minhead.gif (12878 bytes)

APPROVED 10/11/00


September 26, 2000

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room


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




There will be an Executive Session today. 






3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place after the meeting.




a. Announcements






a. ORAL REPORT Time Between Ordinances.


Kent Howe, Land Management, reported there are three sets of requirements that Land Management has to comply with: Lane County Charter, Lane Code, and the Administrative Procedures to maintain the process.


Howe read from Chapter 3, Section 18 (2) of the Lane County Charter, which requires the Board of County Commissioners to: “Read in a regular meeting of the Board on two different days at least 13 days apart any ordinance they wish to adopt.”  He added Section 18 (2) also requires that a substantial change in the ordinance must be read fully and distinctly in a regular meeting of the Board at least 13 days prior to adoption.


Howe explained that Lane Code Chapter 14 requires Lane County to have a newspaper of general circulation publish notice 20 days in advance of the second reading.  He stated The Register-Guard needs information 25 days before the second reading of the public hearing.  He added that Lane County is required to provide notice 14 days in advance by posting the property for items that are site-specific.  He added they have to send mailed notice to the surrounding property owners (within an applicable district) ten days in advance of the second reading and public hearing.


Howe said the Administrative Procedures Manual requires that prior to the first reading, a packet must be sent to Public Works for review two weeks in advance, because copies need to be made and the department manager and legal staff need to review it before the first reading.


Howe reported that staff had traditionally scheduled the first and second reading as closely together as possible in order to meet the notice requirement and to expedite the processing of the application.


Howe recommended leaving it as is to save the processing time by two weeks.


Dwyer suggested changing the law so notice on the Internet would serve as notice.


Green said that not everyone has access to the Internet.  He didn’t think anything needed to be changed.


Wilson said the issue for the Board was relying on Public Works when they are writing the packet material.  She said Land Management checks with Arlene Marshall, Management Services Supervisor, and if the Board is willing to rely on  that, and it is sent to the Register Guard, it notifies the Board that when they see a first reading, there is already a second reading and notice sent to the public.  She noted if the Board was willing to allow staff to do the advance work it would save two weeks notice.


Dwyer suggested Public Works send an E-mail to the Board when the item goes to Public Works.


Wilson suggested including Arlene Marshall with the E-mail.


b. CONTINUED DISCUSSION, FIFTEENTH 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. (Sixteenth Reading: October 18, 2000)


MOTION: to approve the Fifteenth Reading and Setting a Sixteenth Reading on October 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. on Ordinance PA 1132.


Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, explained that the Board will be revisiting Attachments 3 and 4 from the July 12 Joint Work Session.  He recalled some of the lack of action was due to a 2-2 vote, and other items needed further information and the materials were not accurate.  He noted the action today is not a formal action, but a consensus.  He added if there was still no agreement with the other agencies on these issues, they would be put on a list of unresolved issues for discussion at MPC.


Stinchfield said with regard to Issue 1, (renaming nodes with another term) there was no action he was suggesting that the Board should take, as there are no new terms to replace nodal development.  He explained mixed-use development was discussed, but that term is already used in the Springfield code and that makes it problematic to use in the TransPlan.  He added both city councils met to discuss changes in the text related to nodal development.  He said he would make the notes to the Board available.


Stinchfield noted on Issue 2, (system wide Policy 5, the project lists adopted as part of the Metro Plan) there was concern from the public that it was too hard to adopt the project list as a whole.  He said the response they are recommending is to add some language to the policy (a definition of intent statement) that describes the project development process that will be used on projects so that it will be clear that there will be a public involvement process to decide what to do with each individual project.


There was consensus with Issue 2.


Stinchfield explained with Issue 3, Eugene staff had added generalized project categories they wanted in the project list as general projects.  He noted that Springfield had done it in a different form in Attachment 4.  He said that both cities are recommending the changes to the plan so the plan is consistent with their system development charge ordinance.  He added they wanted it clear that individual projects and general projects are eligible for SDC funds and are included in the calculations for their rates.


Sorenson asked why there would be any TransPlan at all if each jurisdiction had its own budgetary authority.


Stinchfield responded it is important to keep it clear that each agency has their own budget and control of the budget.  He noted the plan is required under state and federal land use rules.  He said it is a regional planning effort that recognizes each agency’s role in implementation.


Green asked how it would impact areas like River Road and Santa Clara, as an issue is new development.


Stinchfield said putting the language in the plan does not change the role of each agency when it comes to approving subdivisions in Santa Clara. He said the relationships are established by the urban transition agreements.  He noted the Board is not involved in those administrative actions


Stinchfield said the financial assumptions in the plan only assume continuation of road partnership payments to the cities through 2004.  He said there would only be about $1.7 million to Eugene/Springfield.  He said it wouldn’t solve the gap of the financial picture.


Sorenson asked if the cities were aware that TransPlan (as currently drafted) cuts off county payments to the cities in the early portion of the plan.


Stinchfield recalled the city staff members that were involved in the finance committee knew that but didn’t know if the city councils knew.  He noted the plan doesn’t mandate a cut off.


There was consensus with Issue 3.


Stinchfield noted that Issue 4 was already agreed to by the Board.


Stinchfield reported with Issue 5, the general recommendation was to add language stating that Eugene will (in its arterial and collector plan adopted last year) address concerns about public involvement and bicycle projects.  He said the city councilors were recommending that it would be written for the Eugene projects.  He said the concerns are specific to neighborhood impacts to bicycle lane projects.


There was consensus with Issue 5.


Stinchfield said with Issue 6, Morrison raised questions about the wording of the policy and he had repeated it at the top.  He noted there was a reference to federal revenues and to clarify that this policy did not control the Board actions related to the federal revenues that come to the County Road Fund.  He said in the staff comment section, they came up with a recommended addition to the policy that says: “Local sources including federal payments to the County Road Fund are allocated through capital improvement programs and are not subject to this regional policy.”


Sorenson questioned why the other jurisdictions were not mentioned.


Stinchfield responded it was specific to the County.  He added the County is the only agency that gets a direct federal payment that doesn’t go through federal administration.


Tom Schwetz, LCOG, noted the original intent of the policy was that state and federal funding coming into this region for transportation purposes would pass through ODOT.  He added the intent of the policy was to focus on the major problems facing the area


Morrison said the County needs to be careful to maintain the County road systems in the future if dollars become scarce.  She was concerned this money would be in jeopardy unless it is not included in the regional prioritization process.


Weeldreyer said it was important to indicate the internal needs.  She noted they need the assurance that it will be a decision of the Board to be cooperative.  She said it was important that something is there that gets at the comfort level of the various jurisdictions.


Dwyer concurred with Weeldreyer.  He added the plan allows work on the connectivity of the system.


Green said having a prioritization process does not imply that the Board would give up budget authority for the road funds.


There was consensus for Issue 6 as it was.


Dwyer said they need to review the road policies and focus on resources to avoid future problems.  He added it would be a good subject for the Roads Advisory Committee.


Stinchfield said that Issue 7 was the transportation utility fee text change.


Dwyer objected to the terminology.


There was consensus for the language for Issue 7.


Stinchfield said with Attachment 4, Issue 1, (Stewart Road in Eugene) it is a road that is not to city standards and there is a mix of residential uses and business uses.  He noted there had been an issue about whether the road should be improved in the past.  He said city staff told him when the arterial and collector plan for Eugene was adopted in November 1999, the city council made the decision to downgrade the road from a collector status to a local road.  He said they removed it from the plan list because it is now a local road and the city made the choice not to list the road for urban standards improvement.


There was consensus with Attachment 4, Issue 1.


Stinchfield reported with Issue 2 (Terry Street bicycle connector) it would connect from Terry Street to the Amazon Creek.  He added a bike trail would be built as part of the Corps of Engineers project.


There was consensus with Issue 2.


Stinchfield stated with Issue 3 (projects from Eugene and Springfield) some of the Eugene projects are on the periphery of the urban area between the city limits and the urban growth boundary and it adds the last sections of roadway for urban standards improvements.  He noted that for Bailey Hill Road, the County had made some road improvement but at the time there was no development occurring in the area and there was no desire to do a sidewalk assessment so the curbs and sidewalks are not on those sections of road.  He added some of the projects would be listed as joint city/county projects.  He noted that Springfield would be separating out the Pioneer Parkway extension from the Beltline I-5 project and it was listed as an ODOT project.


There was consensus with Issue 3 on adding projects.


Stinchfield noted that with Issue 4, the County had previously agreed with it.


There was consensus with Issue 5, 6 and 7.




Sorenson announced a program about family care giving on Wednesday, October 11 from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Oregon Public Broadcasting. 


Green reported that Mayor Torrey would be kicking off the youth levy for the Youth After School Program at the Westmoreland Center.  He announced that he would be co-moderating the panel discussion on the Cascadia Conference.


Weeldreyer reported Lane Transit District had formed a Glenwood Advisory Committee that she is serving on.  She said she heard back from the Bloomberg Road residents and they complimented Kent Howe on providing information.  She met with the Public Works staff about the safety improvements needed at the Goodpasture Boat Ramp. She reported that she would not be at the next Board Meeting, as she will be attending the National Rural Telecommunications Conference.


Dwyer reported he met on Friday with the Beltline Decision Team on redesigning the Beltline interchange and the people who live in Patrician Park are no longer threatened by the development.


Morrison thanked the Board for participating in the AOC District 5 Meeting.  She reported she signed Sorenson up for the Mental Health piece.  She announced the Salmon Festival will be taking place in Mapleton and the Chowder and Blues Festival was held this past weekend.


Weeldreyer publicly thanked the workers in the Road Maintenance department for  immediate attention to repairing a vandalized stop sign.




a. ORAL REPORT Status of Fiberoptics.


Weeldreyer passed out a report to the Board. (Copy in file.)










There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at 11:10 a.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary


go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices