BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
February 24, 2010
9:20 a.m.
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 6/23/2010

Commissioner Rob Handy presided with Bill Dwyer, Pete Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.  Bill Fleenor was excused.  County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

1.  ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

Handy noted there are items to be added: 5. e) 1 and 5 f) 1.  He added they would roll 5 f)1.   He said they also pulled 5 c) 1.  Under Commissioners Business, item 10 b, a report back from yesterday and the last resort letter.  Under 10 c. a  report back on the Golden Temple Letter.

2.  PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jan Wilson,  Eugene, said she had e-mail contact with the Board regarding the  River Ridge Metro Plan Amendment that came from the city.  She appreciated that the Board has continually made it clear to the cities that the co-adoption authority vested in the Board with the Metro Plan really means something.  She said the County needs to state that co-adoption is co-adoption.  She added the County needs to make sure the cities donít get ahead, but stay with them.

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

Dwyer commented that Thursday is an important day because the President is meeting with members of Congress regarding the Health Care Plan and the costs associated with it.  He stated that doing nothing is not an option. 

Sorenson indicated that local governments are working together.  He thought when the legislative assembly put the co-adoption function in, that people needed to work together, they canít make unilateral decisions.  He said they didnít mean rubber stamp.  He was glad this was being brought to their attention and they are taking co-adoption properly.

Handy commented that the world is changing and plans need to change with co-adoption responsibilities.  He said they need to integrate transportation, land use and Public Health concerns.  He stated that greenhouse gas emission issues are critical.

4.  EMERGENCY BUSINESS 

None.

5.  CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Approval of Minutes:
December 16, 2009, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
December 16, 2009, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
January 26, 2010, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

B. Management Services

1) ORDER 10-2-24-1/Readopting Lane Manual 4.020 Relating to Investment Policies.

C. Public Works

1) ORDER 10-2-24-2/Authorizing an Intergovermental Agreement with the City of Florence to Conduct a Groundwater Quality Study in the North Florence Dunal Aquifer and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Agreement.

2) ORDER 10-2-24-3/Amending Chapter 60 of the Lane Manual to Bring Building Program Fees into Compliance with Recently Adopted Administrative Rules on a Revenue Neutral Basis (LM 60.855) Effective April 1, 2010.

3) ORDER 10-2-24-4/Amending Chapter 60 of the Lane Manual to Bring Subsurface Sanitation Fees into Substantial Agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Fee Schedule and Fund a Sustainable Service Level (LM 60.852) Effective April 1, 2010.

4) ORDER 10-2-24-5/Amending Chapter 60 of the Lane Manual to Ensure a More Equitable Application of the Technology Assessment in the Land Management Division (LM 60.850) Effective April 1, 2010.

5) ORDER 10-2-24-6/Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a FY 2010 Transportation and Growth Management Program Grant Application with the Oregon Department of Transportation to Create an Electronic Version of the Lane County Bicycle Map.

D. Workforce Partnership

1) ORDER 10-2-24-7/Appointing a Lane County Representative to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.

MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.

Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0.

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

None.

b. REPORT BACK/Update on Golden Gardens.

Spartz reported that David Suchart, Management Services, has not been feeling well and he has been working short days.  Spartz has been in touch with John Reis, city manager, city of Eugene and they are looking at the Golden Gardens property for an extension and they have agreed to give the County up to one additional year on the extension.  He said they have until March 1, 2011 to make a decision.  He and Suchart discussed the next logical step on Golden Gardens.  Spartz said Suchart believed they needed a soil and hydrological study so they know the condition of the land and how much is usable.  He estimated the cost to be not more than $10,000.  He said he will direct Suchart to go ahead with the process.

Dwyer was fine with it.

MOTION: to direct Spartz to obtain a one  year extension from the city of Eugene.

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 4-0.

7. COUNTY COUNSEL

a. Announcements

Richardson recalled the Board talked about the Metropolitan Wastewater Service District.  She said that staff is planning to move forward with taking the dissolution to the MWSD. She said if there are changes to that direction, they would need to know. She said the MWSD has done everything it was set up to do and there is nothing further to do.  She said there wasnít an easy way to dissolve the service district, but there was a change in the law in 2009.  She recalled the direction from the Board was if they can get the law changed to dissolve the district.  She said they can now dissolve the district.  She said it goes to the district board first and then it would come to the Board for approval.

Dwyer asked what happens to the money.

Richardson responded that once the expenses are paid it would go back into the general fund.

Handy had heard there were concerns about a back door attempt for annexation issues.

Andy Clark, Assistant County Counsel said issues will be discussed at the hearing with the Board.  He added the public will have a chance to speak to them.

Sorenson thought the direction to move on the dissolution is a good one.

8. PUBLIC WORKS

a. DISCUSSION Ė  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL/Ordinance No. PA 1264/Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use Diagram; Amending the Corresponding Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Diagrams; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Applicant: City of Eugene) (File No. PA 09-5465) (PM & NBA 9/30/09, 10/27/09, 11/10/09)

Dwyer asked what their plan was.

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, wasnít aware of a plan.  She indicated that County staff received a letter on January 10 that Eugene withdrew their application for the portion that is Tax Lot 304 and passed two ordinances on the remaining portion of the property and those were provided in the packet.

Dwyer asked if the city has the property if they could rezone it from open space.

Schulz indicated that could be a possibility.  She said it wasnít necessarily part of an application.  She said the zoning could change upon change of jurisdiction or upon annexation.

Sorenson asked if there was a change in the Metro Plan.

Schulz responded there was no co-adoption so there was no change.

Richardson recalled the impetus was that the city as they were cleaning up, changed the zoning of this piece of property without notifying the owners and that was what they were trying to fix.  She indicated the city was trying to put this property back to where it was.  She said when they saw the Boardís concerns, they went and adopted only the part within the city.

Sorenson raised the issue of notice.  He said the public and commissioners were under the impression that this was a joint process.  He added that was why they were dragged into this in the first place.  He asked if this notice that was given was a switcheroo.  He said they send a letter to the County and that was when they learned there was no co-adoption.

Richardson indicated the County did all of the notice they would typically do when there is a co-adoption.  She said at the first hearing that was what was presumed.

Schulz reported there was a joint hearing with the Board and the city of Eugene on October 27.  She added the record was closed and the two jurisdictions deliberated separately.

Richardson didnít know if the city followed noticing their own changes in the ordinance.  She didnít know what notice they gave after they decided this wouldnít move as a Metro Plan adoption.

Stewart indicated that in 2004 was when the plan amendment took place and was approved and that was when the landowners werenít noticed.  He indicated it was billed as small parcels to bring into conformity with the Metro Plan.  He added in 2005 this issue was brought before the Board and that was how they discussed that Eugene did all the work and the Board co-adopted it assuming all the work was done properly.  He noted the city didnít notify the landowners specifically in 2004.  He said this Board gave direction to the administration to start the process in fixing the initial process in 2004.  He, Green and Spartz met with Reis and some city councilors and the city of Eugene admitted they made the mistake and were going forward with the process to fix the mistake.  He understands the concerns of the citizens about transportation problems and other issues.  He indicated the underlying issue is to trying to return it back to what it was when the process was flawed.  He commented that they as a government did something wrong and they canít fix it.  He assumed that the city of Eugene gave its notice legally.  He said Lane County was the one who started the process.

Handy was troubled that the County had nothing to do with this.  He said the County had issues raised that were part of the co-adoption process.

Schulz indicated that she did not see the ordinance before the city took action.

Richardson didnít believe anyone from the County saw the ordinances until after they were adopted.

Schulz recalled the Public Hearing was held on October 27.  She said after the Public Hearing was closed, she as the staff person to the County did not attend the cityís side of the process for their getting to an agreement.  She wasnít aware there were ordinances being developed.  She processed the packets when the Board set the additional reading on November 10 and this meeting was set up at that point in time.

Handy was disappointed.  He thought counsel and staff should have been aware that the city ordinances were being adopted on November 23.  He noted there was an appeal period and the Board had issues. 

Richardson indicated they donít have staff to follow what other jurisdictions do.  She indicated that is a county administration or a Board issue.  She said if they wish for her to monitor other jurisdictions, she would need another staff person to keep track of that.

Handy thought they should write a letter to the city and copy DLCD as things have fallen through the cracks on the city of Eugene side.

Sorenson indicated the city of Eugene put them through the joint process and changed it and didnít notify the commissioners or staff.  He thought they should write a letter to the city to be told they went through a joint public hearing in October and this was intended to be the response to the city of Eugeneís request. He said in good faith they scheduled the meeting and invited the public.  He added they discovered without any notice to the commissioner whose district is affected that they were doing this.  He said it should be a letter they write to the city stating they were disappointed in the process.

MOTION: to have staff prepare a draft letter that recites the facts and points out that legal counsel and staff for the County had no record they city communicated with the County, that they held a large public hearing with the city and then they find out later they passed a unilateral action and the County doesnít like it.

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

Stewart indicated they were informed the night of the joint meetings what the options were and the city of Eugene taking that action was a possibility.  He said they have a process where they receive mail that goes to the Board and goes through a process.  He thought they did receive a letter from the city of Eugene stating they choose to do this individually.  He said if they are sending a letter, he wanted things toned down. 

Sorenson asked between now and the time this is brought back to find out if the city did send a letter.

Handy thought a letter was a good thing because there are issues.  He wanted a draft at the next meeting so they could find out further information.  He said the County does have a co-adoption role and they should take it seriously.

Dwyer wasnít sure what their responsibility is in the appeal process.  He thought the affected citizens had more standing in the appeal process.  He asked if the ordinance that was adopted contained County lands.

Richardson indicated they only did changes within the city limits.

Clark explained that  the co-adoption process is a two step process.  He said Eugene has to adopt within the city limits and co-adopt the portion outside of the UGB area and wait for the County.  He said in this case they have made the change within the city limits.  He added there is language in their ordinance that speaks to the land in the UGB area that says the changes will automatically take place when it is annexed into the city.

VOTE: 4-0.

b. REPORT BACK/Gary Jensen Property, Map 16-07-19-11 Taxlot 1600.

Mike Jackson, Land Management, recalled on February 10, Gary Jensen spoke to the Board in public comment about his concerns.  He said this was not the first time they dealt with these issues.  He said in 2005 there was a vacation in this subdivision and during that time there was proper notice to the Jensens.  He said they notified them of the vacation and had a phone conversation with Gary Jensen.  Jackson indicated Jensen had personal issues and decided not to become part of the vacation.  He showed up at the public hearing and wanted to be included, but at that time it was too late. Jackson said the Board asked staff to look into this.  He said they had proof there was proper notice.  Jackson indicated Jensen had issues with surveying.  He said the County road bisects his parcel and it leaves little for development.  Jackson indicated he spoke with Jensen recently and most of his concerns have been satisfied except for the vacation.  Jackson spoke with Arno Nelson, Public Works, about the issue of a ditch and that has been satisfied within the County right-of-way.  He said a vacation would benefit the landowners.  He said if they do a vacation by resolution, it would entirely be funded by the County, the surveyorís office would not receive fees or a special benefit for the County and Lane Manual doesnít have a way to receive costs.

Stewart was asked by Jensen a while back to look into it.  He added at that time Jensen was more concerned about his property line disappearing.  Stewart indicated that Jackson told him the surveys were correct and he remembers the vacation and the opportunity for him to be included.  Stewart thought they did everything they could to address Jensenís problem. He said that Jensen needs to initiate the vacation to go through the process.

c. REPORT/Status Report on Work Group for Lane Code/Manual/Comp Plan Revisions Per Adopted Land Management Division Program.

Matt Laird, Land Management, distributed a list of code amendments.  (Copy in file).  He said the board direction from last week was to bring the top six issues of the Goal One list, page 1, tomorrow.  He said tomorrow night will be their first stakeholder meeting.  He said a motion was made to direct the discussion.  He indicated that he is ready to have the meeting.

Sorenson asked what the staff requirements are for pages 1 and 2.

Laird indicated he will find out at the first stakeholderís meeting to try to find out a measure of where people think they land on the issues and to hear back from the citizens.  He said they have the okay go move forward with three stakeholder meetings until March 18.  He said the question is do they stay focused on page 1 for all three meetings or do they move to other issues.  He said if they get into multiple issues, they might get into a debate and might have secondary meetings.

Sorenson wanted a work plan that was doable.  He was concerned about lands of critical importance, global warming and energy conservation.  He thought the focus should be on how many resources Laird thinks he can get done.

Laird responded that these will be controversial and will take a lot of staff resources.  He said it depends on how much citizen involvement there will be or to open it up to the citizens and bring the language to a public hearing.

MOTION: to defer lands of critical importance, global warming and energy conservation until after March 10.

Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

Handy wanted to separate out what is controversial and focus on what they can do to indentify the amount of staff resources it might take.  He wanted to focus on getting a process and identify staff resources. He thought these were things that were important and help the citizens and Land Management.  He thought Laird could tell them what it would take for staff time for all of the pieces.

Dwyer wanted know which items on the front page would impact the back pages.  He said they need to start with the things that are important.  He asked about their overarching goals.  He asked if they could adopt overarching goals.  He wanted to see protection of prime farmland.  He said the Countyís goals are conflicting with the citiesí goals.

Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes responded that they can adopt overarching goals but how they translate into codes is hard with state law and the partner cities about what their interests are and how they are articulated into the comprehensive plans where they share jurisdiction responsibilities.  He said they could articulate what is important about the rural lands, how it interacts with urban lands and the UGB.

VOTE: 4-0.

There being no further business, Commissioner Handy recessed the meeting at 11:00 a.m. 

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary.