November 23, 2010

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 12-15-2010


Commissioner Rob Handy presided with Commissioner Pete Sorenson present.  Bill Fleenor  was present via speakerphone.  Bill Dwyer and Faye Stewart participated for item 7 a. and were excused for the rest of the meeting.  County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




a. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION/County Administrator Position.


Madilyn Zike, Human Resources, reported the Board had an Executive Session this morning to review the candidate pool for the interim County Administrator.  She recalled in earlier meetings the Board established the standards, criteria and directives for the appointment of the interim County Administrator.  She reported they received five internal and seven external candidates.


MOTION:  to move that the Board of Commissioners appoint Liane Richardson as Interim County Administrator and direct Ms. Zike to work with Richardson and bring back an appropriate contract.


Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


(Fleenor and Stewart voted on the speakerphone.)


VOTE:  4-0.


Dwyer voted on the speakerphone.


VOTE:  1-0.




Zike stated that she will draw up the documents.




a. Announcements




b. DISCUSSION/Legislative Priorities Update.


Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, discussed a memo dated September 9.  He didnít believe they got into the issue.  He said there is a committee in Salem operating called the Justice System Revenue Committee.  He said it came out of a bill in 2009 that adjusted court fees as a way to not only get out of the shortfall the state was experiencing during the 2009 biennium, but to position the Courts better during the 2009/2011 biennium.  He said the bill required that there be an interim task force to look at the way fines are assessed statewide.  He said the issues for counties are imbedded within state court fines related to traffic offenses.  He added that there is money that travels to different counties for different purposes.  He said as part of the filing fees they will tack on dollars that flow to the Law Library.  He indicated that the Board sets a fee for family mediation services.   He said the counties would go to Ways and Means to ask for dollars.  He asked that the Board take a position against the drafting of this bill.  He wanted to continue to suggest to the Committee they cease and desist for this effort.


MOTION: to take a position against the drafting of this bill.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE:  4-0.


Cuyler recalled in August that the Board asked him to be a proxy for the Farm and Forest Task Force to look at how events happen on EFU land. He has been attending those meetings and they are in the midst of creating a draft for recommendations for the bill.  He said they have created a recommendation that states the counties can issue a special use permit for those kinds of events.  He added that they would be limited in size, duration and number per year.  He recommended waiting until they see it before they take a position.  He asked if the Board wanted to weigh in before the bill has been drafted.


Dwyer thought they should weigh in before the bill is being drafted.


Handy thought Cuyler should come back sooner than later.


Cuyler submitted to the Legislature (as per SB944) the report on the ACT.  He heard back and they would like the Board to make a presentation to the committees on December 13.  He indicated that he could do it or a Board member could come up.


Handy said he would go because he worked hard with their partners on this.


c. DISCUSSION/Urban Renewal District Draft Letter.


Cuyler discussed the urban renewal district draft letter.  (Copy in file).


MOTION:  to send the letter with a corrected date.  Each Lane County legislator will receive a copy.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE:  4-0. (This item took place in the morning meeting.)




a. ORDER 10-11-23-12/In the Matter of the Board of Commissioners of Lane County, Oregon Supporting the Manufactured Home Community Preservation Act of 2011.


Peter Farris, Executive Director, Oregon Manufactured Home United, Walport, gave an update on the Manufactured Home Community Preservation Act of 2011.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-11-23-12.


Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark stated that he hasnít reviewed the board order.


Cuyler said what he would add are cautionary notes.  He said they shouldnít lend their support to a bill that may change.  He said the County is a member of the Oregon Housing Alliance that works on low income housing issues.  He said he thinks they will be opposed to this bill and that might set up issues the Board will have to deal with.   He added the Board should amend the order to say ďin its form as LC2945, dated November 15, 2010.Ē


VOTE:  3-0.




a. Announcements




b. ORDER 10-11-23-13/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 64 of the Lane Manual to Combine Central and Upper Willamette Justice Districts (LM 64.200-205)


Richardson recalled at the last Board meeting, Spartz made a recommendation with his choice B, to consolidate the Upper Willamette District with Oakridge Justice Court and Central Lane Justice Court into one district.  She said the Board agreed with that and asked them to make it happen.  She added in the meantime, Judge Carl, (the elected official for Oakridge,) informed the Board that he wasnít interested in serving as a Judge in that district unless the Board increased his pay to 1.5 FTE or $80,000.  She said they canít recommend that to the Board.  It is her understanding that there have been no citations from the County into Oakridge in November and there is nothing on the docket in December.  She indicated there is a Board order for the Board to consider that would combine Central Lane and Oakridge.  She said they are now recommending Option A,  to consolidate Central Lane with the Florence Justice Court.  She stated that leaves the question as to what happens with Oakridge with Upper Willamette.  She reported that the Sheriffís Office has crunched numbers to determine where  it would make the most sense to continue to site into.  She said they provided information to her yesterday that it is still worth it to cite into the Justice Courts, but they are only siting into Central Lane.  She indicated they would get more bang for their buck into the general fund if one of the Justice Courts was closed.  She said an option for the Board to consider if they go with Option A is to consider what to do with Oakridge.  She said Judge Cable said she was interested and willing to serve in both courts.  She recommended combining Florence and Central Lane instead of Upper Willamette.


Sorenson asked what the drawback would be if they donít vote today.


Richardson replied that the only drawback is the employees at Central Lane.  She indicated that they have been living with uncertainty for quite a while.  She said it would be nice for the uncertainty to be resolved.


Sorenson wanted to roll this to January 19, 2011.


Richardson brought this back to the Board.  She said doing it in January is fine.  She said they have a Justice of the Peace position sitting open.  She said people are confused about the position.  She said the Board should give clear direction to combine this so they can continue to get as much money as possible.   She noted that Florence and Oakridge do not make money.  She indicated there has not been a public hearing.  She recommended going out no further than the end of January for a public hearing.


Handy thought they were close with this.  He said he would have made this decision today but because they donít have a full Board, he wanted to wait to vote on this.  He wanted to have a public hearing on January 19.


MOTION:  to schedule a Public Hearing on the proposal as indicated in their agenda to combine the Central Lane and Upper Willamette Justice Court and to ask legal counsel to let the new governor know that they have set a public hearing on this matter.


Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Fleenor asked what options are available.


Sorenson said if the Board wants to broaden it to other proposals, he would be open.


Fleenor asked to have Option 1 and 2 available.


Sorenson agreed.  He wanted additional opportunities for the affected employees, their unions, the Justices of the Peace, the appointed Justice of the Peace and the governor.  He said this decision is long in significance.


VOTE: 3-0.


c. REPORT BACK/National Association of Counties (NACo) Prescription Drug Program.


Assistant County Counsel Trina Laidlaw reported back on the NACO Prescription Drug Program (Copy in file).  She stated there are at least three discount drug cards available through the state and Lane County residents.  She said this would be the fourth card that would be available.  Her recommendation is to go to an RFP process.  She recommended assigning it to the Health and Human Services Department for the next step and then report back.


Sorenson wanted a time line and the next steps needed to be taken.


Laidlaw stated that the department would prepare a solicitation document and put together additional questions and ask follow up questions from the initial group they had.  She added that they would schedule a waiting process based on criteria.  She said there would be an evaluation committee and they would meet and solicit proposals from the two companies and the committee would evaluate them and come up with a recommendation.  She thought there could be a report back in February.


Handy wanted this to come back before the RFP goes out.  He wanted to see a draft and that could get the new Board up to speed and they can move from there.


Sorenson wanted to bring this back on February 2, 2011.  He wanted to know what will happen if they donít continue membership in NACo.  He wanted to  know what the Boardís rights would be after June 30, 2011 because of their financial problems and they are not members of NACo.


d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ Amendments to the Social Host Ordinance, Lane Code 6.900, Amending Sections 1(h), 3, 4, and Adding 5(c). (Second Reading 12/15/10, 1:30 p.m.)

C.A. Baskerville, Health and Human Services, reported that the Board had the wrong document in the packet. 

Richardson discussed the changes that were made.

MOTION:  to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on December 15, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

VOTE:  4-0.  (This matter was taken up in the morning).




a. ORDER 10-11-23-14/In the Matter of the Lane County Board of Commissioners Supporting the River Road Park District and Santa Clara Fire District Request.


Handy recalled they had a work session with the districts.  He indicated this is part of the River Road Santa Clara problem with Lane County and the city of Eugene.  He explained that the districts are being impacted by their tax bases, eroding with the incremental annexation that takes place to the city of Eugene.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-11-23-14.


Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


VOTE: 3-0.


b. ORDER 10-11-23-15 /In the Matter of Serving the One-Year Notice of Termination of the Two Urban Transition Agreements for Land Use and Building Permit Authority Inside the Urban Growth Boundary of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).




Sorenson was concerned because they donít know the result of issuing the one year notice.  He recommended putting this over for a Public Hearing and decision by the Board of Commissioners for Wednesday, January 19, 2011.


MOTION: to move this for a Public Hearing and decision by the Board of Commissioners on Wednesday January 19, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.


Sorenson MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.


Sorenson said the Eugene staff informed him that having Eugene staff relieved of their responsibility to handle land use and building permits outside of the city of Eugene would decrease their costs and increase their net because it costs more money to process those applications.  He said the County would have to have staff hired to handle the process and then they would have to charge for fees.  He said if the goal is to help people outside of the city of Eugene, it could be they would be increasing their fees.  He thought they should be careful in terminating the agreement and to obtain more information.  He thought the new Board should have the opportunity to weigh in on this.


Fleenor was disappointed that this order was not moving forward.  He hoped they could start this new process and create a better dynamic between the city and the County residents within the urban growth boundary.


Handy wanted to make sure that Jay Bozievich, Commissioner Elect, has the commitment that he has said he has to River Road Santa Clara and to get the new commissioners to be involved.   He didnít want to trigger anything today that could drive up building fees and mean the people are annexed to the city of Eugene.  He wanted fairness, not just for County residents but to address it locally and working with the neighborhood groups.  He recalled that Senator Edwards indicated if they are not able to get the reluctant parties to the table to address the issues, then he is there to help with a state fix.


Clark said an issue came up on whether or not this is a land use decision.  He said the termination of the IGA would be a land use decision and in order to do that, they need full land use procedural rights.  He commented that the decision to give notice itself a land use decision, but he didnít think it was.  He recommended that staff be authorized to look into those issues and then come back with a report.


Handy asked if a majority of a development inside the urban growth area would require annexation.  He indicated that they have had many citizens asked to have a citation of the Oregon Revised Statutes that would require it.


Kent Howe, Land Management, thought it was a good idea that this was delayed until  January.  He said staff has been reviewing whether or not a land use decision is being made by making the decision to send notice to terminate the urban transition agreement.  He was unclear if that is a land use decision.  He said if it were to be one, it was better to have a public opportunity for people to be heard before a decision is made.  With regard to the development inside an urban growth area requiring annexation, he said it is a complex web of rules, statutes and Metro Plan policies along with 190 Agreements.  He said the Goal 14 Rule on urbanization states that the urban growth boundary shall be established and maintained by cities, counties and regional governments to provide land for urban development needs and to identify and separate urban and urbanizable land from  rural land.  He said establishment shall be a cooperative process among cities and counties.  He noted that urban growth boundaries shall be adopted by all cities within the boundary and the County within which it is located.  He stated that ORS 197.015 requires a coordinated comprehensive plan.  He said it defines comprehensive and coordination to the point for the cities and counties cooperatively and collaboratively adopting the areas that will be urbanized in the future and allows the cities for a 20 year horizon.  He noted for ORS  215.170, the county regulates land outside cities unless urban growth management agreements, jointly adopted by the city and county are authorized.  He added that any part  subject to regulations shall seize to be subject to the powers of the city unless otherwise provided in an urban growth area management agreement jointly adopted by a city and county and to establish procedures regulating land use outside the city limits and within an urban growth boundary.  He noted ORS 195.065 requires urban service agreements.  He said that each county through its governing body shall be responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the County including planning activities of the counties, cities, special districts and state agencies to assure an integrated comprehensive plan for the entire area of the County.  He added that a strong Metro Plan policy  states urbanization only happens upon annexation.  He said that is implemented through the 190 Agreements responding to the statutory requirements.  He added the 190 Agreements are the IGAís for coordination.  He indicated it started with Ordinance 18-86, enacted on April 8, 1987.   He indicated that Lane County finds that the acknowledged Eugene Springfield Area General Plan is based on the premise that the two existing cities are the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development.  He recalled in 1983 they were in a similar recession to the one they have been experiencing and one of the whereas  paragraphs indicated that there had been a decline in revenues for the provision of services, causing the need for greater governmental efficiency.   With regard to Order 85-3-13-1 he  noted as an exhibit to that order is the agreement regarding the transfer of building and land use responsibilities within the urbanizable portion of the Eugene urban growth boundary.  He said that states the city and county have adopted policy resolutions that call for the transition of urban services in the urbanizable area from the county to the city.  He said the purpose is to enable the city to provide municipal services where it is logical and efficient to do so and to enable the County to reduce the provision of these services in order to enhance the provision of countywide non municipal services and to provide for the orderly transition of municipal service delivery from County to city.  He noted in Article 4 of the agreement,  (a)(5) the recital states that together with the city jointly developed, an overlay zoning district  that replaces the existing interim urbanizing districts by requiring consent to annexation agreements for 1) land divisions when lots or parcels created will be less than the minimum specified in the Metro Plan without complying with additional criteria and 2) uses in commercial and industrial areas that may generate singly or in the aggregate the additional need for urban facilities or services and apply this overlay district to all lands within the Eugene urban growth boundary.  He stated this is the agreement the County has entered into with the city that requires annexation for urbanization of the lands.  He noted the county worked with the city to implement that provision, codified in Eugene Code Chapter  9.4640 is the annexation agreement section of the Eugene Code.  He states under (1) that annexation  of the entire development site or execution of consent to annexation agreement is required prior to any of the following actions: any zone change, any approval of a new dwelling, commercial or industrial development and approval of an expansion of an existing  commercial or industrial  development.  He indicated that this was what the County co-adopted.


Sorenson stated his motion is for an information public hearing.  He requested that Howe find out from Eugene their perspective on what the impact would be on Eugene for the County taking the responsibility back from Eugene.


Howe said the building permits generated about $135,000.   He added with new proposals for new development, it was about 120 applications that they processed and they calculated a net loss of revenue because those permits werenít allowed until they annexed to the city so they paid their permits to the city.  He indicated the County would be doing all the information exchange and providing the customer service at great cost, only for the permit payment to be paid to the city of Eugene.


VOTE: 3-0.




Sorenson reported on the AOC meetings he attended.


13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

(Commissionersí Conference Room)


Per ORS 192.660(2)(a) for the employment of a Public Officer.






There being no further business, Commissioner Handy adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary