minhead.gif (11357 bytes)


December 1, 1999


Harris Hall Main Floor - following HACSA

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.


Sorenson noted at the Board’s Tuesday meeting, that item 7. c. was not adopted and the Public Hearing for that matter is set for 1:30 p.m. today.

Green (not present at yesterday’s meeting) asked Sorenson why this item was being heard today.

Sorenson stated the motion was made to continue the item to a Third Reading and Public Hearing, on 1:30 p.m. on March 15, 2000, and the Board declined to do that because the Public Hearing had already been scheduled and noticed for today at 1:30 p.m.

Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, stated there was a public meeting notice provided yesterday morning to the press to alert people that the meeting would occur. He added, with regard to legal notice, that he wasn’t sure of the contacts that planning staff were able to make after the Board’s meeting yesterday morning. He said Land Management was going to try to contact people on their mailing list by phone to alert them that the hearing would be held, since a notice had been sent out earlier, with a Third Reading and Public Hearing on the March date. He added they had sent notice indicating that the hearing would not be held today, but would be in March.

Dwyer stated the Board had set the matter for today as Land Management unilaterally changed the meeting without the Board’s approval.

Morrison noted she moved to go ahead and allow the extension on the hearing for the applicant. She asked if there was a 20 day requirement to post on the property prior to the hearing.

Vorhes responded that they post, publish and mail notice of hearings, and that was done before the Board’s first reading and setting second reading. He said the notice was given and when the applicant requested an extension, Land Management, stating the hearing would be postponed, sent out another notice. He added they had been trying to contact people to let them know that the hearing will be held.

Green stated he disagreed with his colleagues. He said they had this agenda for a week and if there was concern about this item, there were many opportunities to raise them prior to the meeting.


Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren, Eugene, stated he works for the Social Security Administration. He stated that insurance for domestic partners who are heterosexual is referred to as "shack up insurance." He noted that operating the Forest Work Camp is $600,000 and that it costs the same for "shack up insurance." He said the public is not being served by the policy.

Cherie Goodwin, 40069 Log Creek Road, Marcola, stated she cannot sell her house because she lives next to a motocross track. She stated she wanted to get together with the commissioners to discuss this problem. She added she is upset over the circumstances and wants the Board to remedy the situation. She said she is worried about the guns that her neighbors have, as it is a time bomb.


Weeldreyer suggested that the Board direct staff and legal counsel to put language into the easement agreement to have an opportunity to renegotiate access to dark fiber to connect the public fiber in Eugene with the public fiber in Coburg. She noted the easement laws that had been used in getting fiber from the long haul providers are different than the agreement over private property. She said what was being asked for far exceeded the value of the easement in the park. She added she wasn’t aware at last week’s meeting that U.S. West had already built the line from Coburg to Chad drive except for the piece that connects through Armitage Park. She stated the public/private win-win benefit would be hard to achieve at this time. She recommended to move ahead with the offer that is on the table, they will pay Lane County $2,915 for the easement (that is about 583 feet) and they will engineer it in such a way that there would be an access point for video conferencing. She recommended that the Board approve the order as it was presented last week.

Vorhes stated it became clear when talking with the lawyers for U.S. West that they don’t see any regulatory prohibition to giving Lane County dark fiber and the strands that would make it possible to light it, but it is an economic decision that would cost them more than what they think the easement is worth.

Green asked if Weeldreyer was rescinding the order.

Vorhes stated the condition should be removed that would precede the signing of the easement because the order itself did not have language in it, the order approved the easement for the consideration which was for $2,915, with the understanding that there would be the provision. He suggested to make a motion that would remove that condition to clear the record to move forward with the easement document to get signed. Steve noted that it was not in the Board Order, but in the motion to approve the Board Order.

Weeldreyer reiterated that the Board signed the order, but the Board needs to sign the agreement itself and she asked to rescind direction to put language in the easement.

Vorhes reported the order had been done, the easement had been authorized, but there was a condition to signing the easement to have in it before it was signed. He said the action should be to remove the condition and the requirement that it be in the easement before it is signed.

MOTION: to remove the condition and direction that it is in the easement before it is signed as it relates to U.S. West.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Weeldreyer announced that this weekend there will be bridge lighting ceremonies in East Lane County: on Saturday, Westfir’s Covered Bridge and on Sunday, the Goodpasture Bridge.

Dwyer stated he is working with the community to on an acceptable alternative to the Wessinger Boat Landing.

Sorenson reported that today is World AIDS Day and there is a display in the Public Service Building. He added that last night the Solar Energy Forum was well attended. He reported that the Market Task Force is meeting on December 9 at the new LCOG office to discuss the park blocks, the farmers market and the Saturday Market.

Green said that with regard to the Future Agenda, some commissioners had items on it and he wanted direction from the Board, as some items have been resolved and some have not.

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660



a.  Announcements



a.  FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1132 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised "Transportation Element" and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause.

Tom Stinchfield reported the primary goal today is to discuss the process issues in Attachment 1. He added that the Metropolitan Planning Committee is scheduled to meet next week on December 9 to discuss this. He noted that all four adopting agencies will have had one work session to discuss the process issues about using the adopting official’s review procedure that is a plan amendment-type process, or to have a more lengthy process as suggested by the Friends of Eugene. He reported that LTD and the City of Eugene have discussed this. He noted that the City of Springfield will be discussing the matter on December 6. He stated a related issue at the City of Eugene is the status of the public record. He said the Eugene City Council wants to reopen the public record and keep it open until next March, while the plan and modifications are being discussed. He asked if there were particular issues the Board wanted staff to work on so decisions could be made.

Jan Childs, City of Eugene, reported that the discussion the Eugene City Council had included the process that staff will be using to develop responses to the elected official’s questions as well as the public testimony. She said they told the council that in addition to providing technical answers to technical questions, they would look at the testimony and where it seemed appropriate, provide options for the elected officials about various ways they could address the public testimony. She noted the Eugene City Council did opt to follow the adopting official’s process, with the change of allowing a reopening of the record so people could comment on the staff responses to the questions and testimony and any options that would be provided for consideration. She said they used March, 2000 with the expectation that the responses would have been provided by then and the adopting officials would have had an opportunity to schedule at least one additional work session by March. She said they understood it would mean reopening the public record because all four groups closed the public hearing and for the record to be reopened, all four groups would need to agree to do that.

Vorhes stated it was an option, and from the Board’s perspective, there is no legal requirement to reopening the record. He said legally it would require renotification of the opportunity for a public hearing. He said it doesn’t require holding another public hearing.

Green asked if the City Council discussed the Friends of Eugene six month process.

Childs responded the council discussed both the Friends of Eugene proposal and the adopting official’s proposal. She noted they opted for the adopting official’s proposal with the addition of reopening the public record.

Stinchfield noted the memo recommends continuing the item, and he recommended moving the date to February 8, 2000.

Stinchfield mentioned that staff is working on the responses to the elected officials’ questions that were on the questionnaires at the two hearings and the responses will be available within two weeks. He added that the staff will be working on formal responses to the testimony and options that might present themselves to respond to testimony, available in January.

Tom Schwetz, Lane Council of Governments, said the objective to have the work sessions is to focus on the MPC meeting next week.

Sorenson suggested segmenting the discussion on specific topics. He said that as a group of adopting bodies, they appoint a group of citizens who would take the staff work that had been done, comment on it, and then bring it back to the elected officials. He also suggested that the four groups ask staff from the various jurisdictions to continue working on this, to summarize the public comment, hold work sessions with the Board, and the staff would continue to do what they had been doing. He noted, to resolve any intergovernmental disputes within the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area, there is a method already in place, by LCOG. He said LCOG provides the staff assistance to the Metropolitan Policy Committee and each jurisdiction accepts LCOG and has them do it. He suggested to maximize the public participation concerns and minimize the staff time and costs associated with doing this. He said he wasn’t for the MPC process. He recommended having the city councils, LTD Board and Lane County set up meetings every few months with staff bringing the summary of the public concerns back and any responses to key issues.

Green stated that the MPC is a public body, a representation from all jurisdictions that triggers public meetings. He said there is public comment where citizens do come. He differed with Sorenson’s point on inadequate leadership. Green said sometime they are not forthcoming with information, which might lead to staff frustration. He added the MPC is efficient in what they do, they only need direction. He said there was nothing wrong with Sorenson’s proposal, but the Board may not endorse it. He noted that David Kelly brought the same proposal to the City of Eugene for additional or joint work sessions and they did not support it.

Childs reported the proposal that the Eugene City Council endorsed calls for joint work sessions beginning later in the Spring after individual work sessions, to identify key issues and themes for each of the bodies. She noted that the Eugene City Council is supporting the proposal that at some point there would be a joint work session to bring everyone together and having a common discussion.

Morrison stated the MPC process does have representation from Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and LTD, as they are public meetings.

Green suggested going to MPC with the Board’s position, not a myriad of issues. He said that could lead to a joint work session.

Weeldreyer stated the MPC process could work if they had a better communication among each other so when the representatives of MPC go forward, there is an opportunity for people to have been heard and recognized and are carried forward by the Lane County representatives on MPC.

Dwyer said it is an important issue to plan Lane County’s future and he is in no hurry to do it. He said the Friends of Eugene proposal has merit and he would be willing to work with the council. He said he wouldn’t favor the MPC being the deciding body. He noted that the public hadn’t been involved in the process at MPC. He added there needs to be direct citizen involvement.

Schwetz said the overall process is to get in a position to adopt the plan. He noted that the MPC offers an opportunity for the four bodies to coordinate. He added the process doesn’t rule out joint work sessions. He noted the adopting official’s review process is flexible enough to provide as much process as the Board wants to have.

Weeldreyer stated she was not advocating that the MPC make the final decision but to find a process to have participation and move toward how this will be implemented.

MOTION: to join the LTD Board, the Eugene City Council and favor adopting the official’s review proposal for process and support leaving the public record open so citizens can have an opportunity to weigh in to adopting TransPlan in the year 2000.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Sorenson asked if Weeldreyer’s motion suggested having a joint work session in March 2000, to provide direction to staff on the revisions to the 1999 Draft TransPlan.

Weeldreyer responded that was her understanding of what the other bodies had done.

Schwetz noted that one item they were going to ask MPC to weigh in on was confirming that there would be a joint work session in March or April.

Regarding the motion, Morrison said she didn’t have a problem with the first part as far as adopting the official’s review proposal but has a problem with leaving the record open. She noted the people who had participated in the last six years had weighed in and their questions were supposed to be answered by staff. She said she hoped those responses would also be shared with the other bodies involved in the process.

Dwyer stated he had no objection to the public record.

Rob Zacko, Friends of Eugene, 1280 "B", East 20th Avenue, Eugene, stated the Board wants the public’s support when they make difficult decisions and the public is offering to make those decisions. He said the proposal on the table now is not viable from a financial point of view. He added the public needs to be involved in new taxes.

Sorenson said there had been a lot of staff work on this. He added there had been little opportunity for the public to comment but having involvement of the business community and the public to help make a better product is something that should be embraced. He said he will vote for this because of the public involvement portion and the joint work session.

Vorhes noted that there hadn’t been any definite time set. He said the council just talked in terms of reopening the record and setting a time for closing the record again. He added the record was closed on October 29.

Childs reported that the hope on the part of the Eugene City Council was that all four of the adopting officials would agree to reopen the record by the end of December, so it could be reopened in January. She added the idea of the closing date in March was to give people an opportunity to review the staff responses and options.

Green asked Greg Mott, City of Springfield, how his council would handle the anticipation of their discussion on December 6.

Mott responded they will have a discussion similar to the Board’s because good points had been raised. He said there will be an influence from the City of Eugene and the Lane County Board and he will suggest that this is what they should follow. He opined they would go along with it.

VOTE: 4-1 (Morrison dissenting.)

Stinchfield said the ordinance should be continued to January 25, and if not then, to move it into February.

In terms of the MPC involvement, Vorhes noted it is an opportunity for all of the jurisdiction representatives to discuss the outcomes of their respective work sessions on the process. He added if all bodies decide to reopen the record, additional comments should be provided at whatever time is appropriate for the people providing comments. He said the January 25 meeting will be the scheduled next deliberation. He added if the materials are not ready for a meaningful work session with the Board at that time, staff will be recommending that the Board read and roll the deliberation to another date and time certain on January 25.

Green stated that he was not in favor of the transportation utility fee.

Sorenson said that TransPlan relies heavily on gas tax revenue as a revenue source. He said there has been a disagreement in Oregon about the level of gas tax and what gas tax should be used for. He said he believes the projections for gas tax revenue in TransPlan are greater than are warranted by the recent history and reasonable projection of what the voters will do next year. He added the revenue numbers are too high on gas tax. He added in the public comment and hearing there was some commentary about the transportation utility fee. He said there is not support for the transportation utility fee. He noted that the transportation utility fee should be taken out.

Morrison stated there needs to be a starting point and as laws change, there will be different direction from the federal and state government on these issues. She said Lane County will adapt as the changes take place.

Weeldreyer stated the need for a gas tax increase is an issue to carry forward at the state and federal level. She said for road improvements, efforts need to be continued. She said she supports going forward with that strategy. She added with regard to the transportation and utility fee, she didn’t think there was a political will amongst the bodies to ask for the fee at this time. She stated she was for a regional transportation tax that would be broader and not as regressive as a property tax.

Dwyer commented that it was critical to involve citizens in this process as they would be helpful to identify how things would be paid for. He suggested a work session with the public to hear their comments about funding mechanisms of the plan.

Green noted that it is a plan, a guiding document. He said he wanted to discuss the true costs of the project and was hesitant about a proposal for funding. He added he wants to hear from the citizens as to what they are willing to embrace.

Stinchfield stated that for the Beltline I-5, ODOT had done a series of preliminary cost estimates so that the number in the plan is consistent with the proposals that are on the table. He noted there are three or four alternatives, ranging from $30 to $50 million. He commented that the way the plan was developed, modeling was used to determine what they thought the unconstrained needs were and what improvements would be needed to maintain service levels and improve collector streets without regard to the amount of revenue available. He added there needs to be a discussion with ODOT and DLCD to change things. He noted that the way the TransPlan is structured now, it doesn’t assume that the County would impose a TUF or would be a recipient of the revenue, but a recommendation for the way the two cities could address their maintenance shortfalls.

Morrison stated the real intent of this is to maintain what the County currently has and if they could add the new projects (and there is funding available) that will happen, but the maintenance of the current system is the priority.

Stinchfield mentioned a maintenance problem in the plan and there are two strategies: a TUF as a revenue source and reduced maintenance service levels. He noted a good aspect of the TUF is that it is flexible and could be related to anything dealing with transportation.

Sorenson said the bus rapid transit project would be funded through the federal government out of dollars that flow out of Lane Transit District. He noted that revenue received for that purpose should be used for that purpose. He stated decreased maintenance could be viewed as income and in his view, the TransPlan as presented to the public was an assumption that the public would rather give up maintenance in favor of construction.

Jim Carlson, City of Eugene, stated that the TUF was identified as a revenue source. He said for Eugene and Springfield, the assumptions in the plan are that every new construction project will be 100% funded by assessments and SDC’s. He added the assumption for the two cities is that every flexible dollar goes to operation, maintenance and preservation. He noted assessment and SDC dollars could not be used to pay for maintenance, so there is no trade-off between new construction in the city and operation maintenance and preservation. He said there is enough money for the County to do all the operation, maintenance and preservation identified in the plan for some capital projects.

Sorenson commented that his answer is no for building anything outside of the Eugene/Springfield urban growth boundary. He said he wanted to include the BRT in TransPlan but wanted to take into consideration community concerns about BRT. He stated there are a lot of scientific and economic projections about the cost of oil as a result of the decline in world-wide oil reserve discoveries. He noted the Valley River Bridge should not be included in the plan and there is not enough data to support the Division Bridge. He stated there is an open space allocation issue that needs to be a major commitment of TransPlan to protecting open space.

Morrison suggested a bicycle tax as maintenance of the current system is being discussed that is equitable. She said with regard to the bridge issue, there should be comments about somewhere to cross and with the way development is taking place, that a specific bridge should not be mentioned. She commented with the vehicle miles traveled, she has concerns that the issue is blown out of proportion. She asked the public to be honest with the documentation that is given.

Dwyer shared Sorenson’s concerns. He said that open space is critical. He said he sees nodal development as commercializing areas for mixed use. He added if the bridges are not going to be built, he did not want them referenced.

Weeldreyer stated that with regard to the Valley River Bridge, she had heard enough to conclude that that location is not an appropriate one and she would not want to move forward with the bridge as it has been proposed. She added there is a need for another way to cross people over the Willamette River in the metro area. She noted that telecommunicating will present alternatives to creating income without having to drive from point to point. She said she wanted to see staff embrace VMT more aggressively as a way to address future projections for population that are related to employment and transportation. She commented the nodal development issue is a way of having nodal development references in TransPlan become positive items for the community.

Green stated he would like to see balance in the plan in budgeting. He said that he is opposed to the Valley River Bridge but would support language about a river crossing at a time to be determined. He wanted more emphasis on utilizing those kind of opportunities. He encouraged the Board to further develop their lists and pass them onto staff when they come back in January.

Stinchfield noted that a lot of things that were mentioned have been written down in the questions that had been submitted, so some of the work is already taking place.

Weeldreyer added on the Division Street Bridge there would be impact on the Delta Sands aggregate operations. She said they need to rethink that issue.

Green suggested minimizing the impact to the businesses.


A.  Approval of Minutes:

November 2, 1999, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.

November 10, 1999, Joint BCC/LCC Meeting, 5:00 p.m.

B.  County Counsel

1)  ORDER 99-12-1-1 Opting Out of Attorney General Model Public Contract Rules and Establishing/Reaffirming Lane Manual Chapters 20 and 21 as Lane County's Rules.

C.  Health and Human Services

1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 99-12-1-2 Appropriating an Additional $103,037 in Revenues and Expenditures in Fund 286 in the Department of Health and Human Services (34) for Services to Individuals With Mental/Emotional Disturbances (IGA 20-001, RGA 13 & 15).

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.



There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting into the Public Hearing at 12:00 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices

Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 11/03/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.