BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
April 17, 2002
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, and Peter Sorenson present. Commissioner Cindy Weeldreyer was present via speakerphone. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson, and Recording Secretary Daniel Lindstrom were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Dwyer announced that Item 7. B. 1) would be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as the first item of the agenda. He said an Executive Session would follow the vote. He noted there was a Time Certain agenda item scheduled for 11:00 a.m.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Darlene Goss, 90980 River Road, Eugene, stated that she was opposed to the River Road Improvement Project. She said its widening of Beacon Drive would take approximately one third of her property, causing the removal of hedges and creation of a new drainage ditch, making it impossible to conduct her wedding and special event business. She said the reason given for the proposed widening was the turn-radius required by large trucks, but that she had determined that no farmer on the road had any such equipment. She said most heavy traffic on Beacon Drive west used the Northwest Expressway, rather than River Road, to travel north or south.
Dawn Lesley 4495 River Road, Eugene, stated that she supported a lower speed limit for the Carthage to Beacon section of River Road, rather than the proposed improvement project. She said the latest revision of the project's plan would eliminate seven additional trees and that she would prefer to lose a portion of her front lawn than the trees.
Ronnie Carper, 4495 River Road, stated that his major concern was safety in the area proposed for the River Road Improvement Project. He said he believed widening the road would increase, not lower, vehicle speed. He suggested that reduction of the speed limit in the area and installation of a traffic signal at Beacon Drive and River Road would provide more safety. He recommended that the plan not be approved until it was redesigned. He requested that future public meetings regarding the project be given fuller advertisement. He said none of the recommendations of citizens regarding the project in past meetings had been included in its latest form. He said he believed County staff was inflexible and unreasonable in its planning approach because it would not allow variances to code requirements for a flexible road midline and smaller sidewalks.
Jim Gillette, 86340 Needham, Eugene, said he was willing to meet County representatives at his private park to prove his previously stated points regarding stored recreation vehicles. He said he had plans to improve his 400 acres of land bordering the City of Eugene with a $50,000 grant promised from the State of Oregon. He said he would lose the grant without assistance from Lane County planning officials. He said he did not believe it was fair to require approval of the Board of County Commissioners to allow the public to us his property for legal purposes.
Commissioner Morrison stated that staff had prepared a report which showed there were code violations on the property of Mr. Gillette. She said she believed the report ended consideration of his request.
Mr. Gillette stated that the fine imposed on his property was for improper location of recreation vehicles and that the infraction had been eliminated.
Commissioner Cindy Weeldreyer suggested that Mr. Gillette be invited to discuss his concerns about the use of his property with the Policies and Procedures Committee, that liens against the property not be enforced, and that reconsideration be given to the high expense of land management fees.
Commissioner Green said he did not support the suggestion of Commissioner Weeldreyer and was willing to allow Mr. Gillette time during the Public Comment period of meetings to express his views. He said he did not believe policies should be changed because of the disapproval of one person. He encouraged Commissioner Weeldreyer to meet with Mr. Gillette.
Commissioner Dwyer said he did not believe the Policies and Procedures Committee should deal with land use issues. He said it was good that a property owner was willing to allow the public to use the land without fees and that there were statutes which protected the landowner from liability, if there was no negligence. He said a public hearing was to be held in the evening regarding property used for recreational purposes and that the issue raised by Mr. Gillette was broader than it appeared. He said the Board of County Commissioners had no obligation to property owners who received a park grant from the state.
Commissioner Sorenson said he also did not support asking the Policies and Procedures Committee to deal with issues raised by Mr. Gillette. He suggested that the commissioner representing the district in which the property was located present the concerns of Mr. Gillette to the Board of Commissioners after they had been considered by the Planning Commission. He said Mr. Gillette was welcome to use Public Comment time at meetings to bring his concerns to the Board, but that he should be aware that Commissioners had already received a staff report about them.
Mr. Gillette said that he was not contesting fines levied against his property, that he planned to erect a fence on his property, and that he would control members of the public who used his property.
Commissioner Dwyer requested that Mr. Gillette be provided a copy of the staff report regarding his property.
Commissioner Weeldreyer stated that she would work with Mr. Gillette to resolve the issues regarding his property.
3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 02-4-17-1/In the Matter of Ordering the Acceptance of the Recommendations of the Benton, Lane, Linn, Lincoln Regional Investment Board Regarding Funding of Projects for the FY 2001-2003 Biennium.
Lane Council of Governments Staff Steve Digman stated that the recommendations of the Regional Investment Board had been distributed as Attachment 3 of the Agenda Cover Memo regarding Order 2-4-17-1.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-04-17-1 accepting the recommendations.
Commissioner Morrison MOVED, Commissioner Green SECONDED.
b. DISCUSSION/Request for Supportive Letter from the Trust for Public Land.
Commissioner Dwyer referred to a letter from The Trust for Public Land dated April 2, 2002, regarding a request for support of a conservation sale of private land to the Trust distributed with the agenda of the meeting. He said he did not believe the Board should be involved in such transactions and that the sale could work for the public good without such involvement.
Commissioner Morrison asked if the sale was made to The Trust for Public Land would the property be removed from the County tax rolls. Commissioner Dwyer replied that it would.
Commissioner Morrison said she was concerned that a number of similar sales had recently taken place in coastal areas reducing resources available to provide public services.
Commissioner Sorenson said he believed the Board of Commissioner should be involved in policy issues such as removing property from tax rolls, but that doing so was a national policy. He said he was aware of opposition to purchases made by the Trust for Public Land to provide protection for endangered species and the support of local government for the purchases. He said he supported the request because there was both a willing buyer and a willing seller and the amount of tax loss to the county was small.
Commissioner Dwyer said he believed the public benefit resulting from preservation of the parcel of land involved, even without protection of endangered species, was significant; and outweighed the tax deficit which would result. He said he believed the Board should send a letter of support for the purchase.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she believed the sale was related to issues created by the passage of Ballot Measure 7. She suggested that resources of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self determination Act of 2000 could be used for purchase of such properties in the future.
Commissioner Morrison said she was concerned that questions raised earlier about the involvement of resources of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board in the purchase had not been answered. She said she also wanted to have it spelled out how the public would have access to the property after it was purchased.
MOTION: to approve sending a letter of support for the purchase of 67 acres of vacant land on and near the Oregon coast south of Yachats by The Trust for Public Land.
VOTE: 3-2, with Commissioners Green and Morrison voting no.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she would also like to have answers to questions raised by Commissioner Morrison.
Commissioner Dwyer read the letter regarding the request for the benefit of Commissioner Dwyer.
Commissioner Green said that he supported converting private property to public ownership to the benefit of the private owners, but that he wanted to express his concern about sales to trusts and not local jurisdictions.
Commissioner Sorenson said he believed the sale to The Trust for Public Land under consideration accomplished the necessary purposed. He requested that background information be provided regarding the possible involvement of resources from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board in the purchase, any trend of property sales to trusts reducing tax roles, and federal legislation prohibiting local governments from acquiring property for similar purposes.
Commissioner Dwyer recommended that the issues raised by Commissioner Sorenson be referred to the Policies and Procedures Committee for development of a public process to hear all views about the issue. He reviewed his personal involvement in relevant state legislation.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she would take the concerns raised in the discussion to the Policy and Procedures Committee.
6. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 02-4-17-2/In the Matter of Approving a Project Design Concept and Acquiring Fee or Other Interests in Portions of Certain Real Properties for Improvement of River Road, MP 7.36 to MP 7.74, Based on the Design Concept in Exhibit A; and Authorizing Staff to Prepare a Right-of-Way Plan Necessary to Construct the Road, Pursue All Necessary Planning Actions, Acquire Right-of-Way and Prepare Plans and Specifications for Improvement of Said Road (NBA & PM 4/16/02)
Public Works staff Sonny Chickering said he believed testimony received at a Public Hearing on the River Road Improvement Project held April 16 had been helpful. He addressed some of the concerns raised, as follow.
• Only Two Lanes - more than two lanes would encourage growth outside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary.
• Center Turn Lane - a major safety feature.
Bike Lanes - designated, versus shoulder, bicycle paths, finished width similar to what is currently available, provides safety for riders.
Speed Limit Requests - agree with recommendations and have committed to conducting a State of Oregon speed study.
• Transition from rural to urban setting is a safety provision and will slow traffic.
• Savings from making the section be rural road improvements, versus developing them to urban standards - road bed not capable of being adequately hardened to levels required, drainage ditches would be required, loss of additional trees.
Sidewalks - critical safety improvement, little current foot traffic, assessment policies for variously zoned property can be troublesome Drainage - the design accommodates all required.
Traffic Signal at Beacon - signals not slow traffic, but control right-of-way; other areas of county may be more ready for a signal.
Turn Lane at Beacon - may be needed 20 to 25 years in the future; adding the lane creates impacts which are offset by higher cost of doing it later.
Larger tuning radius on Beacon - it is helpful when there is adequate space for large vehicles.
Piecemeal improvements - can be cost effective when the project it large enough, but in an isolated intersection like in the current project, it is better for all of the work to be done in a single step.
Public Works Staff Tom Stinchfield reviewed criteria for determining whether to install traffic signals, as follows:
Warrant One -- Major Street Vehicular Traffic Required - 5,600/day
River Road - 7,200/day
Minor Street Requirement - 1,680/day
Beacon Drive - 1,450/day (West)
Warrant Two -- Difficulty Entering Road
- 8,400/day needed on River Road
- 850/day needed on Beacon Drive
Mr. Stinchfield explained that four other county road locations were closer to meeting Warrant One criteria and three other county road locations were closer to meeting Warrant Two criteria for installing a traffic signal than was the Beacon Drive at River Road intersection.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if it would be possible for staff to work with area residents to develop a mutually acceptable plan for the Improvement Project. Mr. Chickering replied that the process used had been an attempt to incorporate resident input.
Commissioner Sorenson said he hoped that agreement about the project could be reached, but that if that was not possible, decisions could be made on the basis of information already in hand. Mr. Chickering said it would be possible to set up additional meetings with area residents, but that he did not believe full agreement on the improvement plan could be reached.
Commissioner Sorenson said involving a volunteer mediator could improve the possibility of mutual agreement.
Mr. Chickering suggested that Commissioners direct staff to do further study of a traffic signal and seek feedback on the results from area property owners before seeking a decision to implement the project.
Commissioner Green said he appreciated the suggestion of Mr. Chickering. He suggested that discussion with residents be kept to a single issue.
Commissioner Green asked what minimum amount of the project could be feasibly undertaken. Mr. Chickering replied that the most expensive portions of the project were related to pavement. He said reducing the roadway to two lanes would not improve its safety. He said no savings would be realized from postponing construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks since their cost was assessed to property owners. He said the cost of a traffic signal was not included in the estimated cost of the project.
Commissioner Green asked what compensation would be paid to owners for loss of property in the project. Mr. Chickering replied that compensation was based on the assessed value of a property and its improvements. He said ultimate taking of property was accomplished through condemnation.
Commissioner Green asked if it would be possible to complete the project in phases. Mr. Chickering replied that the roadway, storm drainage, curbs and gutters would need to be completed concurrently and that it would be possible to postpone construction of sidewalks and installation of a traffic signal.
Commissioner Dwyer said his preference for the project was to only install a traffic signal and use the balance of funds set aside for it to install signals in other locations. Mr. Chickering replied that prioritizing Capital Improvement Projects was the prerogative of the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Dwyer said he believed the entire project was precipitated by the anticipation of large vehicle traffic on East Beacon Drive. He suggested that there was no need for such improvements with elimination of a Sand and Gravel mining operation in the area.
County Engineer Ollie Snowden said he was not convinced that installation of a traffic signal at Beacon Drive would improve safety on River Road because it would not slow the speed of traffic. He suggested that traffic signals could increase speeds in open areas. He said he believed safety would be improved with the addition of urban level street improvements and a lower speed limit. He said eliminating the left turn lanes from the project would eliminate a major safety element of the project. He said it would be possible to defer construction of sidewalks and tie their completion to development on the west side of River Road.
Commissioner Morrison said she supported the River Road Improvement Project, possibly without installation of sidewalks. She said she did not believe full agreement with area residents about the project would ever be possible.
MOTION: to adopt ORDER 02-4-17-2.
Commissioner Morrison MOVED, Commissioner Green SECONDED.
Commissioner Sorenson said he believed it was premature to move ahead with the project because traffic counts in the area were outdated and there was no need to rush its completion.
Commissioner Green said he supported the motion because it was not possible to reduce the size of the project and that he did not support postponing creation of sidewalks. He said the possibility of a sand and gravel mining project in the area was not yet finally decided since there continued to be the possibility of appeals of the decision made by the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Dwyer said he did not support the motion because it was not the most economical approach to traffic problems in the area. He said the plan was functionally and economically obsolete. He said he did not believe county government should "run over" the preferences of residents, but seek to work with them.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she believed that each commissioner was making important points and that the staff had prepared a good recommendation. She said she intended to give special consideration to the view of the commissioner representing the area of the project. She said she believed sidewalks were important to the project and agreed with Commissioner Green that the sand and gravel mine issue was not done.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she would like to have additional process before making a decision about the motions. She requested a delay in the vote.
Commissioner Dwyer said postponement of action was not possible because the agenda included an 11:00 Time Certain item.
VOTE: 3-2, with Commissioners Dwyer and Sorenson voting no.
Commissioner Dwyer declared a five minute recess.
b. ON THE RECORD HEARING/Hearing Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official's Decision Denying an Application for a Home Occupation and Temporary Permit for a Special Event/Wedding Facility within the Rural Residential Zone (RR-10) (file PA 01-5803 & PA 01-5804/Neumann).
Commissioner Dwyer opened the public hearing by reading the agenda item title. He said the hearing was to be on-the-record and that argument was limited to persons designated by the Board as participants in the appeal. He reviewed the order of presentations to be made in the hearing.
Commissioner Dwyer determined that no member of the Board of County Commissioners had ex parte contacts to disclose and that no member would abstain from participating because of such contacts or personal biases.
Land Management Division staff Thom Lanfear said the purpose of the hearing was to deliberate on an appeal of a decision by a Hearings Official submitted by Carol C. Neumann, owner of the property for which an application had been denied by the official.
Mr. Lanfear noted that submissions to the record of the hearing being appealed had been provided to the Board of Commissioners. He distributed copies of a letter to Hearings Official Gary Darnielle dated October 19, 2001, which he said had been received by the Hearings Official and inadvertently omitted from the submissions on the record.
Mr. Lanfear reported that copies of a study made by the appellant's acoustical engineer and pictures of neighboring property had also been submitted for review by Commissioners. He said they contained new information not in the record of the original hearing. He said it would be possible to open the record of the hearing to include them, but that doing so would require that other parties also be given an opportunity to make additional submissions.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that he did not wish to re-open the record of the hearing. He determined that Commissioners Green and Morrison also did not wish to re-open the record of the hearing.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she would like an opportunity have the information available be part of the record to be considered. Commissioner Dwyer replied that three commissioners were opposed and that no additions to the record would be permitted.
Mr. Lanfear reviewed issues raised in the appeal of the Hearings Official's decision:
1 . Mr. Lanfear said it was argued that the Hearings Official had failed to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence in the record on the issues of adverse impacts due to traffic, noise, and headlights on abutting properties. He cited criteria regarding compatibility in Lane Code 16.231(3)(b).
2. Mr. Lanfear said it was argued that the Hearings Official had mistakenly concluded that the scale of the proposed special event/wedding facility was inappropriate as a Home Occupation as found in Lane Code 16.255(2)(a)(iii). He said the applicant had submitted a copy of the Hearings Official decision regarding a similar use that had been approved.
Mr. Lanfear reviewed the alternatives available to Commissioners in the hearing:
Tentatively affirm the Hearings Official's decision (deny the appeal), declare findings and instruct staff to prepare a Board Order with appropriate findings for adoption.
Tentatively reverse the Hearings Official's decision, declare findings and instruct the appellant's attorney to prepare a Board Order with appropriate findings for adoption.
Commissioner Morrison asked if Home Occupation criteria required annual site visits to ensure compliance. Mr. Lanfear replied that such a stipulation could be established, but that conditions were normally set and, unless there was an objection from a neighbor, they were assumed to be met.
Testimony of Applicant
Steve Cornacchia, 180 East 11th Avenue, Eugene, stated that he represented the appellant and would introduce those who were to testify.
Carol Neumann, 255545 Hall Road, Junction City, stated that she was the appellant. She distributed copies of a document which listed conditions of approval for a Home Occupation Permit identified in a staff report dated October 20, 2000, and conditions of approval from a staff report dated August 20, 2001. She said notes added to the document showed her agreements to meet the conditions.
Ms. Neumann described her personal life, her goals for rural living and earning a livelihood, and her frustration in being able to secure permission to operate her business. She said she believed the process to secure a Lane County home business permit was flawed.
Ms. Neumann circulated an aerial photograph of the site of her proposed facility.
Ms. Neumann displayed a chart which described work done on her property in conjunction with her proposed wedding/special event facility and home occupation. She displayed a second chart which compared elements of an application similar to her own which had been approved.
Ms. Neumann described what she said was misunderstanding by the Hearings Official of multiple reports from an acoustical engineer submitted with her application. She reviewed adverse impacts of her proposal on noise, traffic, and headlight trespass standards identified by the Hearings Official. She said different standards for compatibility compliance were applied to her application than were found in the Lane Code.
Mr. Cornacchia reviewed the major issues raised in the appeal of Ms. Neumann. Mr. Cornacchia said the Hearings Official appears to have required the addition of bathrooms and electrical service to the proposed facility on page 9 of his decision, which changed its usage requirements.
Mr. Cornacchia said the appeal was based on the erroneous bifurcation by the Hearings Official of the Home Occupation permit to apply differently to inside and outside activities.
Mr. Cornacchia said the appeal was based on the Hearings Official setting new policy for the use of county roads by horseback riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Arthur Noxon, 3690 Country Farm Road, Springfield, stated that he was a certified acoustical engineer and had prepared studies and reports for the application of Ms. Neumann for a Home Occupation permit. He said the decision of the Hearings Official had indicated that no evidence had been submitted regarding the feasibility of controlling sound levels at events in her proposed facility. He said he had prepared a report on such control, but that the Hearings Official had refused to accept it.
Commissioner Dwyer declared a recess in the hearing at 12:20 p.m.
Commissioner Dwyer reconvened the hearing at 1:05 p.m.
Commissioner Morrison reported that during the recess she had recalled a conversation with Mike Thoele listed on the Interested Parties List of the appeal. She declared it as an ex parte contact, but stated that it would not influence her deliberation.
Commissioner Green asked what might be done to mitigate a perception of excessive noise from a gathering.
Mr. Noxon replied that his studies showed there was no doubt that sound level limitations could be met by gatherings in the proposed facility, but that his conclusions had been intentionally omitted from the decision of the Hearings Official. He said that, in addition, mitigating techniques such as sound masking waterfall noise, and sound blockers such as fernlike plants could be used. He said sound metering devices could be installed to identify when noise was approaching unacceptable levels.
Tim Benton, 25545 Hall Road, Junction City, stated that he did not believe the decision of the Hearings Official had been fair because Ms. Neumann had followed all instructions she had been given by the Planning Department, but was not given permits to operate her business. He said she met or exceeded all requirements, was turned down when an application for a similar operation had been approved, and had agreed to acoustical metering and the installation of sound barriers.
Testimony of Other Parties
Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Suite 800, Eugene, stated that he represented Gary Crum and Michael Thoele, who were opposed to the appeal. He identified reasons the appeal should be denied, as follows:
• An appeal of a decision of a Hearings Official is to review the record of the hearing. Much of the testimony of Mr. Noxon and those supporting the appeal had not been on the record, but had provided new evidence.
• Commissioners are not permitted to view a site for which an appeal is underway without declaring it as an ex-parte contact.
• The zoning of a location refers to activities which take place within its building, but much of what is planned by the appellant will take place in the out of doors. The appellant built a building for a stated rural agricultural purpose and immediately applied for a permit which would use it as part of the proposed business. The holding by the Hearings Official that noise levels meeting Department of Environmental Quality standards did not make it compatible with a specific location was not imposition of new criteria.
Commissioner Morrison asked for an explanation of why visits were not permitted to a site for which an appeal is underway. Mr. Spickerman replied that doing so would constitute information beyond what was included in the record of the hearing being considered.
Commissioner Dwyer asked if those opposed to the appeal were concerned about the cost of the structure to be used. Mr. Spickerman replied that the application was for a home occupation permit, not event permit.
Gary Crum, 25534 Hall Road, Junction City, stated that his home was directly across the road from the property in question. He described the rural nature of the area and said the proposed business would negatively affect the quietude and privacy that was its characteristic. He reported that parties of the type proposed to be held regularly had already taken place and that the traffic, noise, and after-dark activity were unpleasant and disturbing.
Commissioner Dwyer said Mr. Crum was not able to submit the written version of his statement to be considered in the appeal.
Michael Thoele, 25501 Hall Road, Junction City, stated that the appellant had attempted to secure a permit to construct the event structure on her property on two occasions, but had been turned down. He said she had then constructed the same structure as a rural agriculture facility and immediately applied for a permit which would turn it into an event structure. He described the building as a "no containment," non-walled structure which consisted of poles and a roof.
Mr. Thoele said the record of the hearing showed that objections to the permit were that the business would interfere with the lives of area residents by creating unacceptable noise, lighting, sanitation, fire danger, and other environmental impacts. He said the proposed home occupation was an unacceptable commercial venture in a neighborhood setting.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if there were limitations on the size of a home occupation applicable to the current situation. County Counsel Steve Vorhes replied that there were limitations on the number of employees permitted in a home occupation and that typically home occupations were limited to the size of a building in which it was carried out. He said those opposed to the permit raised the issue of size in the context of the impact of the proposed occupation on the area.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that the Board of Commissioners would deliberate and reach a decision on the appeal at a latter meeting. He said new testimony not related to the record of the hearing would not be considered
Rebuttal of Appellant
Mr. Cornacchia stated that the testimony of Mr. Noxon did not provide new evidence, but clarified his testimony already in the record of the hearing. He said he had explained why the Hearings Official had erred in his interpretation of it.
Mr. Cornacchia stated that the building permit used for construction on the subject property had been for an accessory unit only, not for rural agricultural use.
Mr. Cornacchia stated that it was the assertion of the appeal that the Hearings Official created new criteria in stating that noise levels would not be compatible with the area, even though they met Department of Environmental Quality standards.
Mr. Cornacchia stated that claims the appellant had changed her avowed purpose in construction were untrue. He said she was proceeding with her initial purpose that had become possible because conditions for it had been met.
Commissioner Dwyer determined that there were no others wishing to testify and closed the public hearing. He said the matter would be recessed until a time certain to be scheduled by the Commissioners Agenda Setting Team. He said appropriate public announcement of the time for the Board's deliberation and decision on the matter would be provided and that participants would be given notified individually.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that he had learned from Commissioner Weeldreyer that she wished to re-consider the vote on adoption of ORDER 02-4-17-2 regarding the design of the River Road Improvement Project. He said she wanted to ask staff to present further revisions before it was approved.
Commissioner Sorenson stated that he had learned of the intention of Commissioner Weeldreyer and supported reconsideration, but was not inclined to change his vote opposed to adoption of the order.
Commissioner Weeldreyer stated that she wanted to postpone a decision on adoption of the order until further information was available.
MOTION: to reconsider the vote to adopt ORDER 02-4-17-2.
Commissioner Weeldreyer MOVED.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that the motion was in order, did not require a second, and was not debatable.
VOTE: 3-2, with Commissioners Green and Morrison voting no.
MOTION: To refer reconsideration of the vote to adopt ORDER 02-4-17-2 to the Agenda Team for scheduling.
Commissioner Sorenson MOVED, Commissioner Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-2, with Commissioners Green and Morrison voting no.
Commissioner Weeldreyer said she hoped a final decision on the order could be reached by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Sorenson said he believed the provisions requiring three votes for Board action was appropriate. He requested that the Agenda Team schedule reconsideration of the vote on the order at a meeting when all Commissioners would be present.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes: None.
B. Board of Commissioners
1) ORDER 02-4-17-3/In the Matter of Appointing Two Resident Commissioners to the HACSA Board of Commissioners.
C. Public Works
1) ORDER 02-4-17-4/In the Matter of Awarding Requirement Contracts to Various Contractors to Establish Unit Prices for Dust Oiling Material (Lignin Sulfonate), Delivery, CRC Distributor and Operator Needs During the Period of June 1, 2002 to September 15, 2002, Contract No. 02-M&S-50.
D. Workforce Partnership
1) ORDER 02-4-17-5/In the Matter of Appointing Two New Members to the Lane Workforce Partnership Youth Council.
MOTION: To approve the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Green MOVED, Commissioner Morrison SECONDED.
9. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
11. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.
C. Daniel Lindstrom