October 6, 2010

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 12-1-2010


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








Katie Lynn, Eugene, recalled in 2005 two permit applications were filed on EFU property.  She said it was owned by CBM and LCC, one member being Ross Murry, a local developer.  She indicated the first was a re-plat.  She noted the second application was for a replacement dwelling.  She said now the property is eligible for a dwelling.  She said there was a request for an emergency R.V. replacement while building a family dwelling.  She asked why it was needed while the original dwelling was still in place.  She said the original dwelling was being used as a rental.  She asked if that was the reason for the emergency R.V. replacement, to allow the property owner to collect rental income and have a second temporary dwelling on EFU land.  She said as part of the replacement process, a notice was sent to neighbors about the replacement application.  She stated that notice signed by Kent Howe, Land Management, laid out the contingencies for approval.  She said it was agreed to by the applicant.    She said the contingency she wants to deal with states the dwelling to be replaced shall be removed, demolished or converted to an allowable use within three months of the completion of the replacement dwelling.  She said the single family dwelling was finalized in 2007.  She noted three years later, the mobile home is still there and there are two occupied dwellings on the EFU property.  She stated the County broke the contract it had with them, when Howe signed the approval.   She said they have been in contact with the County about this since 2007.  She indicated that there is an easement that runs on their property and the renters of the mobile home they are using.  She said this was not the first time the County sided with these owners.  She noted the last time it involved an illegally placed dwelling.  She said the County took the applicant’s side.  She said they took the issue to the hearing’s official and she won.  She commented that the County has bent over backwards for one party to the detriment of another.  She stated they have been more than patient and they want the County to live up to its side of the bargain.




Stewart wanted the compliance officer to give an update on what is going on with the situation and why they have the testimony.


Fleenor asked for Matt Laird, Land Management to provide a briefing on the matter.








A. Approval of Minutes:

November 5, 2008, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

August 25, 2010, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

September 21, 2010, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.


B. Board of Commissioners


1) ORDER 10-10-6-1/In the Matter of Approving a Letter of Support for the Guiding Principles and Measureable Outcomes for the Suislaw Estuary Partnership.


C. Children and Families


1) ORDER 10-10-6-2/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Lane County Commission on Children and Families Advisory Board.


D. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 10-10-6-3/In the Matter of Appointing One Member and Re-appointing One Member to the Public Health Advisory Committee.


E. Management Services


1) ORDER 10-10-6-4/In the Matter of  Cancelling Contract with Big Green Events for Providing Food Services and Awarding a 3-Year Revenue ($18K) and Expense Contract for Food Services to Meygoo Inc. ($36K).


F. Public Safety


1) ORDER 10-10-6-5/In the Matter of Accepting a Department of Justice (DOJ) Award in the Amount of $500,000, Delegating Authority to the County Administrator  to Sign Grant Documents, and Appropriating $500,000 in Revenue and Expenditures in Special Revenue Fund 260, Public Safety.


2) ORDER 10-10-6-6/In the Matter of Accepting a Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Award in the Amount of $500,000, Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign Grant Documents, and Appropriating $500,000 in Revenue and Expenditures in Special Revenue Fund 260, Public Safety.


G. Public Works


1) ORDER 10-10-6-7/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for the Proposed Surrender of a Portion of Bolton Hill Road (County Road Numbers 405 & 1183) to the City of Veneta.


2) ORDER 10-10-6-8/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Pape’ Machinery, Inc., in the amount of $660,536, for the Purchase of two (2) new, Diesel-Powered Telescoping Boom Excavators, with no Trade-in, NJPA#031710-GRD.


3) ORDER 10-10-6-9/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Pape’ Machinery, Inc., in the amount of $534,993, for the Purchase of three (3) new, Diesel-Powered Loaders, with no Trade-in, Oregon State Contract #8635.


H. Youth Services      


1) ORDER 10-10-6-10/In the Matter of Appointing Six Members to the Juvenile Subcommittee of the Lane County Public Safety Coordinating Council.


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.


Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE:  4-0.




a. Announcements


Spartz said given the announcement he made yesterday, he is planning to put together notes to share with the Board and the Human Resources Director on what he thinks are good approaches to hiring the next administrator.


b. ORDER10-10-6-11/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract for a Strategic Investment Project to Arcimoto and Authorizing the County Adminstrator to Sign Project Contract.


Mike McKenzie-Bahr, Economic Development, explained that this is a request for a video lottery grant from Arcimoto in Eugene.  He reported that they are completing prototype number four.  He said prototype five will be made entirely in Oregon and it will be the one that will be sold.  He said they are making this funding contingent upon either the city making their funding or someone else  coming in with that amount.  He added that they have to have the full package for their funds to be there.  He noted the city’s report makes it contingent upon their coming in for the full amount.  He stated that they placed this as a high priority project early in the video lottery process.  He said there is funding in the strategic investment program.  He commented that this is the traditional use of the funds, to fund grants to businesses for job creation and expansion.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-10-6-11.


Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.




a. DISCUSSION/Amending Lane Code to Revise Standards for Home Occupations.


Matt Laird, Land Management, explained that this is a response to Board direction on August 25, 2010 regarding amendments to Lane Code to revise standards for Home Occupations.   He recalled in July, 2010, the Lane County Land Use Task Force was working on amending many sections of the code.  He said this was a section they worked on but they didn’t have time to finish up. They asked the Board to continue to look into this matter.  He said in August he was directed to meet with Steve Cornacchia and Bob Emmons.  He had the meeting on September 1.  He received ideas about code language.   He said they have draft code language.  (Copy in file).  He added at the August meeting the Board asked him to look into items regarding economic development and cost analysis of the notice.  He distributed a first draft.  (Copy in file).  He said it would create an entire new section in the code for home occupations.


Fleenor asked if there were second thoughts on this matter.


Laird responded that both of them were fine with the language.  He noted there were a few items where they were giving and taking.  He said the driving force from the task force was for looking to reduce impacts and conflicts between residential and commercial uses.  He noted the standards will be a stand alone section for Chapter 16 and will apply to all zones.  He indicated there will be a planning director review process, and approval would be valid for three years and there could be extensions for three years.  He added that some of the areas involve new on site automotive repair service, body work and painting of vehicles, boats and machinery.  He added that pest control businesses would be prohibited as home occupations.  He said it is retroactive to people who already have home occupation approvals for auto service but no further new ones would be allowed.


Fleenor asked if it would trigger a Measure 49 claim.


Laird indicated he would need to check with Legal Counsel for that answer.


Fleenor commented that was an area of concern.


With regard to automotive repair, Laird noted what would be exempt would be working on equipment for farm and forest practice.  He said that would be allowed.  He indicated there will not be a building floor area maximum size limitation to an external structure.  He said they would have a maximum size of 1,800 square feet and as the set back increased, the building could be increased up to 3,000 square feet.  He added those numbers are consistent with commercial and industrial zones.  He noted a policy issue includes the number of vehicle trips. He noted it is limited to five round trips per days for customer shipping and delivery.  He added the intent is not for employees.  With regard to hazardous material, they have to identify what hazardous materials will be used and to come up with a plan that identifies the type, quantity, how it is going to be stored and how it is going to be disposed of.  He said the new home standards have a home office.  He said they are trying to identify the line for someone who doesn’t need a permit. 


With regard to economic development, Laird thought it could increase the cost in the start up of certain home occupations.  He said the majority have to do a land use process for home occupations.


Stewart said as a representative of Rural Lane County, he thinks this could change a lot of things that could take place.  He said it could impact the river guides who operate out of their homes.  He asked if someone had a photography studio if they would be impacted.  He thought it could have an adverse effect on people trying to make money in today’s times.  He thought it was short sighted to remove all auto repair but it is prudent to say maybe they shouldn’t let someone repair 10 vehicles at one time.  He indicated the reporting of hazardous materials already takes place.  He noted the state already operates hazardous materials reporting and a legitimate business has to file their hazardous materials.  He commented that a lot of this already takes place.  He asked how employees were able to go out.  He said the problem currently is there are only two compliance officers for the whole County and a lot of issues take time to work through.  He commented that they are now adding three more pages of work. He asked how they were going to run compliance.  He said more thought needed to be put into this.  He was not opposed to finding ways to reduce impacts if there are impacts.  He said they are trying to encourage people to work from home and to be able to survive in these economic times. He thought with the new regulations that people wouldn’t be able to comply with them.


Fleenor thought having a public work session to make comments regarding the potential problems and restrictions or lack of opportunity would be in line with Stewart’s concerns.


Handy thought they should find an additional vehicle to piggy back on or decide to move it forward when it is ripe.


Laird said their next step would be to get the public information work session set up.


Stewart asked Keir Miller, Land Management, about the drinking water overlay zone.


Miller asked if the Board had questions about the notice that was sent out.


Stewart didn’t see anything in the notice about the drinking water overlay zone.  He asked if it intended to be noticed.


Miller responded that there were two separate notices that were mailed out.  He said one was specific to the drinking overlay zone and the other was specific to the floodplain regulations.  He noted that some of the regulations will impact some landowners.  He said some people got both notices.  He added that they were mailed on separate days.


Stewart was concerned about the way it went out.   He thought there should be more emphasis that Lane County was considering a code change that might affect people.


Miller said they wanted to take advantage of the economy of scale with the mailing and include other information.  He said it was expensive to send to all landowners in the floodplain.  He stated it was $5,000 for the one piece alone.   He said it was to share good information about flood hazards with the community.


Stewart said the information is great, but they should look at the prioritization of how the material is put together. 


Fleenor stated he received no phone calls or e-mails about this situation.


c. ORDER 10-6-16-9/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign Intergovernmental Agreements Between the Oregon Department of Transportation, the City of Coburg, and the County Regarding Access Management and Construction on Pearl Street, and Coburg Industrial Way.


Celia Barry, Public Works, said when the Board took action to approve the Capital Improvement Program without the $1.03 million match for the I-5 at Coburg project, they were also directed to come back with options regarding treatment of that match in the future.  She said they had additional discussions.  She indicated an option the Board wanted back was the cancellation of the match IGA.  She said as part of the discussion, the Board indicated they favoured Phase One of the project, but not Phase Two, all the improvements on the west side and none on the east side.  She wanted the Board to go forward with affirming the termination of the match IGA.  She said if that is true, no action is necessary on the Board order included in the packet.  She added that the Board order is only if the Board wants to reverse course and put the match back into the CIP. She said if the Board affirms they should go forward with termination of the match IGA, then they will seek direction on the other IGA’s to go forward on Phase One.  She indicated they would bring the board orders back on the Consent Calendar, strengthening the language to indicate that Phase Two is not part of the project they are approving them to go forward on.


Handy said the motion he will make will not include the match in the CIP


MOTION: to move to go forward with cancelling the Match IGA and to rewrite the Construction IGA and the Access Management IGA to reflect the language and direction in the MTIP and to have the remaining documents reflect that direction.


Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Sorenson stated he was in favor of the motion.  He said by taking action, they are expending the federal earmark that DeFazio and the congressional delegation obtained for the traffic safety improvements at this interchange on the west side, being consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan, amended by the MPO this past summer.  He added that this motion maintains the position that they established when they adopted the Public Works Capital  Improvement program that recognized the benefits are internal to the city of Coburg. He said there wasn’t the need for the $1 million of County funding.  He added if they developed on the east side it would lead to land use implications and that is not the purpose of what the improvements are for.


Clark recalled the County had executed the IGA.  He asked if it was directed by the Board or the County Administrator.


Barry indicated that the Match IGA was executed by the County Administrator upon approval by the Board.  She said they would move to terminate that as provided for in the IGA if the Board does not take action to approve this order. She said direction was provided when the CIP was approved on May 19 to remove the  match.  She said it was adequate in the board order.


Clark stated that Spartz has the authority to execute the IGA and to terminate it as necessary. He said the Board doesn’t need a board order today.


Stewart thanked staff for the incredible amount of work they have been doing and for getting the Board to the position they are at.  He didn’t support the motion because his overall concern is there are potentially unspoken consequences by removing a commitment they already made.  He said he knows the project would move forward and ODOT can get the project done.  He wondered where the backfilling of the money they committed to would come from and the implication of transportation projects.  He thought there were unintended consequences for backing out of a commitment they had previously made.  He was concerned about the message it sends.  He was supportive of the project but he was concerned about them not fulfilling their obligation.


Fleenor stated he would support the motion from the perspective that they are trying to ensure they have internal consistency  throughout the process.  He said it is good that Lane County is exhibiting adaptability and flexibility in the challenges they are facing during these economic times.  He thought a process that commits them regardless of circumstances is not in the better interest of the public.  He said they are trying to conserve $1 million of the citizens’ assets and that is a good thing.  He wanted to use that money to protect and preserve the County roads that will be degrading quickly as a result of the road fund disappearing.


Clark said without a board order or motion they can give staff direction to give to Spartz to deal with the existing IGA.  He added if the Board wants to do a motion, he wanted them to supplement what has been said with a delegation to the County Administrator to take steps to terminate the agreement.


Fleenor asked the maker of the motion if they would be willing to amend the motion to that extent.


Barry asked if it was necessary to have this order.  She indicated that they have an Order 10-5-12-1  the Board passed when they adopted the Capital Improvement Program, removing this project.  She asked for clarification on whether they need the extra time to get another order passed.


Clark thought they could go with just direction from the Board.   He said it is clear in terms of eliminating the match and terminating the IGA.  He said if the Board wants to go further to adopt an order, it makes sense to delegate again specific direction to terminate it. 


Handy was comfortable with direction as is.  He asked Spartz whether he feels clear about terminating the match based on the existing CIP.  He said they don’t want to see these on the Consent Calendar until  they have been able to do the administrative work.  He asked if that was imbedded in the direction he was hearing.


Spartz was clear with board direction.  He said there is no ambiguity.


Handy restated his motion:  to direct the County Administrator to terminate the Match IGA and upon completion of that task to work with staff to amend the Construction IGA and the Access Management IGA to be consistent with the project description as defined in the MTIP for the project to be west of the bridge at the Coburg I-5 Interchange.


Sorenson agreed to the restated motion.


VOTE: 3-1 (Stewart dissenting).


8. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


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


There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 10:45 a.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary