minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

Approved 5/31/00

February 23, 2000


Harris Hall Main Floor  - 9:00 a.m.

Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.


Van Vactor noted that item 12. a. at 1:30 p.m. is just a deliberation and action, not a Public Hearing.



3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660



a. ORDER 00-2-23-1 Commending Andrew and Debra Hebdon.

Dwyer explained this was in recognition for the heroic efforts by members of the community on vacation in Australia.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-2-23-1.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.


a. REPORT Extension Service.

Bo Freeman, Extension Agent Staff Chair, reported that 28 people are on staff in different program areas. He commented on the FNET Program (adult and youth.) He added most of the money has come from the USDA and there is a new opportunity in the program due to the state freeing up money to hire more program assistants. He reported that there are 62 master food preserver volunteers working over 7,000 hours, answering 10,000 phone calls in a six month period on food preservation issues. He announced that the Youth Fair will be in July with 600 youth participating. He added there will be a 4H participant going to Washington, D.C. as part of the national 4H Congress. He said it is the first time in several years that someone will be attending from Oregon. He reported that they need to hire a forester and a multi-county livestock agent on a permanent basis. He added they will need to hire two additional nutrition assistants and that money would be coming from the state.

Freeman reported that there is a problem with poverty in Lane County as well as Oregon itself. He added that they will be working with the Census Bureau.

Freeman noted that their building has had leaks, and computers were destroyed because of the leaks. He said there are a lot of problems with rotten boards. He said it is in the preliminary stages, but they are looking at putting a group together where there can be one stop shopping for agriculture and tying the farmers market with it.

Green noted that the fairgrounds had asked to manage the property. He asked if they would manage after the improvements were made or if the extension service was to manage it.

Freeman stated it was his understanding that they will take the lead in getting the building built. He added the Extension Service will be doubling the size of the office space.

Green asked for continued follow-up on the renovations.

Freeman stated that Jeff Turk is also involved in discussions.

b. REPORT C-VALCO Web Site PowerPoint Mid-Year Report.

Kari Westlund, CVALCO, gave a presentation on their new Website. She brought an updated copy of their annual report (she found a mistake in the packet) and distributed another copy. She reported that they have $426 million in visitor spending as a preliminary number for 1999 (up from $408 million.) She added that payroll is up $6 million, but the estimated number of jobs didn’t move. She announced that room tax collections for the six month period from July through December, 1999, are up 5.41% in all jurisdictions. She added that occupancy is flat (.15% increase for the period) but there are no hotel rooms that go into that mix. She noted the weakest point the past six months was in convention sales with room nights booked.

Westlund said that public relations are the media work they do outside Lane County. She said they had a huge year and the report about the best cities on A & E Top 10 helped out. She added for the past year, they are over $1 million. She said it leads to an awareness of the county as a destination. She noted that public relations’ value is more significant than advertising because there is validity that the consumer lends to things that are editorial in nature as compared to purchased with advertising. She said the ad equivalency is what it would have cost if they had bought the space or time. She added community relations is the media work they do within the community.

Dwyer asked what caused the loss of return on the tax dollar.

Westlund responded it was convention room nights sold. She said they may be generating a larger return, but because they don’t know how to measure the electronic communication medium, they don’t claim any economic impact for that.

c. ORAL REPORT Fiber Optics Update.

Weeldreyer reported that with regard to fiber optics, the Lane Klamath and Fiber South met jointly on December 6 as a new intergovernmental organization to collectively own a dark fiber infrastructure. She added they will have the legal ability to contract in a competitive fashion the use of dark fiber to the private sector. She was elected as chair for the Fiber South group and Maureen Weathers was elected chair for the Lane Klamath group. She noted the group’s charge was to create executive committees and work with staff for request for proposal issues to businesses providing advanced telecom services to the region. She reported that this cost would be $25,000 for this fiscal year and Lane County’s portion would be $4,500. She thanked the Board for their support.

Morrison wanted to know how the budget of $25,000 would be spread among all partners.

Peter Thurston, Economic Development, responded that it is a preliminary estimate of a budget for a year with underestimated legal counsel expenses. He added that the $25,000 would include legal counsel. He said that some cash would be needed to generate revenue and staff time to continue the development process.

Weeldreyer noted that the formula was based on per-capita for the different entities. She will look for ways to meet Lane County’s obligation. She said she would get back to the Board when the regional boards take their action.

Green asked for a detailed budget.

Dwyer stated he was in support of this work.

Morrison stated she would like to see the budget highlighted for what has been spent in dollars for Peter Thurston’s time.


a. Announcements

Van Vactor announced that he and Commissioner Morrison would be going to Washington, D.C. for the United Front.

b. ORDER 00-2-23-2 Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute Amendments to County/City Road Partnership Agreements with Each City in Lane County for One Year Only.

John Goodson, Public Works, recommended approving the one-year extension at $2.5 million with negotiations to reach an agreement for next year. He wanted all the issues looked at, and meeting with individual cities to learn about their concerns and problems. He added there are advantages and disadvantages which should be taken into account when they negotiate the agreement for next year.

Green supported the recommendation. He asked the cities to submit letters of support that could be taken to Washington, D.C. for the United Front effort.

Morrison said that because most of the funds provided to some of the cities are going into staffing costs, there might not be many construction costs covered by County funds. She suggested tying the funds to actual projects.

Goodson responded there might be a provision in the charter that restricts funds used to offset assessments.

Weeldreyer emphasized need for local control of city officials to best determine how to stay within constitutional limits and maintain their local transportation system. She said she puts a high value on local control and would like to see the constitutional limitation on what the road fund dollars could be used for and to leave it up to the individual city officials to determine how best to maintain the transportation system within those cities.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-2-23-2.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

Dwyer stated he was willing to go one more year at the $2.5 million and then review what Lane County can get for the money and whether Lane County will be solvent with the gas tax.

Morrison was reluctant to support this. She said she will go ahead but there needs to be a true spirit of cooperation. She added they should start right away with next year’s monies so this won’t happen again.

Green requested that part of the motion include the accountability piece that Commissioner Morrison alluded to. He wanted the motion to state the Board wanted to send a general reminder about the use of the money and the letter of support to Senator Wyden.

Dwyer stated that he would include the requests from Commissioner Green in his motion.

VOTE: 5-0.


a. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 00-2-23-3 Establishing Financing Responsibilities for the Horse Creek Bridge Project and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute a Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRR) Agreement with ODOT.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported that Horse Creek Bridge is on a local access road (McKenzie Delta Road) that serves as the only access point for approximately 45 residences. He said the bridge is in need of repair and Lane County incurs no liability for failure to maintain local access roads or bridges on local access roads. He said the users bear the expense of road and bridge repairs on local access roads. He noted the bridge is in need of repair, and in 1998, the users came to the Board about sponsoring an application for highway bridge replacement money on the condition that the bridge was replaced to modern standards. Snowden added if that took place, the County would accept ownership of the bridge and the residents would pay for the match. He reported there would be 80% federal money, 10% state money and 10% local money. He said the agreement would be with Lane County. He noted that in January 2000, the report to the Board (after a preliminary investigation) from ODOT determined that the bridge was likely historic and instead of a full replacement, it would be rehabilitated.. He said the Board agreed to accept the bridge if there was federal money and no county money involved.

Snowden reported that ODOT has offered a local agency agreement that would begin the design process to replace the bridge. He noted the question before the Board is for direction that residents supply the local match. He added that none of the alternatives are easy to implement. He said there are four groups of people: full-time residents who live on privately owned property, summer residents (structures on privately owned property) private property that is undeveloped and leaseholders who lease property and own a dwelling on Forest Service land.

Snowden suggested that the owners provide a cashier’s check for $43,500 that would cover the estimated local match. He noted there was risk to the County because there is no final estimate of the bridge. He added it could run over the $435,000 estimate and the way the agreement is written with ODOT, the County would be potentially responsible for any excess over $435,000. He reported there are three different assessment alternatives, one being Forest Service land could not be assessed. He noted there would have to be an ordinance crafted to come back to the Board allowing assessment of improvements on land instead of real property. He added this is programmed for the 2001 project and because ODOT is having cash flow problems, they will change the match agreement in the future. He said if there is no agreement signed with ODOT by October 1, $87,000 instead of $43,500 would be needed as a match.

Larry Fairbarin, 55620 Drury Ave., McKenzie Bridge, reported he wasn’t on the original inspection. He said he didn’t bring this to the dwelling owners since they are scattered throughout the United States. He wanted something that is reasonable He added people will not be able to raise a substantial amount of money. He noted if of all of the homeowners participated, the match would be less than 10%. He thought it could be brought to a reasonable and sound conclusion.

Weeldreyer asked the Board if she could work with County staff and the Forest Service and property and leaseholders to explore these options between now and the end of March. She said Lane County could involve the leaseholders in other parts of the country on creating a homeowners association for the estimated cost of rehabbing the bridge. She wanted to work with staff to do this.

Green agreed with Weeldreyer having a conversation with staff and the residents. He didn’t want Lane County to be on the hook for anything more.

Snowden said he believed the Board wanted Lane County’s obligation to be zero. He added there is language in the agreement with ODOT that puts Lane County on the hook for certain things. He explained if the project is cancelled by Lane County’s decision or the residents’ decision, then the County would have to repay all local and federal money to that point. He added if the project runs over $435,000, Lane County might be responsible for payment over $435,000.

Weeldreyer reiterated Lane County’s obligation to facilitate this grant paid by state and federal dollars with Lane County maintaining the bridge over time. She said it was a big step that Lane County is taking and a strong selling point to the leaseholders and homeowners who have been struggling with this for over 15 years.

Snowden explained if each ownership were to pay an equal portion, it would be less than $1,000.

Dwyer said it is a good idea for Weeldreyer to visit the project. He wanted Lane County to be indemnified from the responsibilities.

Sorenson noted there was consensus to reschedule the matter, to return in a month.

b. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Proposed Goal 14 Rule by LCDC for Rural Residential Zoned Lands Affecting Land Divisions and Possibly Dwellings on Legal Lots.

Kent Howe, Land Management, stated the issue before the Board deals with issues that started in 1986, with a decision in Curry County brought against that County by 1000 Friends of Oregon. He noted the Supreme Court remanded to LCDC to deal with the issue of the difference between urban and rural. He added the commission adopted rules a few years ago regarding part of the problem that is applicable to areas within unincorporated communities. He noted they are working on a fix to the remainder of the issue for rural lands outside unincorporated communities and the urban growth boundaries. He said this could significantly impact and assist counties when they are going through periodic review. He said that Lane County’s interest started in March of 1998, where a number of counties met with DLCD staff and formulated a safe harbor rule. He explained that the safe harbor the counties favor occurs in periodic review, on a number of areas across the land which are zoned rural residential. He added they are interested in justifying areas that are zoned RR5 or RR10 rural, not urban.

Howe reported that there was support at the DLCD level and it went to a public hearing the end of 1998. He said it was received in a mixed fashion. He added that a draft came out of a proposed rule on November 24 that included building of vacant lots in residential zones that might be less than whatever the safe harbor provision was. He said since then, they met and LCDC had a commission meeting on January 27. He said different groups are working on the proposed draft rule and at this point, the provisions for buildability of vacant residential lands are not part of the draft. He noted it had been taken out of the draft and the provisions are dealing with distance of an urban growth boundary, minimum land division (if it is within two miles of an urban growth boundary) and a safe harbor concept of five or ten acres. He said they met with the subcommittee on February 7, and redrafted their proposal but it was not available until February 17. He reported that the next meeting will be on Tuesday, February 29 where they will prepare a draft for an LCDC hearing on March 9 or 10.

Weeldreyer asked if there was a discussion at the state level about existing legal lots purchased as buildable lots and any compensation to those property owners if their land was to become unbuildable.

Howe responded that there was little discussion and the staff of DLCD dismissed the issue as being relevant. He added to make it clear at this point, the subcommittee direction was to direct staff to delete those provisions from the rule and it is not under consideration.

Jim Mann, Land Management, discussed timing. He said that LCDC (based on the feedback from the members of the subcommittee) won’t take final action on the rule in March, but would have another meeting in April. He said the rule would go into effect 90 days after adoption by LCDC, possibly in July 2000. He noted that when it goes into effect, under Measure 56, Lane County is required to notify the owners of RR zones property that the state has adopted the regulation and it potentially impacts their property. He estimated that there are 16,851 RR zoned properties in Lane County that would need to be notified. He added that the state would reimburse the County for the cost of notice. He said there are a number of property owners that know the regulation is there and are trying to get in now for density zone changes. He noted that as of two weeks ago, there were 14 density zone change applications pending review by the hearings official.

Mann explained that it affects recommendations. He noted there are five requirements proposed in the rule relating to minimum parcel sizes for land divisions. He stated if the current zoning is at a density of more than five acres, the rule would require they apply the higher minimum parcel size. He said for Lane County, that would be in areas that are currently zoned RR10. He added if the properties are within two miles of the urban growth boundary of Eugene and Springfield, the rule would require that an RR10 minimum parcel be required to those properties (4,000 acres of RR zone) within the urban growth boundary. He explained that if it were not within two miles of the urban growth boundary and not zoned RR5, the minimum parcel size would be five acres.

Mann commented on some of the potential impacts for land divisions in the RR zone. He said they estimate that under the current RR5 and RR10 zoning, there is a potential for 225 more parcels that could be divided under the zoning and the LCDC rule would protect the status quo, unless the parcels are in the two mile radius of the urban growth boundary. He added under the current RR1 and RR2 zoning, they estimate a potential for a creation of 154 additional parcels that would be impacted by this rule. He said there is a potential under the current County policy to rezone from RR5 to RR2 and under that policy, there is potential to create 743 additional parcels under the RR2 zoning that would be impacted and eliminated because of the rule. He said that they would recommend a minimum density of five acres, holding to the ten acre zoning in cases where it is ten acre zoning. He said the rule supports going in the periodic review. He said the difference is that they haven’t dealt with whether it is within a two miles radius of the urban growth boundary. He noted that it could reduce the expense and time it will take to go through the periodic review because they do not have to develop an independent justification for the five and ten acre parcel sizes in the rule.

Mann said they are recommending two actions. He said the first action (on the second page of the chart) is requiring property owners now coming in for RR zoned density, to sign a statement that they are aware of the LCDC rulemaking on this issue and that they proceed at their own risk. He said the second set of alternatives not appropriate for the board to set the direction because they don’t have the rule. He said once the rule is adopted, it would be prudent for the Board to re-examine policy to continue allowing zone changes to RR2. He noted an alternative would be to amend the Goal 2 Policy 11 requiring property owners to address the Goal 14 rule at the time they apply for the zone change. He said if they were to adopt that alternative, rather than a zone change with the hearings official, they recommend that it be made into a plan amendment that the Board of Commissioners would review. He said they are examining whether the zone change complies with the rule and that the Board is able to set policy and direction on that. He noted the other alternative would be to wait and see what LCDC adopts and the Board could consider setting a minimum five and ten acres that is in the safe harbor in the rules. He recommended waiting until LCDC adopts the rule and then immediately conduct that discussion.

Howe said the discussion is around the division of land, not buildability. He said the recommendation they are asking for has to do with direction with their participation of the meeting of the subcommittee on February 29 as well as any testimony to be provided on March 9, or March 10, at the commission meetings.

Weeldreyer asked about financial impacts to landowners.

Mann replied there would be a greater cost to the applicant with the plan amendment vs. zone change, but if the applicants address it early on in the process, they could save expense. He said they would be best served by dealing with that issue up front.

Green hoped that homeowners would sign statements making sure they are aware of this proposed rule by LCDC. He said it takes control out of the Board’s hands on what they make decisions about. He encouraged Land Management to get in touch with as many people as possible to seek input and guidance.

Morrison was in agreement with Land Division alternative 1, (notifying owners about the possible risk). She added as long as Lane County is monitoring it and there is input, she would not be opposed.

Sorenson said that staff time is a precious resource and their jobs are not to change state rules or law, but provide customer service. He said Lane County needs to be more active with open space movement and debate. He said the local scene is where time should be spent.

Howe said the benefit to customer service will be County staff spending time with customers instead of trying to address areas that aren’t urban. He noted the fundamental interest of the County is to find a safe harbor that would put that to rest and spend time on critical areas.

Dwyer asked what safe harbor meant.

Howe responded if a safe harbor is adopted (lots that are zoned RR5 or larger) it means they will be allowing land divisions that are rural as opposed to urban. That would mean that Lane County wouldn’t have to address Goal 14 issues for urbanization. He noted that it is a safe place for the County from the standpoint that all parcels would be five acres or larger.

Dwyer said his alternative would be three, and the rule needs to be monitored closely.

Weeldreyer supported recommendations staff made. She disagreed with Sorenson that staff should not do anything but monitor this. She said there should be as much notice as possible to property owners that the state is getting ready to make significant changes in Lane County. She said there needs to be a balance with the human factor, not strictly development vs. environmental protection.

Green echoed Weeldreyer. He added that it is a state agency imposing this, not the County.

Morrison echoed Weeldreyer. She said that Lane County needs to be aware where the directions are coming from so there is input on impacting what is provided to the citizens. She said it is paramount that staff is involved. She encouraged Land Management to keep on top of this.

Howe reiterated that the Board wanted them to monitor, participate and represent a position of an interest in a safe harbor if there is buildability again. He said the alternatives that were brought in front of the Board, (the second and third alternative) did not intend to give direction on those until LCDC gave a ruling. He said the first alternative was one they were interested in regarding giving notice to people who are in the process so they don’t have expectations for a subdivision, then Goal 14 shuts them down.

Mann noted that for current applications, they won’t notify people about the disclosure statement and have them acknowledge it. He added when they review applications for completeness they would require the property owner to sign a statement.

Sorenson agreed with Weeldreyer that Land Management needs to disclose what is taking place.

c. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1147 Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from "Forest Land" to "Nonresource", Rezone that Land from "F-2/Impacted Forest Lands" to "RR-5/Rural Residential"; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 98-1953; Cooley)

MOTION: to approve First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance PA 1147 to be set for March 15, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

d. THIRD READING AND SETTING FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1138 Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from "Agricultural" to "Rural", Rezone that Land from "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" to "RR-2/Rural Residential" and Adopt an Exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3 and 4; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 98-1782; Waymire)

Jerry Kendall, Land Management, reported that the planning commission heard this item last year and recommended denial by 4-2. He said the Board heard this matter on October 6 at a public hearing and voted 3-2 to tentatively approve it, subject to revised findings. He said the revisions were provided to the Board with staff analysis. He noted that staff concludes that the findings still don’t contain the necessary evidence showing the subject property is impractical for farm use. He added that all criteria have not been addressed and if the Board endorses the application, there might be difficulty appealing to LUBA.

Sorenson asked why this was back in front of the Board.

Kendall replied the Board directed that, since the initial staff report cited deficiencies in the findings, those were to be upgraded and brought back.

MOTION: to go back to 7 c. to set a definite time for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on March 15, 2000 for Ordinance 1147.

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

Vorhes reported that the Board could deliberate today, look at the findings and agree about the work. He said rather then setting a fourth reading and deliberation, they could request that the findings be fixed. He noted there would need to be two readings with 13 days in between, otherwise if the Ordinance was adopted, it would be effective. He said the options were to either hold deliberation today on what is available, and direct further revisions of the findings today or set it for a fourth reading and have deliberations then.

MOTION: to approve the Third Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading and Deliberation for March 29, 2000 on Ordinance PA 1138.

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

Kendall noted if the applicants present findings to address some of the concerns staff had, then a fifth reading would be set.

Howe noted that the expectation, when the Board set this for the fourth reading and deliberation, would be that the applicant would have the findings prepared and the Board would move forward. He said the applicant (in their opinion), had not met the test findings.

Sorenson voted in favor because there needs to be more time for deliberation.

VOTE: 5-0.


A. Approval of Minutes:
January 25, 2000, Work Session, 1:30 p.m.
January 26, 2000, Public Hearing, 6:00 p.m.
February 2, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
February 9, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

B. Public Works

1) ORDER 00-2-23-4 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 622 (Partridge Lane) (17-01-22).

C. Workforce Partnership

1)    ORDER 00-2-23-5 Amending the Intergovernmental Agreement Among the Governments of Lane County and Cities of Eugene and Springfield Regarding Workforce Investment Activities and the Agreement Between the Southern Willamette Private Industry Council and the Governments (the Amended PIC/LEO Agreement).

Morrison noted that in the minutes of January 25, Tom Stinchfield’s name was spelled wrong.

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar with the correction of the minutes.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORDER 00-2-23-6 Delegating to the County Administrator Authority to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Lane Council of Governments for the Provision of Shelter and Assessment Services on the John Serbu Youth Campus and Appropriating the Budget of the Department of Youth Services $163,696 in Additional Spending Authority.

Chuck Ryer, Assistant Director, Youth Services, explained it is a simple item to get the Board to execute the intergovernmental agreement and appropriate the money to the budget. He noted $163,000 represents the 1999/2000 portion of the larger biennial contract. He noted that it was originally placed on the Consent Calendar but was later moved to the regular agenda in case there were questions.

Morrison questioned attachment B for grant 2000/2001, as the budget didn’t show it separately. She asked if the intergovernmental agreement with LCOG and the PCC meant they were losing direct service dollars.

Ryer replied this was not his understanding. He noted it is a line item for monitoring and a requirement of the legislation to report to the government office on the progress of the plan.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-2-23-6.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.







There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 12:10 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: 11/04/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.