LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

PUBLIC HEARING

February 6, 2002 1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 3/13/02

 

Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, and Peter Sorenson present.  Commissioner Cindy Weeldreyer was present via speaker telephone.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Stephen Vorhes, Parks Manager Rich Fay, and Recording Secretary Daniel Lindstrom were also present.

 

1.  PUBLIC HEARING

 

SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 1-02/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 4 of Lane Code to Add Provisions for a Parks and Recreation System Development Charge (LC 4.600-4.670).

 

Chair Dwyer called the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners to order at 1:30 p.m. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to provide for the Second Reading and a Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 1-02, which would establish a $404 System Development Charge (SDC) for parks and open spaces acquisition and development to accommodate new growth needs to be collected only outside the limits of incorporated cities.

 

Lane County Parks Manager Rich Fay referred to his Agenda Cover Memo and attachments dated January 23 about the ordinance and summarized information they contained.  He explained how the SDC had been calculated and reported that the proposal had been discussed and recommended for adoption by the Parks Advisory Committee.

 

Commissioner Sorenson expressed concern that the amount of the proposed SDC would only provide for 20 percent of the capital needs for park acquisition and development.  Mr. Fay replied that the funds created by the SDC would be used to leverage grants and other revenue sources.  He said that previously expressed concerns that the SDC could create “double charges” for parks for city residents had been specifically avoided in the enacting ordinance.

 

Commissioner Morrison expressed concern that the use of SDC revenue was limited to acquisition and development of parks.  She said special care needed to be taken that adequate funds were also provided for maintenance and improvement.

 

Commissioner Sorenson expressed concern that the SDC would be charged only on new construction and not property improvements.

 

Chair Dwyer opened the public hearing.

 

Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, stated that she represented the Home Builders Association of Lane County.  She reported concerns of her association regarding the proposed ordinance, as follows:

 

·          The phrase “irrespective of location” in 4.615(2) could be misinterpreted to mean that the SDC will not apply to manufactured homes.

 

·          The same SDC rate should apply to a manufactured home whether it is located on privately owned land or within a manufactured home park.

 

·          Definitions for “remodeling” and “development” in 4.615(1) are confusing.

 

·          Section 4.620(2) language regarding remodeling needs to be more explicit.

 

Mr. Fay suggested that definitions of “remodeling” be removed from the ordinance because it was irrelevant to its application.  Commissioner Green observed that the ordinance might need to define remodeling to clarify that the SDC did not apply to such work.

 

Mr. Fay stated that it was not intended for the SDC to apply to “replacement housing.”  Commissioner Sorenson suggested that “remodeling” could include “replacement housing.” 

 

Chair Dwyer suggested that Section 4.615(2) be removed from the proposed ordinance.  Mr. Vorhes said he would like an opportunity to study the overall effect of such elimination.

 

Commissioner Green suggested that language be added to the ordinance to prevent replacement of an unoccupied “shack” and defining it as “remodeling.”

 

Commissioner Morrison suggested that Section 4.615(2) be changed to state that there was no difference between manufactured and “stick built” housing.

 

Commissioner Green asked if it would be possible to tentatively approve the ordinance.  Mr. Vorhes replied that revisions to the ordinance could result in changes made to its implementation date and would require final approval by the Board.

 

John Roselli, no address provided, stated that he served on the Parks Advisory Committee.  He said he appreciated the careful work of the Board, but was concerned that the basic concept of a SDC for park acquisition not be questioned because of its successful use elsewhere.  He said the Board should clear legal questions and quickly enact the ordinance.

 

Commissioner Sorenson said he was concerned that the ordinance only provided for 20 percent of the revenue needed for park acquisition and development.  Mr. Roselli replied that the Advisory Committee had originally proposed a higher rate, but had been advised to set it at 20 percent.

 

Chair Dwyer determined that there were no additional persons present wishing to present testimony and closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Weeldreyer stated that she shared the concern that enactment of the ordinance had been a long time in coming.  She said she also appreciated that it was important that legal counsel be allowed time to respond to valid concerns.

 

Commissioner Morrison said she believed delays in enactment of the ordinance could prevent future difficulties in its interpretation.  She said she would like to explore the possibility of additional provision in the ordinance that would take into account the possibility of charging SDCs on construction which added a living unit to an existing building.

 

Chair Dwyer said he also appreciated the concern about delays in enacting the ordinance, but that he believed it was important to anticipate any potential difficulties in its enforcement.

 

MOTION:  to set a Third Reading and Deliberation of Ordinance No. 1-02.

 

Commissioner Green MOVED, Commissioner Morrison SECONDED.

 

Commissioner Green observed that it was only possible for the Board to enact an ordinance on the best advice it received and that in the future a Board might be required to make changes and corrections.

 

Commissioner Sorenson asked if the proposed ordinance was subject to referendum rights.  Mr. Vorhes replied that it was.

 

Commissioner Sorenson requested study of the implications of Section 4.650(f)(7) to consider if the complexity of the appeals described could necessitate a “default mechanism” such as granting appeals if they are not decided by the Board within 45 days.

 

Chair Dwyer said he did not believe the concern of Commissioner Sorenson was significant and suggested that a full investigation of the issues involved not be undertaken.  Commissioners Green and Morrison said they agreed.

 

Chair Dwyer said he favored adding an emergency clause to the ordinance when it was adopted.

 

Chair Dwyer determined there was consensus to approve the motion.

 

2.  COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Commissioner Morrison distributed copies of a document entitled “AOC Policy on State Budget Reduction Plan.”

 

Commissioner Sorenson stated that he was opposed to the proposed increase in state taxes on alcoholic beverages.  He said the implications of such an increase on industry should be weighed before supporting the position of the Association of Oregon Counties.

 

Commissioner Weeldreyer reported that the Mayor of Lowell would be appearing at the next meeting of the Board to speak in the Public Comment section about the transfer of residential property to a school district.  She requested that the section be scheduled on the agenda of the meeting after the public hearing.

 

There being no further business, Chair Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.

 

 

C. Daniel Lindstrom

Recording Secretary