APPROVED 1/23/96

November 8, 1995
Harris Hall Main Floor - 9:00 a.m.

 Chair Ellie Dumdi presided with Steve Cornacchia, Bobby Green, Sr., Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary.






To be held at approximately 10:40 a.m.

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

Time certain scheduled at 2:00 p.m.


a. Announcements

Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, indicated that the Board may want to revisit the process regarding appointments to the Regional Strategies Board sometime during today's meeting.

b. ORDER 95-11-8-1/In the Matter of Filling a Vacancy on the Rural Community Improvement Council.

Dumdi reviewed the agenda material (see material on file).

MOTION: Approval of the Order appointing Johnny Sundstrom. Rust MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

c. DISCUSSION/Assessment of the Westfir Mill Site With Regard to Environmental Contamination.

Peter Thurston reviewed the agenda memorandum and recommendation (see material on file) and noted that the mayor of Westfir is here today. Responding to Cornacchia's request for information on funding alternatives, Jeff Turk, Property Management Officer, explained how the foreclosed property fund works. Cornacchia asked that Turk provide the Board with copies of the last six 6-month reports regarding the foreclosed property fund. Thurston was asked to explore the potential for lottery funding and Initiative/OEDD funding. Referring to the project alternatives on page 2 of Attachment A of the agenda memorandum, Cornacchia expressed concern regarding the likelihood of residential development. Turk commented that there is some feeling that the site isn't as bad as it has been made out to be and will only require minimal clean-up work. He noted that the area is an attractive piece of property. Turk stated that potential purchasers have expressed an interest in making part of it residential, next to the river, and then some mix of commercial. Cornacchia observed the same concerns with regard to the industrial center, stressing that there is a need to be certain that public resources invested are going to have return back to the public. He offered doubt about the viability of marketing the site until it is cleaned. Cornacchia observed that assessment and cleanup costs approach $.25 million. He emphasized that he wants to see a full discussion/analysis of the investment of public funds.

Rust agreed with Cornacchia that the property should not be dismembered, noting that the pieces belong together to provide leverage to get the whole site cleaned up. He indicated that there is some real logic in using the foreclosed properties fund to perform the analysis. Rust expressed support for the staff recommendation regarding evaluation.

Green observed that Westfir seems more interested in the private party approach. He offered support for Option 2, commenting that it is consistent with the staff recommendation.

Cornacchia asked whether the step of assessing, in either scenario, commits Lane County to the cleanup thereafter. Thurston indicated that he would confirm that, but knows of nothing that would encumber the county. Teresa Wilson, County Counsel, observed that the risk would be that if a hazardous material is disturbed and the problem is aggravated, then clean up of the aggravated problem would be required.

Turk commented that another alternative is to sell the property at a heavily discounted price. Cornacchia and other Board members indicated their interested in all options, but especially what is advantageous to the taxing districts. There was consensus to support the staff recommendation for assessment.

MOTION: Adopt staff recommendations 1 and 2, plus the condition of getting answers to Cornacchia's questions above. Rust MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORDER 95-11-8-2/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Denying a Request to Allow a Dwelling Within an Impacted Forest Land Zone District (F2/RCP) on a Parcel Identified as Tax Lot 802 of Assessor's Map 19-04-05 (PA 4374-92, Norman Fogelstrom).


b. ORDER 95-11-8-3/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Denying a Request to Allow a Dwelling Within an Impacted Forest Land Zone District (F2/RCP) on a Parcel Identified as Tax Lot 800 of Assessor's Map 19-04-05 (PA 4375-92, Norman Fogelstrom).

Bill Sage reviewed the agenda memorandums (see material on file). He summarized that staff does not recommend hearing the matters as they do not meet criteria. Referring to a letter from Mike Farthing, dated November 7, Sage commented that if the Board decides to hear the matter(s), then it could be entered into the record. Rust asked whether remanding them back to the hearings official could settle some issues. Cornacchia stated that his assessment of the case is significantly different from that of Sage or the hearings official. He noted that there are two appeals that deal with two basic situations: 1) the status of a land sale contract in the legal lot requirement for any kind of dwelling. He indicated that if the Board doesn't hear the appeal, it would be making new policy, which would not be appropriate, accurate or legal; and 2) the other has to do with lot line adjustments, and there are similar lot line adjustments happening all over the county. Cornacchia commented that he sees both situations occurring down the road for other people.

Cornacchia suggested looking at each one separately, beginning with 6.b.

b. ORDER 95-11-8-3/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Denying a Request to Allow a Dwelling Within an Impacted Forest Land Zone District (F2/RCP) on a Parcel Identified as Tax Lot 800 of Assessor's Map 19-04-05 (PA 4375-92, Norman Fogelstrom).

Cornacchia observed that the hearings official takes the position that he can raise an issue and deny the appeal, but to deal with the issue is beyond his authority. He continued that the hearings official is saying that state law regarding the statutory treatment of deeds is not in existence and that when a person has an equitable interest in a piece of property, they cannot transfer anything other than that equitable interest and if they do and later acquire the title to the property, then that has no affect on the prior transaction. Cornacchia remarked that that is not the law in the state of Oregon, stating that the concept is called "after acquired title" which has taken "common law" principle and merged it into the treatment of deeds. He observed that ORS 93.850 provides that bargain and sale and warranty deeds shall pass any and all "after acquired title." Cornacchia commented that the hearings official is either disagreeing with that law or ignoring it. He indicated that another issue is whether or not a land sale contract entered into at a certain date creates a legal lot, as it did in 1970; noting that you have to take the property under the rules of the time of the transaction. Cornacchia remarked that in 1973, Lane Code was changed to require an extra step in the partitioning of any properties into less than three lots. He added that prior to 1973, you had to divide into four lots or more to get a partition. Cornacchia indicated that this issue should be heard, but since the appellant did not raise these issues and the hearings official did, then the hearings official should have the 10 minutes to describe his position on this case. Rust suggested that since Cornacchia has now raised these issues, then why not send it back to the hearings official and ask him to deal with it. The Board discussed the best process to deal with this matter, with Weeldreyer expressing concern about legal costs for the applicant.

MOTION: Elect to hear the appeal by remanding to the Hearings Official the application to deal with the issue of legal lot determination, the concept of "After Acquired Title" and the application of Lane Code at the time the land sale contract was entered into and whether or not that creates a legal lot. (Not part of the Motion: That remand would open that to both parties to argue in front of the Hearings Official on those issues; and implicit in the Motion would be that the subsequent appeal to this Board by the applicant would carry no extra fee. If the appellant wished to appeal that, they would have to pay a fee, because they haven't paid a fee yet.) Cornacchia MOVED. Weeldreyer SECONDED. Cornacchia added that implicit to the Motion is a requirement of a finding of countywide significance. VOTE: 5-0.

a. ORDER 95-11-8-2/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Denying a Request to Allow a Dwelling Within an Impacted Forest Land Zone District (F2/RCP) on a Parcel Identified as Tax Lot 802 of Assessor's Map 19-04-05 (PA 4374-92, Norman Fogelstrom).

Cornacchia commented that this issue also needs to be sent back to the hearings official as he made a determination that the lot is not a legal lot because what was cut out of it before was done without sanction from Lane County. Referring to the map on D-7, Cornacchia noted that the applicant had tax lot 802 and also had a legal lot that was 803 which is a combination of several lots. He indicated that what needs to be done is a hearing on what is the practice/policy over the years on what is a lot line adjustment and how that creates legal lots. Cornacchia commented that it appears that the hearings official is saying this is not a legal lot adjustment. He suggested that the sole issue for this remand is whether or not this is an appropriate lot line adjustment and does this create a legal lot at the time it was done. Cornacchia expressed his growing concern about the kinds of things the Board is getting from the present hearings official, stressing that the hearings official's job is to take current policies and apply them; and now issues not even brought by the appellant are being brought into the matters. He agreed that the legal lot determination is a part of this matter, but that the direction of the analysis was far off the scale of the parties' issues. Cornacchia suggested that there may be a need to have a discussion between the Board and LCOG regarding the expectations of the hearings official contract. He added that if this is remanded and the hearings official changes his opinion on these issues, he then needs to do the rest of the appeal that he cut off by taking this approach on the one issue.

MOTION: Based on a finding of countywide significance regarding lot line adjustments and their treatment by this County, that the Board would elect to hear the appeal, by remanding to the Hearings Official the issue of the lot line adjustment, its status, its legality and whether or not it is consistent with Lane County policy as exhibited through its planning process over the years does thereby constitute a legal lot. Cornacchia MOVED. Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, raised the concern of whether there is enough direction in terms of the Board's preference for how that is going to be handled from an evidentiary standard as well as from a legal argument standpoint. Rust expressed his hope that the issues and discussion raised this morning will be sufficient to give the staff and the hearings official some light. Rust SECONDED. Rust asked about timing for ex parte contact declaration. Vorhes observed that in terms of the ability to address, the Board can articulate the scope of the remand and whether it includes introducing additional evidence. In terms of direction to the hearings official, Vorhes noted that the hearings official is here, has heard the discussion and is capable of incorporating that into the record and provide the parties an opportunity to respond to that. With regard to ex parte, Vorhes commented that since this is not a hearing at this stage, then it is not required. Rust observed that the cover memorandum says procedure must be followed, including ex parte.

Cornacchia declared that he had talked with Mike Farthing, the applicants' attorney, during two or three phone calls, and had discussed the maps, but not the merits of the cases. Rust explained that his ex parte contact was with Cornacchia who told him about the above conversations.

Cornacchia asked if he could ask the applicant's attorney whether or not this remand provides the forum to have all of the information before the hearings official so he can render a decision. Vorhes noted that the risk of asking someone to speak on that is providing opportunity for others to address those comments. Responding to Rust, Sage indicated that the original appellant is here as well as Farthing. Farthing, attorney for the applicant, commented that he has no problem going back to the hearings official. The original appellant, Edward Tarjoto, stated that he wants to speak to his attorney before he makes a decision.

VOTE: 5-0. Vorhes indicated that staff would have revised Orders by the end of the day for the Chair's signature.


A. Approval of Minutes: None.

B. Children and Family Services

1) ORDER 95-11-8-4/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute the County Plan Amendment Allocating $339,225 to Lane CCF for FY 95/97 for Crisis Relief Nursery and Delegating Authority to Execute a Contract with Relief Nursery in the Amount of $309,000 for the Period 7/1/95 to 6/30/97 to Provide These Services.

C. Human Resources and Management Services

1) ORDER 95-11-8-5/In the Matter of Entering into a Purchase Option Agreement for the Sale of Surplus County-Owned Real Property With: A) Roger Middlebrook (Map #17-03-26-34-05800, Adjacent to 1256 5th Street, Springfield); and B) Clyde & Deanna Goins (Map #18-10-07-34-00100, Across From 87471 Tiernan Road, Florence) and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute Said Agreement.

D. Public Works

1) ORDER 95-11-8-6/In the Matter of Entering Into a Funds Exchange Agreement With Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for Reconstruction of Marcola Road From Sunderman Road to Camp Creek Road.

2) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 95-11-8-7/In the Matter of Acquiring Fee or Other Interests in Portions of Certain Real Properties for the Improvement of 6th Street South From Johnson Avenue to I-5 Interchange.

MOTION: Approval of the Consent Calendar. Green MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 4-1, Weeldryer dissenting.

This meeting recessed at 10:22 a.m. to reconvene at 10:38 a.m..


a. SCT Assessment.

David Suchart introduced this item. He commented that it is the Committee's expectation that any interested parties should submit comments in writing to the MIST Committee between now and November 14, as this matter is scheduled to report to the Board on November 21. Suchart distributed copies of the presentation document. Suchart introduced Mike Russell, Stan Earnest, Cathy Welsh and Tom Tierney from SCT. Russell focused attention on the questions on page 2 of presentation document. He remarked that more than 50 people were interviewed, including all Information Services (IS) people in the County. He summarized that there is no countywide technology policy, each department has an independent vision/direction, an overall strategy is missing, countywide coordination has been cumbersome and the county technology budget is appropriate, but greater productivity can be achieved.

Tierney reviewed the computer services organization chart and the hardware and applications chart. He also reviewed the strategic issues on pages 50 - 53 and the information services issues on pages 54 - 57.

Welsh reviewed the three Alternatives for Improvement: 1) Stay the Course, 2) Upgrade IS and 3) IS Privatization, noting their advantages/disadvantages. She reviewed the alternatives included on pages 67 - 72.

Responding to Rust's questions regarding wages and benefits, Welsh indicated that they will try to keep everybody whole. Rust asked where SCT gets their profit if staff/benefits stay neutral. Welsh indicated that they don't make any money for the first 4 or 5 years.

Green asked questions regarding surveys, confidentiality and employee learning curves. Welsh stated that employees are surveyed annually, employee confidentiality is maintained and technical employees will be trained over a 90-day period.

Responding to Van Vactor, Welsh indicated that there may need to be some capital investment. Tierney responded to Van Vactor's questions regard "year 2,000" issues, stating that they could deliver and solve those problems with no additional cost to Lane County.

Responding to Weeldreyer's question regarding change orders, Tierney provided an example of Tulare County which is on its 3rd change order since 1987. He reported that their longest standing county contract, one instituted in the 1970's, has just renewed for 7 years.

Cornacchia commented that the report was a comprehensive list of concepts. He observed that the real considerations revolve around what is the actual effect of the deficiencies highlighted in the document in terms of a) service levels, b) quality of service and c) cost. Cornacchia remarked that what is not included in the report is what is being done well. He stressed that two of the options include increased effort and that he cannot believe it will cost the same. He stated that he does not feel an urgency to choose an option and would rather have a feeling that the county has taken the outside appraisal and then taken the time to integrate/incorporate the expertise of employees regarding what is needed.

Suchart observed that staff would like to keep the process moving along and was working on a timeline to have something in place by July 1. Cornacchia observed that he hopes his questions will prompt employees to provide input to MIST. Weeldreyer noted that SCT does offer economies of scale with its ability to purchase equipment/software at a lower cost, but she commented that that opportunity also exists with the State of Oregon. She agreed on the need to keep options open and utilize the expertise of employees. Weeldreyer stressed that there needs to be ongoing commissioner involvement in the process.

Rust stated that he does think there is a sense of urgency around this issue as there is no central planning perspective and there are systems on the verge of being obsolete. He stressed the need for a central vision and planning system. Rust remarked that he would like a report back with a subset of options.

Green expressed concern about a lack of interdepartmental communication. He agreed on the need to utilize employee resources and suggested giving them "the first shot" at it to get "buy in." Green stated that the Board needs to make a commitment regarding county priorities.

Cornacchia observed the disparity of the assessment of the condition Lane County's system, even among the Board. Suchart indicated that staff would accept written comments until November 14 and then report back on November 21.



There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 12:01 p.m.


Sharon Giles, Board Secretary