of citizens of large interest groups.  She said the steps of the project go from identifying existing conditions, identifying the problem, coming up with alternatives, going through basic baseline information and narrowing the alternatives.  She said there are public open houses and discussion about when to bring the project to the elected officials for a check in.  She said she can talk to consultants and ODOT staff about checking in with the Board.  She indicated by incorporating the steering committee element with the elected officials and getting a recommendation from the elected officials, that it keeps the project moving.  She indicated that they donít have the staff to check in with the Board at every step of the way and that is why they have the system of committees set up.

Stewart said if the Board thinks they should be part of the process more, then they should start going to the meetings.  He went to IAMP meetings in Coburg that were public meetings for public input.  He said there is a huge process and people are involved in the process.

Dwyer stated that the process works.  He said it amounts to trust and people involved and the level of their activity.  He said it comes down to multijurisdictional with more than one commissionerís responsibility.

Fleenor didnít think the system is broken, he thought they needed to be more cognizant when they are dealing with serious money.  He indicated that serious money to him is anything over $10 million that needs to be looked at closely.

Sorenson asked when the deadline was for the MTIP.

Thompson believed the 08/11 existing MTIP would be valid and still reflected in the state STIP through November or December.  He indicated that is the timing for ODOT to make the switch over from the current to the new step.

Sorenson asked if the County would meet the deadline if they approved this in August.

Thompson said they could accomplish this before anything will lapse.  He recalled the original deadlines set by ODOT to have this information to them and to the governor have already passed.  He said they were to have adopted this in July.  He said besides for the original deadlines, they have had to ask for the ultimate final deadline.

Sorenson thought this was a good decision and it advances the project and it clarifies that it will not be on the eastside of the freeway.  He indicated that it gives him guidance on how he is to approach the MPC meeting on August 12.

Stewart recalled that this project has been going on for ten years.  He said in the past they would take tours with the Roads Advisory Committee.  He said the Board in the past has been involved in seeing these projects.  He added they adopt the Capital Improvement Plan yearly so they see the projects every year.  He said it is unfair to say they donít have enough input because it is there.  He said it is on the table because there have been concerns.

Handy thought the conversation on the IAMP was good.  He suggested bringing in a consultant for a work session.  He asked what needs to occur at MPC and what will be the ramification if the motions passes.

Thompson responded that yesterday the Transportation Planning Committee staff approved two amendments that Barry described to the MTIP related to this project.  He said there was language clarified only for westside improvements.   He indicated they will inform the MPC next week on the TPC amendment changing the project description  and inform them at MPC to modify the language again.   He said the RTP is a long range planning document and under the federal regulations it is required to have high level planning estimates of costs and planning descriptions of the project scope and description.  He said the MTIP is the controlling document and projection description that gets expended and built..  He recalled in the 22 years at his position, he has never seen them go back and amend the RTP to reflect what exactly ends up in the MTP.  He indicated that it is not required.  He said if that is requested by MPC, he didnít believe it could be accomplished at the August meeting.  He said the public involvement process would span at least 30 days in order to address the public participation for an RTP amendment.  He said if it is initiated next week at MPC in order to follow that plan and their procedures, they would have to schedule a public hearing  for Septemberís meeting.  He added the decision couldnít be made until October.

Handy said if this motion passes, then Barry, Thompson and Chickering could communicate electronically what happened today and the timelines for what will happen in August and September and consider this RTP amendment.

Barry said Thompson is aware of the action.  She looked at the language in the MTP and the project description.  She said the actions are consistent and she didnít think they needed the changes in description.

Thompson said in the original motion was an amendment to the RTP.  He said if the Board doesnít pass a motion specifically that indicated to MPC a quick adoption, he couldnít convey any recommendation or request to MPC based on the fact he is operating under his MPOís adopted participation guidelines and what MPC has directed him to do in the past regarding public participation.  He would use the full open house public hearing decision process.

Handy noted that Barry said there was harmony with the two descriptions.  He wanted Barry to work with  Thompson to send out an electronic memo on what happened and the next steps.  He thought a friendly amendment to the motion would include the RTP request to enact a term for a shortened public process.

Thompson indicated the Board could ask MPC for an expedited or shortened public participation process and leave it up to them to determine how it would be expedited.

Handy asked the second to the motion if he could have additional language on the second bullet point, the RTP would now read:  Change the I-5 Coburg project on Table 1a, financially constrained list as follows: (adding to Barryís language in TPC) an expedited public participation process.

Thompson suggested under his analysis the full process would result in a decision in October and indicate an expedited public involvement process resulting in a decision in September, if that is the goal.

Handy said it was his goal.  He said to change the RTP bullet point 2; change the I-5 Coburg Project on Table 1a financially constrained list as follows: change the I-5 Coburg project description to local street network improvements, right-of- way acquisitions west of I-5 and change funding amount to $15.6 million and have an expedited public participation process with the goal of a decision in September.

Fleenor asked if the original motion was to make sure all IGAís were consistent with the language as articulated in the CIP.

Handy said this is the motion as refined from the work they have done:  request that the MPC 1) the MTIP change the I-5 Coburg project description to  local street network improvements and right-of-way acquisitions west of I-5; change funding amount to $15.6 million; 2) RTP change to I-5 Coburg project in table 1a financially constrained list as follows:  change the I-5 Coburg project description to  local street network improvements and right-of-way acquisitions west of I-5 and change funding amount to $15.6 million and have an expedited public participation process so as to reach a decision at MPC in September;  3) approve the letter to the Federal Highway Administration at the August 12 meeting; 4) have the IGAís before the Board of Commissioners for approval to be consistent and be brought back to the Board after MPC makes its decision and the language for the further process of the IAMP that would signal that they would like to have a work session this fall with a consultant present to look at next steps with the IAMP.

Sorenson SECONDED.

Barry wasnít sure about a consultant to return to the Board.  She said they donít have a consultant on contract for the IAMP.

Handy wanted to schedule Ms. Scheetz to come in from the city of Coburg and highlight all the issues.

Fleenor asked if they could have a city representative added to the addendum.

Barry said they could ask for a city representative to come back but all indications from the city is that they have explained everything from the IAMP in their point of view and they have nothing further to discuss.  She said they have no controversy within the city on the project and they did a Measure 56 notice in the IAMP and it went out beyond the IAMP boundaries 400 feet.

Chickering noted the IAMP analysis was performed by a consultant to ODOT.  He said should Coburg indicate an interest in opening discussions about the  IAMP, they will have a three way conversation on whether ODOT wants to do that.  He said for now their work is completed and off the case.

Fleenor asked to amend from consultant to any other party.

Clark didnít see any problem with asking anyone to show up.  He said time is money for private consultants and it is not the Countyís budget they are discussing, it is only a request.

VOTE 4-1 (Stewart dissenting).

c. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/In the Matter of Amending Order No.10-5-12 -1 to Include the I-5 at Coburg Project in the Public Works Capital Improvement Plan.

Barry indicated that she did not include the order in the packet.  She didnít know this was going to be on the agenda.

Handy said they have had lots of conversations lately about what gets put on the agenda.  He said the intent of the Board is to deal with everything once MPC takes action.  He didnít recommend taking any action today.

9. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
(Commissioners' Conference Room)    

Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for pending litigation.

There being no further business Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:55 a.m. 

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary