minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

September 24, 1997
Harris Hall Main Floor - 9:00 a.m.

Chair Cindy Weeldreyer presided with Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr. and Peter Sorenson present. Tarra Withers, Recording Secretary.

Items 6.a., 6.b., 7.a., 7.b., 7.c., 8., 9.a., 9.b., 10., 11., 12., 13. and 14. were actually heard during the afternoon session, but are reported here in order for ease of location.






Dumdi announced that the visit with the German delegation from St. Wendel was brief but very successful. She noted that they participated in the Eugene Celebration parade as the County’s sister county. Dumdi remarked that she would like to see a delegation from Lane County go to Germany next year.

Van Vactor stated that this would require significant coordination and suggested a detailed report to the Board.

Dumdi reported on the Mapleton water district system upgrade. She distributed a memo from Peter Thurston (see material on file).

Sorenson discussed the St. Wendel visit. He stressed that he thinks it is very important that Lane County reciprocate by visiting Germany. He said the Eugene Celebration was a great event this year and noted that he handed out comment cards during the parade asking that citizens "tell me what you want me to know." Sorenson remarked that he visited with the Department of Environment Quality regarding Lane County’s solid waste and recycling issues.

Cornacchia discussed the statewide rodeo for Public Works, noting that Lane County was very successful and took first and second in four of the five categories. He recognized Ken Skinner, Darrell Randall, John Hubbard, Steve Kirkpatrick, Damon Walker, Jerry Hibler and John Bourland. Cornacchia stated these successes are in direct relation to the services Lane County provides, noting that these people are very accomplished at what they do. He stressed the need to recognize the Public Works’ department and would like to prepare a letter on behalf of the Board.

There was agreement that Cornacchia would prepare a letter for all five commissioner signatures.

Weeldreyer discussed the St. Wendel visit and thanked the host families. She stated that she is sending Certificates of Appreciation to these families.


a. PRESENTATION/Approval of Pacific Coast Scenic Highway (101) to Seek National Scenic By-Way Designation.

Dumdi introduced Jeanne Lawson, Lawson Associates, and noted that she is the contractor working with ODOT on this project.

Lawson stated that this plan was designed to look at the scenic elements and qualities that make the corridor an outstanding experience for the visitor along the highway. She said there was consensus of the planning group and the coastal policy advisory committee that they did not want to be completely restricted by the federal guidelines because it is a state scenic by-way and would like a management plan that works for that. Lawson reviewed the plan (see material on file).

Green asked about financial commitment and how this plan would be implemented with dedicated resources.

Lawson said there is no financial commitment associated with this plan. She stated that the unique thing about this plan is that it is not the plan of just one agency. Lawson remarked that the commitment from the Board at this time would recognize that the plan is consistent with their expectations while understanding that there might not necessarily be available resources and that there has not been the public process necessary for some of the items. She explained that action taken today will set the project on track as far as seeking resources and going through the policy steps that are necessary for some of the implementation steps.

Dumdi reported that by proposing this as a national scenic by-way, this action will allow some federal monies to be available for the project.

Van Vactor voiced his concern regarding implementation of the planning documents. He stated that due to Oregon’s land use system, he is apprehensive about the implementation steps on page 53 which indicates that a Lane County planner can monitor zone change applications to prevent future development from occurring along the banks of Big Creek. He noted that this was the only specific reference made to a Lane County planner in the document. Van Vactor asked if this document has been referred to the Land Management Division. He explained that the Big Creek case went to the Oregon Supreme Court and there is an approved exception to the statewide goals and approval of a designation resort at that site. Van Vactor asked if the landowner at Big Creek was informed of this plan.

Cornacchia also expressed his discomfort with this issue and stated that he would like to see that the plan is edited to remove personal agendas and to insure that it will serve as a collaborative planning document.

Sorenson stated that he is interested in having the government play a role in the advocacy of and protection of scenic points. He noted that he would like to move ahead with this plan.

Dumdi distributed a memo she received from the Port of Siuslaw expressing their concern that private landowners were not included in the development of this plan.

Van Vactor recommended that this be referred to Land Management Division and the Planning Commissions prior to adoption.

Lawson stated that the West Lane Planning Commission has reviewed this and felt it was ready to come to the Board. Lawson said that it was her hope that each jurisdiction would take an action agreeing with the intent of this plan. Lawson distributed policy statements insuring that communities were protected from federal jurisdiction. She remarked that if there are other changes, any community can withdraw from the scenic plan and the federal government can withdraw any federal funds committed.

Dumdi suggested that this be brought back to the Board after it has been presented to John Cole, Land Management Director, and the Lane County planning commission.

Lawson stated that she will work with Land Management Division.

b. REPORT/Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County, Oregon (C-VALCO) FY97 Annual Report.

Kari Westlund referred to the annual report (see material on file). She highlighted several areas, specifically noting that the occupancy rate is increasing overall in the state, overall inquiries are doing well and are ahead of last year and conversion rates are strong at 22%. Westlund remarked that while the convention sales effort was not losing ground, it was not making the significant gains she would like to see. She said they are making more personal presentations and becoming more aggressive in their efforts to bring in more groups. Westlund noted that many groups have either grown too large for them to accommodate or found air travel into Eugene difficult. She commented that the Visitors’ Guide is helping to convert visitors and would like to get more money into advertising and promotion, noting that this has been a busy year in media relations. Westlund highlighted an error on page 11, stating that inquiries have increased by 4% not 43%. She indicated that the Website is pulling in a good response.

Westlund also discussed membership changes and distributed material regarding the same (see material on file).

Responding to Green’s recognition of C-VALCO’s involvement in the internship program, Westlund remarked that they have three to four students from the University working at C-VALCO and provide outstanding service.

Sorenson asked about bicycle tourism. Westlund replied that is coming on strong and is responding more readily than others as far as marketing.

This meeting recessed at 11:08 a.m. to reconvene at 11:20 a.m.

c. REPORT/Eugene Growth Management Study Briefing.

Scott Meisner gave an overview of the history of this study. He stated that the Planning Commission was directed to update the 1978 development study. Meisner remarked that the Planning Commission decided to retain and uphold the vision and policies of the existing metro plan. He stated that adoption and implementation of this growth management study does not require a metro plan amendment or revision. Meisner said there was clear direction by approval of the city council that a primary focus of the process of the study would include significant citizen involvement throughout the process. He stated that they began with an analysis of the legal framework under Oregon law on planning and growth management as well as analysis of other cities’ experiences with growth management and successes and failures. Meisner said the first step was to work with the community to identify the issues that should be studied and then passed on to the Planning Commission to take and refine the issues for development of options and alterative solutions. Meisner explained that the Planning Commission then developed a final set of policy recommendations to forward to the council before the public hearing in July. He stated that the plan has been discussed in broad terms and individual councillors are meeting with staff to talk about areas of concerns.

Jim Croteau, Eugene Planning and Development, gave a brief presentation on the overhead. He reiterated the emphasis on citizen involvement at all steps of the process. Croteau stated that they developed a series of growth management policies for Eugene that do not require approval of their metro partners. He stated that they published monthly newsletters to more than 2,000 individuals, keeping them apprized of what meetings were coming up and the topics, along with a hotline and web page. Croteau remarked that they had a speaker series with speakers coming from other communities to talk about growth management. Croteau emphasized that they have a good understanding of what community wants because they let the community set the agenda.

Art Farley, Planning Commission Chair, stated that their primary goal was to give the citizens of Eugene an opportunity to learn about the value and impacts of growth and change in the community and an opportunity to talk about the future of their city with each other as well as to gain public input. Farley reviewed the four scenarios given to citizens ( see material on file). He noted that the first choice was Scenario D- Recycle Eugene, with the Scenario B- Discourage Growth as the second choice. Farley explained that these choices clearly indicated a desire to maintain an urban growth boundary and to accommodate growth within the existing city boundaries. He remarked that the following actions were given a 75% or higher rating in importance: to maintain the existing urban growth boundary; to encourage no new development; to make alternative transportation work more effectively within the city; and to require new development to pay full costs associated with that development. Farley stated that they took the Recycle Eugene scenario and broke it down into eight areas to come up with 19 policies that they felt reflected both the actions that were strongly supported as well as the key elements of that scenario.

Cornacchia commented that he hopes there is an effort to be clear with the public that, even though they are requiring that new development pay more for public services as a policy, in fact, the public will be paying for the new development not the developer. He discussed the impacts of residential development on existing county roads. Cornacchia stated that the Board has to accept improvement districts which result in assessment to people living in rural areas who have no interest in developing their property. He asked that the City either reassess this policy or collect this money from someone else. Cornacchia stressed that the Board cannot continue to ask constituents to carry the burden of the city of Eugene’s growth scenarios. He stated that he hopes this issue can be dealt with outside of this Metro Plan.

Meisner said there is a recognition that regardless what they do, they need to mitigate the costs and make a more efficient process.

Weeldreyer echoed Cornacchia’s comment regarding the impact on rural citizens.

Sorenson commented on citizen response and the survey results. He said that he was encouraged by the public response and does not want to see this lost due to process. Sorenson stated that he would offer whatever help he could provide to see that this goes through.

d. DISCUSSION/Lane County Government Participation in Youth Summit on October 10, 1997.

Green stated that although Lane County has supported the efforts to secure a facility for this summit, he would like to see support go a step further by encouraging employees to participate in this summit. He referred to his memo, stating that Lane County’s Mission and Goals are very consistent with the platform of the summit under the five fundamental resources. Green distributed an additional memorandum illustrating ways that management and employees could participate. He stated that mentorship is one important way departments can participate as well as to create more opportunities for internships. Green suggesting that flex time be allowed for employees to engage in citizen service and serving as a positive role model for youth in the community. Green noted that many of Lane County employees are already doing this and said this summit is about requesting and encouraging commitments beyond this. He referred to the book, 101 Things You Can Do For Our Children’s Future. Green requested that the Board encourage and give direction to department managers to allow flexibility in how they want to participate.

Cornacchia said that this is a community effort relative to governments and agencies. He questioned why Lane County employees should need to be asked to participate, stating that he believes this is part of their role and responsibility as one of the local governments in our community. Cornacchia commented that it is his expectation that managers should see this as part of their job.

Sorenson recognized Green’s effort and noted the many problems with youth in our County, such as the rising HIV rate and high teenage smoking rate.

Cornacchia remarked that there are a lot of other kids who are doing well in this community and recognized the activities and exhibits of productive youth that are not getting attention. He stated that he does not want to see these kids forgotten.

Green also stressed that it is important to recognize the successes of kids today, noting that these kids are not just coping but they are excelling.

Green recognized Pat Rogers, Director, Children and Families, for all her work in the summit, noting that she has put the nuts and bolts as well as common sense into this summit.

5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660



a. Announcements


b. ORDER 97-9-24-1/In the Matter of Approving Intergovernmental Agreements With the City of Lowell and the City of Westfir to Administer CDBG Grant Processes; and Increase Revenues and Expenses by $16,500 in Fund 24, County Administration.

Thurston gave an overview of this item (see material on file).

MOTION: Approval of the Order.

Cornacchia MOVED with a change to $12,000 of Revenues and Expenses rather that the $16,500. Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORDER 97-9-24-2/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official's Remand Decision Approving an Application for Rezoning Property from RR-5 to RR-2 (file PA 1268-95/Stapleton).

Michael Copely, Land Management Division, presented history of Order 97-9-24-2 (see material on file).

Peter asked for more clarification on the Board’s position to either affirm the findings of the Hearings Official or to further evaluate the issue by means of an on-the-record hearing.

Copely responded to Sorenson’s question with an outline to Lane Code 14.6000(3)(a)-(d) election to hear criterion.

MOTION: Approval. Green MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.

Cornacchia suggested adding option 3 from page four of the report into the motion.

Green MOVED with added phrase "not to hear arguments on the appeal, affirm the Hearings Official’s decision, and to expressly agree with his interpretation of applicable policies of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan and interpretations of Lane Code 16.003, 16.004, 16.212, 16.231 and 16.252 made by the Hearings Official in the decision being appealed."


Sorenson asked Legal Council Vorhes what legal issues would prevent the Board from choosing option 2 (to not hear arguments on the appeal and to remain silent on the Hearings Official’s decision and interpretations) rather than accept the recommendation of option 3.

Vorhes responded there are no legal issues, it is an option for the Board to accept any one of the three options.

City Administrator, Bill Van Vactor said from a practical point of view, if the case is subsequently appealed is less defendable if option 2 is selected rather than option 3.

Sorenson asked if there was any problems with the language of using "reoccurring" with the language of "frequency."

Vorhes explained that the findings from the criteria is that this appeal does not warrant the additional time and expense of setting a hearing date, hearing arguments from the parties, and deliberating on those arguments before reaching a decision on this appeal.

Vorhes added the Board’s status at this point is to review the appeal and make a decision on what to do with the appeal. He said the options are not to hear arguments and remain silent, or hear arguments and decide, or not hear arguments and decide the merits of the appeal.

Weeldreyer said there is a motion on the table.

VOTE: 4-1, Sorenson dissenting.

b. ORDER 97-9-24-3/In the Matter of Accepting the Director’s Report for Estimated Assessments for Bluebelle Way Affordable Housing Project (41st Place South).

MOTION: Approval of Order.

Cornacchia, MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

c. ORDER 97-9-24-4/In the Matter of Appointing Two Members to the Lane County Planning Commission.

MOTION: Approve Order appointing Marion Esty from Veneta and David Crowe from Elmira.

Cornacchia, MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


A. Approval of Minutes: None.

B. County Counsel

1) ORDER 97-9-24-5/In the Matter of Correcting Order No. 97-4-2-1H Regarding Designating the Use of $441,739 From Lane County Road Funds to Assist Affordable Housing Developments.

Green asked how the money that is to be pulled will work with the Housing Board’s direction when there is no identified project listed.

Teresa Wilson, Legal Council, noted it does not change the Housing Policy Board’s direction, what it does is correct the order number. Wilson stated the order that was adopted was listed as an Housing Authority Order when it should have been a Court of County Commissioner Order. Wilson said this order is to insure the record is clean with respect to how the road funds are managed.

Green expressed understanding and consent with Wilson’s clarification.

C. Health and Human Services

1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 97-9-24-6/In the Matter of Appropriating an Additional $126,723 in Revenue and Expenditures in Fund 86 for Individuals With Developmental Disabilities (PAAF #7 to the 1997-99 Intergovernmental Agreement 20-001).

2) ORDER 97-9-24-7/In the Matter of Awarding Community Corrections Contracts for $595,472 and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Contracts and Agreements.

3) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 97-9-24-8/In the Matter of Appropriating an Additional $51,635 in Revenues and Expenses in Fund 86 in the Department of Health and Human Services for Alcohol/Drug Services (PAAF 8, PAAF 9).

4) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 97-9-24-9/In the Matter of Appropriating an Additional $49,580 in Revenues and Expenses in Fund 86 for Health Programs in the Department of Health and Human Services (OHD #2).

D. Public Works

1) ORDER 97-9-24-10/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed Surrender of a Portion of County Road Number 209, Game Farm Road, and a Portion of County Road Number 90, Deadmond Ferry Road, to the City of Springfield (Public Hearing: October 29, 1997, 1:30 p.m., Harris Hall Main Floor).

MOTION: Approval of Consent Calendar.

Dumdi MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 97-9-24-11/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Grant Application for Submission to the Oregon Health Division for the Tobacco Prevention Program in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.

MOTION: Approval of Order.

Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

b. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 97-9-24-12/In the Matter of Appointing Two Members to Fill Two Vacancies to the Mental Health Advisory Committee.

MOTION: Approval of Order Appointing Randy McClairan and Donald Lache.

Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORDER 97-9-24-13/In the Matter of Establishing the Classification and Salary Range for Sheriff’s Office Volunteer Coordinator.

MOTION: Approval of the Order.

Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORDER 97-9-24-14/In the Matter of Amending the Classification and Salary Range for Civil Support Operations Supervisor in the Sheriff’s Office.

MOTION: Approval of the Order.

Cornacchia MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

12. RIS

a. ORDER 97-9-24-15/In the Matter of Approving a Change to Senior Programmer and Systems Analyst Position #3274-0 From 1.0 FTE to .75 FTE and a Change to Programmer Analyst 2 Position #3214-0 From .5 FTE to 1.0 FTE.

MOTION: Approval of the Order.

Cornacchia MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.


The Board approved the draft letter which will go to the Heceta Water District with the provision of language in regards to the fee on water usage.



There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.


Tarra Withers, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices