February 17, 2010
1:30 p.m.
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 4/14/2010

Commissioner Bill Fleenor presided with Commissioners 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.


a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 10-2-17-2/In the Matter of Commenting to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on Draft Eligibility Criteria and Prioritization Factors for the 2012-2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

Savannah Crawford, ODOT, gave a power point presentation on the draft eligibility criteria and prioritization factors for the 2012-2015 STIP. (Copy in file).

Celia Barry, Public Works, reported, the STIP is the state capital improvement program and this is the first step in the process for local governments to participate and comment.  She noted the criteria was first prepared by the STIP stakeholder committee in the 2004/2007 STIP: to bring consistency and clarity to project selection.  She added that they have been renewed by every STIP since that time.  She noted for the 2012/2015 STIP, there are significant changes.  She said they are reflected in the draft in Attachment 4 in the packet. (Copy in file).  She reported that consideration 7 and 10 will not be required to be addressed in the criteria for the 2012/2015 STIP cycle.  She explained the methodology for measuring greenhouse gas reductions and for cost planning has not been developed, but there is legislation pending that would require methodologies for those two issues to be developed by early 2011, before the upcoming cycle.  She included in the letter attached to the board order a suggestion that the two considerations be given standing in the criteria.

Barry summarized changes in the letter.  She said they want to propose the prioritization factor to include specific statements that preservation and bridge projects shall not be able required to compete with modernization projects and shall be prioritized within their respective programs.  She added the priority is merging pre-programmed criteria together and they donít want any unintended consequences that preservation of a bridge has to be compared with modernization.  She said they want to make it clear they are separately considered priorities.  She said they included language to emphasize concerns that Handy brought up at the MPO regarding HB2001 legislation and what would happen if some of the projects earmarked in that legislation come up short on funding and how local government is going to be required to act if that were to happen.  Barry indicated Handy had asked for support for consideration 8 and Oregon Highway Policy 1b, about liveable communities, sustainable development and land use and transportation.  She indicated the comments are due February 19.  She asked the Board to adopt the order with the changes.

Vorhes noted in the draft order that there is reference to a public hearing on February 16 and he said it should be February 17, 2010.  He added there are some typos in the letter.

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

Barry submitted the corrections in the packet.  She noted Vorhes had a different version than she had.

Handy wanted to include a bullet point in his motion referencing the land use and transportation element.  With regard to page 2 of the draft, he asked about the reference to all areas out of the MPO boundary to reduction of emissions as compared to their historical record.  He said they have an electric vehicle industry in Lane County and some of the interests around funding in the future are to have plug in stations at convenient points throughout the state and the County.  He indicated that would help to help facilitate the movement to this reduction in greenhouse emissions that would include all of the stakeholders and single occupancy vehicles.  He asked how single occupancy vehicles related to electric vehicles.

Barry said it is a policy decision whether to include that bullet.  She said they donít have enough information at this point to presume that all areas should be capable of reduction of emissions as compared to their historical record.  She said it would require regulations that require people to use in plug in vehicles.  She didnít think it was likely.

MOTION: with the timelines Barry needs to get a further draft before the chair and vice chair, to remove the first bullet point on page 2, third paragraph and to add a bullet point at the appropriate place that Barry thinks is best that would include support for implementing OHP policy 1B, addressing HB 2001 consideration 8, liveable communities by demonstrating the investment doesnít undermined sustainable urban development.

Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

Barry reiterated from the draft on page 2 of 3, they want to delete the first bullet regarding areas outside of MPO boundaries; they are proposing to delete the fourth bullet from the bottom that is covered in another bullet at the top; they want her to provide supporting comment for consideration 8 and the OHP associated policy b1, that talks about liveability, land use transportation and sustainable urban development.

Stewart asked if they had staff that could currently analyze greenhouse gas emissions and calculate reductions or if they would have to hire that position in the future.

Barry said at the MPC level, they have incorporated additional metrics in the prioritization for STP-U projects.  She said they are not to the point of measuring greenhouse gas reductions, as that is being worked on at a state level.  She said they have staff at the MPO organization and are examining that at the state.  She said the new legislation changes require methods.  She indicated by the beginning of 2011 the legislation will require some method to be set in place.  She said at this time they are watching the trends and working with their metro partners and ODOT on trying to stay ahead of the curve.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. SEVENTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1249/In the  Matter of Co-Adopting the Florence Comprehensive Plan 'Realization 2020,' and Applicable Refinement Plans to Complete Periodic Review for the Urbanizable Area Outside Florence City Limits and Within the Urban Growth Boundary and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File No. PA 08-5142, Florence) (NBA & PM 9/17/08; 10/1/08; 12/10/08; 4/08/09; 7/22/09, 12/2/09). 

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, explained that this Public Hearing is to provide opportunity for testimony on the recommendation from the Lane County Planning Commission regarding the Florence City Council action taken to endorse final policy language in the Florence Realization 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the updated city comp plan before the Board for co-adoption under the cityís periodic review work program.  The hearing includes both Ordinance PA 1249, the ordinance to adopt policy level documents and Ordinance 7-08, an ordinance to adopt implementation measures that revise Lane Code Chapter 10, the applicable code section for implementation of land use decisions on the lands within the Florence UGB, outside the city limits.  She indicated Ordinance PA 1249 proposes the Florence Realization 2020 Comprehensive Plan, including the refinement plans that are applicable within the UGB:  the Transportation System Plan, the Wastewater Facilities Plan, the Stormwater Management Report and the Stormwater Design Report for the North Spruce Street LID.  She noted that Ordinance 7-08 proposes to adopt Lane Code Chapter 10 text amendments to establish the implementation measures that would provide the basis for providing future development in the UGB, reflecting the policy amendments contained in the Realization 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

Schulz indicated the city of Florence submitted its application in 2008.  She said the city of Florence obtains its municipal drinking water from groundwater wells in the north Florence dunal aquifer and there is legitimate concern for the continued health and safety of the groundwater for future needs.  She noted the Heceta Water District provides drinking water to the urbanizable area north of Florence.  She indicated in the past the cityís wastewater plant did not have the capacity to serve the entire urban growth boundary with urban levels of service.  She noted that development has occurred outside the city limits on small lots with the need to provide separation between wells and septic systems.  She stated that under current law policies and development code in the 1988 Comprehensive Plan, this was an allowable use and property owners signed agreements to be annexed and to connect to the cityís sanitary sewer when the city services are available.  She said these agreements cause concern for current property owners as they face uncertainty as to whether or not they will be required to annex and pay sanitary sewer costs to the city.  She reported that co-adoption of the Florence Realization 2020 Comp Plan by the Board would ensure consistency and land use expectations throughout the Florence urbanizable area.  She said the coordination process for the text on Lane Code Chapter 10 amendments underwent an evolution from a regulatory focus to an educational and study focus.  She noted that successful competition for EPA funding resulted in a multi-year, multi-agency contract awarded for the Siuslaw Estuary Partnership Project.  She added a three year IGA between the city and County for groundwater monitoring within the aquifer area is proposed for Board consideration as a supporting coordinated action. She said the IGA has agreement at the staff level and was included in the packet to inform the Board as it relates to this action.  She added the IGA will be brought forward for formal approval and delegation for signature authority if appropriate, in an upcoming Board meeting.

Schulz noted the revisions to the Realization 2020 text for policy 12, 8 and 7 is now included in Ordinance PA 1249, and was completed and adopted by the Florence City Council in response to the Planning Commission concerns through the adoption process.  She said the Lane County Planning Commission (upon completion of testimony at their Florence hearing last month) recommended revision of policy 7, supported by testimony that has been recently provided to the Board by e-mail and has been included in a transmittal memo and additional testimony to be submitted into the record.  She indicated it was responses to the written notes sent.  She noted the proposed language revision on policy 7 is as follows:  As a matter of public policy, Lane County and the city of Florence share a substantial interest in development within the urban growth boundary.  In order to receive a full range of urban services provided by the city of Florence, development within the urban growth boundary shall require annexation.  However, it is also recognized that until annexation, Lane County will retain primary permitting responsibility for those lands. 

Schulz reported that Ordinance 7-08 is revised to include at this time only the clause that would prohibit future lot line adjustments and division of land in smaller units within the UGB area.  She said this ordinance is a Board decision only.  She recalled Board readings of both ordinances shall expressly include the latest recommendation of the Lane County Planning Commission and DLCD to put the Board in position to enact each ordinance with the updates.  She stated there were over 50 exhibits in the public record for this project at the close of the Planning Commission hearing.  She indicated there is a complete copy of all comments received and all materials in the record in the County Administration office, Land Management Office and provided at the city of Florence.  She noted that notice of the 2009 and 2010 Planning Commission hearings held in Florence was published in The Register Guard 20 days prior to those hearings.  She said for the Board hearings at the elected official level, (for both years) in addition to publishing the requisite legal ad, a direct mailing was sent to all affected property owners within the Florence UGB.  She received numerous phone calls and returned them as they came in.    She provided extra notification of the opportunity of Fleenor and Dianne Burch providing for the direct testimony via the webcam.

Schulz reported the land use policies in Chapter 10 (code language, applicable to the Florence UGB area) currently dates from the 1988 Comprehensive Plan.  She said the Florence Realization 2020 Plan is now halfway through its applicable lifetime.  She said adoption of Realization 2020 Plan by the Board would provide consistency for the urbanizable areas of Florence and policy direction that applies to city lands.

Fleenor asked if this was a quasi judicial or legislative hearing.

Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes responded that it is more legislative.  He said there could be arguments on either side.  He indicated their procedures directed them toward a quasi judicial process in either case.  He said the quasi judicial process will give appropriate safeguards.

Sorenson asked if the city used quasi judicial procedures in adopting this matter

Vorhes said they worked under the legislation procedure, but that doesnít drive this Boardís decision on what process to use.

Fleenor asked the Board if they wanted to have a legislative or quasi judicial process.

Dwyer said if this was a quasi judicial matter they would need to declare ex parte contacts.  He said he had lunch with a gentleman who was impacted and he wouldnít have had lunch with him had it been quasi judicial.  He had lunch with Mike Van and they talked briefly about the project.  He said he would take either process.

Sorenson thought this was a policy choice and wanted he wanted a legislative process.

Handy wanted a legislative process.

Stewart stated that it didnít matter to him.

Fleenor stated this will be a legislative process.  He invited the city of Florence to speak first.

Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.

Sandra Belson, city of Florence, recalled the city of Florence received notice of a periodic review in 1994 and started a revision process in 1995 and rewrote the Comprehensive Plan.  She noted the city adopted the Realization 2020 Comprehensive Plan in 2002 and it was acknowledged by the state.  She added that within that plan is a list of amendments they have adopted since then.  She noted in 2004 the County also adopted the UGB and that is a piece that has already been approved and is not open for discussion.  She recalled within the past 18 months, the Countyís record has been open since the first Board meeting in fall 2008 so people have had the opportunity to comment at the County and city level.  She explained the two aspects of the amendment the city adopted in December included a policy to develop a groundwater custom program to determine if there is contamination in the North Florence Dunal Aquifer in Clear Lake and the surface water testing program at Heceta Beach.  She stated they would not use the island annexation method.  She recalled with the 1988 plan, the city could use any annexation method available by state law.  She said when they proposed the amendments in 2008, to address the concerns that had been raised by the Planning Commission at that time, they said the city and County would develop standards and a regular testing program for water and septic tanks to see if sewage was entering water supplies and that they would set up a system to isolate problems and correct them as soon as possible.  She explained that approach would prevent the need for health hazard annexation.  She stated that property owners in the North Florence Dunal Aquifer within the UGB for development would need to obtain a special exemption from the city of Florence.  She noted that policy was intended to replace the current practice of requiring consent to annex to connect to the city sewer.  She said after hearing the public testimony and the discussion at the Board of Commissioners during the adopted exemption process, the council decided to take a different approach.  She said it was recommended by commissioners Dwyer and Green to allow development of existing lots on septic systems, but not allow any new land divisions.  She said this policy grandfathered in all existing lots, but through the testing program they found contamination.  She indicated that Lane County would no longer issue permits for the affected area until the city and County agreed to a permanent measure to stop contamination.  She added there was public concern with that approach.  She said ultimately the city council decided to not adopt any policy regarding Lane Countyís authority to issue septic permits.  She stated what is before the Board today is a testing program to monitor the aquifer.  She added that because of public concern, they added the testing of the Heceta Beach area.  She said they focused on annexation:  the cityís annexation policy is majority rules.  She stated that state law does not allow Florence to use any annexation method that does not have a majority of the property owners and elected other than the island annexation method or the health hazard annexation.  She indicated that the city has voluntarily given up the right to use the island annexation method.  She noted the point of using the testing program is to present the need for health hazard annexation.  She submitted an e-mail form Dave Perry.  She also submitted a letter about concerns of the testing program and a letter from Ralph Christensen.  She said that Florence went thru a process to address the concerns of the commissioners, county staff and citizens.  She believed that they have been responsive to the concerns raised in the past 18 months.  She added with the Boardís support, they have received grant funding to pay for the testing program.

Dave Perry, Florence, supported what the city proposed.  He commented that the city and County are faced with a set of less than perfect circumstances.  He said the city didnít have sewer capacity and there is proliferation of septic systems bordered by sand and the drinking aquifer.  He supported the cityís effort to transition to a more full urban service program with the city and where necessary, annexation.  He said the city has been working with the County and the Heceta Water District.  He recommended the County facilitate the process.  He thought Fleenor has pull in this area and they could get an agreement.  He thought the city has done a good job to pull this together.  He commented that it is not perfect, but will do.  He recommended the County adopt this.

Mike Lilly, Portland, said he is an attorney on behalf of Mike Van.  He said he has been participating in the process since fall 2008 and there have been dramatic changes in what the city has proposed.  He indicated there is a serious problem that specifically calls out findings that are wrong.  He said the findings claim that based on scientific evidence at this time, in 2009 the septic systems, (failing or not) pose a threat to the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.  He said that is not true.  He said not many people have paid attention to him on the city side.  He found the author of the Florence Dunal Aquifer study so he could comment on the findings.  He asked Ralph Christensen to come and testify about the study.

Ralph Christensen, EGR Associates, Eugene, said he was asked by Mr. Lilly to look over the comments.  He said his first reaction is that the implication is septic tanks are causing the problem now.  He said the North Florence Dunal Aquifer Study as they did it, indicated there is a limit to septic tanks, about 2.9 per acre.  He said they donít present much of a threat for nitrates if they are below that level.  He said it is a potential for a threat and the way it is written sounds immediate, but it is not true as long as they are maintaining the density level they spent a lot of money to determine.  He commented that it gives the indication of inaccurate statement.  He thought it should be re-wordsmithed.

Robert Lawson, concurred with what had been said.

Daniel Stotter, Corvallis, noted the Mayor of the city of Florence has gone on record stating no forced annexations, but staff has approached them asking for flexibility and they might not be able to accommodate no forced annexations to resolution number 8.  He indicated the concerns from the city of Florence and Mr. Perry could be easily accommodated.  He said they could adopt a policy that has no forced annexation and have a provision that says it is subject to a majority of the actual residents  proposed for annexation.  He noted that is what Perry has suggested.  He said they should put in language that requires an actual majority of residents.  He said when the city says majority rules, the state law talks about majority in terms that are different than what are being in electoral context.  He indicated that they have a majority of property ownership and a majority of property value in the annexation statute.  He wanted to make it a majority of real residents and if they have the requirement, they wonít have one or two people abusing the process.  He said the background section in the comp plan needs to be removed because there is no evidence in the North Florence Dunal Aquifer and the city admits that there is no evidence of current septic failures.  He said they know the statements in the background sections are wrong because there is no evidence of septic failure.  He thought they should delete the background section because they shouldnít have something that is inaccurate.  He said for the language in the comp plan, they should remove the background section and wordsmith policy number 7.  He noted that policy number 7 suggests in the urbanization section all development will require annexation.  He said everyone supports testing, but it needs to focus on all things besides just septics.  He added that they have to include the Heceta Water District in the IGA because they are a local government body who are a major player and they understand water pollution and water issues.  He commented there are a lot of people who are against forced annexation.

Stephanie Chestler, read from a letter that Christensen wrote to Mayor Brubaker from 2009.  She said for the people who live in the UGB of Florence, they  have a majority who have stated they do not want to be a part of Florence.  She added not only do they not want to be part of a rural area, they canít afford to pay for the sewer system they want to put in.  She said they were never told anything.  She stated that she does not want this.

Jerry Nordin, Heceta Water District, Florence, was present on behalf of the water district.  He indicated that they submitted a letter of testimony regarding the IGA.  He indicated they are in a stalemate of getting the agreement signed.  He wanted the Board to review this.  He said they need to have an agreement and they want to be a stakeholder with the city.  He didnít want the Board to sign the 2020 Plan and put pressure on the city to get the agreement out.  He said that Clear Lake is important to everyone because it supplies most of the water.

Scott Maurer, Florence, stated that he has been a resident of Florence for five years after moving from California.  He said he has no issue with the city of Florenceís plan to test groundwater in the UGB.  He was concerned with the contaminants that could fall into the aquifer instead of contamination from septic tanks.  He said most of the contaminants produced by septic tanks are flushed out of the aquifer every 50 years.  His concern is the city of Florence had two wrecking yards and the contamination is starting to hit the aquifer.  He wanted to see the water study done.  He didnít think they went far enough.  He wanted the job done right.  He thought the city was pushing the issue of septic tanks for annexation purposes to show the areas in the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.  He said if that was the case, they should extend the sewer system to the entire North Florence Dunal Aquifer as it exists in the maps of 1982 study.

John Wicks, Florence, stated he lives outside the city because he wants to stay outside.  He was born and raised in Oregon.  He believed sand and the swamps in the area they live in will take care of everything.

David Campbell, Florence, was concerned because the testing and the IGA claim they donít support testing.  He said they want testing because they believe that is not the problem to the water supply and the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.  He moved into his district because it is quiet, no street lights and no city problems.  He said they need to see what the study shows is the real threat to their water supply and not blame septic systems in advance of the study. 

Lisa Arkin, stated she is a member of the Planning Commission. but she was speaking on her own behalf.  She said the Planning Commission brought up the water quality months ago and supported the testing program. She noted while the initial concerns were septics, they never intended for the testing program to be limited to septics. She said it was their understanding it would be comprehensive for petroleum products and they recommended it be tested for pharmaceuticals.  She thought that knowledge is important and they shouldnít shy away from the testing program for fear at what they might find out.  She indicated they know there are problems with surface water contamination and that is something to consider.  She recalled the vote from the Planning Commission was unanimous to move forward to see how the area will be developed and how to allow development outside of the city limits.

Leah Patten, Florence, stated that her house is in the most danger of being annexed by the city. She commented that it is a septic scare.  She said her house was undecided on annexation.  She commented that the Boardís  vote will affect all the people.

Peter Boyer, Florence, said he has been to a meeting where the mayor has said there will be no forced annexation.  He was concerned that they need to have it in the Comp Plan.  He wanted the clause with no forced annexation except  for groundwater and the DEQ.  He said that Dan Stotterís statements reflected his concerns.

Lola Simpson, Florence, read a statement.  She indicated that many of the residents are against annexation.  She said chooses to live there because they do not want to be part of the city.  She said the city is not trying to protect the water supply.  She said they are using false claims for water to force sewer hook up.  She asked the city of  Florence to remove the background section that has the false statement of septic systems in the 2020 Comp Plan.

Jim Seaberry, Eugene, commented that the people of the city of Eugene are at risk.  He said if the city should decide to take out the River Avenue sewage plan, the citizens will be in trouble.  He said when assessments are done to the citizens of Florence, he said they are expecting the citizens to connect to the sewer at their expense.  He recalled that it had already been adjudicated in 1999 where the Supreme Court refused to overrule, when Eugene had no right to force hook ups unless there was a health hazard present.  He suggested the citizens donít connect and make the city connect the citizens to the sewer.  He said it was his understanding that the casino went to the city of Florence and wanted to connect to the sewer and the city wouldnít let them and they had to put in their own treatment plant.  He stated there can be health hazards for the people.

Alexander Campbell, Florence, wanted help with the Heceta Water District.  He said the mayor and the majority rule is excluding the Heceta Water District as a real party to the IGA for the water study.

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

Dwyer commented that they have a tremendous responsibility as commissioners to represent people that live outside of the cities not only today, but into the future because the decisions they make today might impact them into the future.  He stated that Heceta Water District has made many investments in the community.  He said that testimony needs to be factual.  He said there canít be things in a report and allude to it being factual when it is not.  He said they need to recognize the people in Florence have made a commitment in forming the Heceta Water District.  He stated that he didnít think this was ready and he would not support it.  He said there needs to be an agreement between the city and Heceta and they need to make reference in the code to no forced annexations.

Stewart asked if it was possible to remove the background on the septics that Christensenís report stated.  He asked what the process would be.

Vorhes responded that to the extent the language is proposed for adoption in the plan, they could express how they prefer the plan to read if they are going to co-adopt it.  He said they could indicate what they think needs to be done to the plan language proposed for adoption.  He added that part of the process is co-adoption and the city of Florence would need to revisit what has been done.  He didnít think they had to adopt identical versions of the plan, but it made sense to do it.  He added that the city has authority to adopt  a plan within the city limits but what is necessary for co-adoption is the area outside of the city limits,  inside the UGB. He noted that wonít go into effect unless the Board co-adopts.

Steward indicated the city said they wouldnít do the island annexation process and they would still have the authority under state law for the rest of the annexation.  He asked what they as a Board could place into the plan for clarity of the annexation process.

Vorhes said the Board could articulate what they think the law says or to articulate additional policy layers they want the city to follow in the event they are considering annexing outside the city limits inside the UGB.  He thought the Board had flexibility.  He was concerned that if they were starting to describe something that does not comport with what the statutes allow or provide, then they articulate what it is that gets them to the point where they want to have a review and approval authority before the city goes forward and annexes the areas inside the UGB and address the issues around Goal 14.

Stewart also heard about having an IGA for testing water and to have Heceta Water District included.

Vorhes indicated there was policy language that expresses that as a preference.  He thought what they might have to do as board is to expend whatever resources are necessary or encourage those parties to bring Heceta on board with the testing IGA.

Schulz reported that the IGA between the city of Florence and Lane County for this study is included in the packet.  She noted it is specifically the relationship between the city and County around the monitoring protocol to be done for the three years the agreement would be applied to.  She said this IGA was specifically worked through by the technical and planning staff of the two entities.  She added that the Heceta Water District is only participating in the EPA Siuslaw Estuary Partnership Project and they attached the EPA funding to that.  She said when the Heceta Water District testified at the Planning Commission, there was conversation with the Planning Commission about the complex relationship. She commented that this IGA (for what it was designed to do) is good the way it has been put together and including the Heceta Water District into this is not what this IGA is about.  She added the Heceta Water District president and members also testified at the Planning Commission about their willingness to work with the city about coming to an agreement..  She said it states how many wells will be monitored and the testing will be done on a basis of chemicals with an independent lab.

Dwyer wanted to roll this so people working in good faith could come to an agreement if everything is out in the open.

MOTION: to approve a Seventh Reading and Setting an Eighth Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance PA 1249 and approve a Sixth Reading and Setting a Seventh Reading and Public Hearing Ordinance 7-08 until February 2011.

Dwyer wanted to give people an incentive to do something now.    He said they will need to notify the chair to move the reading up sooner.


Vorhesí concern was the ability to move the date up.  He said if they are going to continue the public hearing, shortening the period of time might create difficulties.

Dwyer wanted to state unless the Board moves it forward before.

Vorhes said they will have to send notice to everyone.  He said to save the resources that it will take to send new notice, he recommended setting a time and date earlier than that.

Fleenor asked about the resources required to send out notices.

Schulz said there were several hundred lots and individual notice to all citizens.  She added there is mailing and staff costs.

Fleenor commented that for them to have a hearing like this costs thousands of dollars.  He said scheduling a hearing some time in the future when they are not prepared will be an additional cost.  He said it is about resource conservation.

Sorenson recommended scheduling an update and an opportunity to schedule a public hearing within a shorter timeline. He asked what the cost would be for a read and roll versus notifying everyone.

Vorhes asked if the Board wanted to continue the Public Hearing or to leave the record open to allow further comment on how progress has been.

Stewart wasnít comfortable with going out a year.  He was more comfortable setting this over to May.  He didnít believe they needed another Public Hearing, but they could keep the open.  He wanted to work with Fleenor, Legal Counsel and Schulz to take five items to be addressed so in three months they could make an attempt to get somewhere.  He sensed this would take a long time but he thought they were close and could get it done.

Dwyer withdrew his motion and Handy withdrew his second.

MOTION: to approve a Seventh Reading and Setting an Eight Reading and possible deliberation for May 19 at 1:30 p.m. for Ordinance PA 1249, keeping the record open.


VOTE: 5-0.

c.  SIXTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 7-08/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code To Revise and Add Provisions for the Interim Urbanizing Combining District (/U) Applicable Within the Florence Urban Growth Boundary (LC 10.122-10, 10.122-13, 10.122-14, 10.122-15, 10.122-30, 10.122-31) (File No. PA 08-5142, Florence) (NBA & PM 11/05/08; 12/10/08; 04/08/09; 7/22/09; 12/2/09).

MOTION: to approve a Sixth Reading and Setting a Seventh Reading and Possible Deliberation for Ordinance No. 7-08  for May 19, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. keeping the record open.


VOTE: 5-0.


Handy announced that there will be a food security town hall this evening.

Fleenor announced that he is having a community dialog at the Moose Lodge in Junction City tomorrow.



There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary