BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING†
January 16, 2002
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† Cindy Weeldreyer was present via telephone.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1.† ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
To take the Eugene Sand and Gravel matter first.† Weeldreyer wanted to add under Commissionerís Business, 4. e., a draft letter to the Division of State Lands and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers related to the Pearl Street project in Coburg.
2.† PUBLIC COMMENTS
Debra Jeffries, 3800 N. Delta Highway, Eugene, commented on the natural resource study.† She said the study was part of a periodic review work program approved by DLCD in 1995.† She said this task was initiated in 1994 and the work program approved in 1995 had a deadline of December 31, 1997.† She said the current task was delayed by four years for submission.† It was her understanding that the periodic review study and process for local government was outlined in an OAR provision 660.025 and it included how long government may continue past the deadline date.† She said it was significant because LCOG staff had maintained that they could operate under an old 66.106, Goal 5 process for local government identifying natural resources.†† She commented that staff noted since the initial NRS was before 1996, they could operate under the old rule. She added the old rule was more general and allowed a larger net over significant lands that should be included in the inventory.† Her request of the Board was an answer to the question before they went forward with the periodic review.
Terry Connolly, Director of Government Affairs, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette, requested the Board ask about the buildable land supplies within the urban growth boundary of Eugene for the natural resources study.† He also wanted to know how many acres in Phase One of the Natural Resource Study are zoned for commercial, industrial and residential uses fall within the inventory.† He stated there was already concern because there is a shortage of buildable lands inside Eugeneís urban growth boundary for commercial and industrial purposes.† He said it was important that they know up front how many acres could be protected and removed from the land inventories inside the urban growth boundary that were agreed upon when the boundary was adopted.
Diane Wiley, 1295 Franklin, Eugene, shared the concern about inclusion of this amount of acreage within the inventory.† She said this, with other land use actions related to wetlands, is being taken out of the local inventory.† She noted their site (north of the railroad tracks) had been proposed for inclusion as E 40.† She explained they had 25 acres proposed for development.† She stated over the past ten years they had been through the land use processes.† She didnít think this was consistent with the Oregon Land Use policy, giving property owners assurance of what they could or could not do on their properties.† She stated the University asked the Board to consider sites that have development approvals and exclude those with environmental considerations.
Lori Jensen, 92019 River Road, Eugene, asked if the record was open on everything or on just the letter.
Dwyer responded the record was open on the letter around reconsideration, not on anything else.† He added the record stays open until 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of January 30.† He said there would be a public hearing at 1:30 p.m. to determine if the motion for reconsideration should be considered.
Carol McWiggin, 860 W. Park St., Eugene, stated what happened to Diane Wiley happened to them on wetland issues.† She said they have the Westec Business Park.† They had wetlands identified as buildable and it cost them $250,000 to have them identified and mitigated.† She said it didnít make sense to have property identified as buildable and then have to go through this.
3.† EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
4.† COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a.† DISCUSSION/Executive Session Process.
Wilson explained this was the result of a change she recommended to the Board.† She said ORS. 192.660 is what permits the Board to go into Executive Session.† She said it was her opinion that by listing on the Boardís agenda they are going into Executive Session and the purpose was sufficient.† She said that Mr. Hearn of Standards and Practices believes that the chair has to identify the specific authority.† She noted in a handout she was given it was explained that they had to be very specific.† She said a violation of the Executive Session Law is something that government standards and practices is authorized to enforce.† She noted if a violation was committed, there was a potential risk of $1,000.† She said they continue to list the generic Executive Session on the blue agenda and as the Executive Session agenda is developed, they are making the effort to identify the very specific subsection of 192.660.† Either the chair could read the subsections or she could read them at the time they actually make the motion to go into Executive Session.† She believed that removed any risk of liability.
Sorenson asked about E-mailing the Executive Session Agenda to the people who receive the regular agenda.
Wilson noted it is not ready when the regular agenda material is.† She stated the actual listing of topics for Executive Session doesnít take place until Monday afternoon before a meeting.† She added sometimes it is as late as Wednesday morning.† She noted they try to be responsive and not bring in unnecessary items to the Executive Session.
Van Vactor responded a process could be set up with the document resource center, but people had to understand they might not receive this until the last minute.
Wilson noted it was not designed as public notice.
Sorenson reiterated that the Executive Session sheet would have greater specificity as to what would be discussed and the Board would continue the practice of recessing the meeting to go into Executive Session and they would read what the specific purpose would be.† He added they would have the list of e-mail recipients of the agenda to receive the items that would be discussed in Executive Session.
Weeldreyer said it was easy for Document Resources to list it on the website under the agenda.
Dwyer stated they would make the best effort they could to provide citizens an opportunity to know what would be taking place during Executive Session.
b.† DISCUSSION/Schedule for Small City Meetings and Jail Inspections.
Dwyer explained that, statutorily, the Board is required to inspect the jails every year.† He noted in the law it stated the Board of Commissioners ďshallĒ inspect.† They want to change it to ďmayĒ inspect with the Department of Corrections being the jail inspectors.† He didnít think the Board was qualified to undertake that task.
With regard to small city meetings, Dwyer said they should consolidate some of the meetings and develop a process.
Sorenson suggested a regularly scheduled board meeting for Junction City, Cottage Grove and Florence so people in those communities could give public comment.† He added then they would inspect the jail.
Weeldreyer stated it was an honor for the Board of Commissioners to hold a meeting in the rural communities for a particular city and its issues.† She noted some of the best meetings had been one-on-one between City Councils and the Commissioners.† She noted this process dictated they would meet in the small city as long as the Commissioner of the district and at least two other commissioners were available.
Morrison noted there is always public notice in the newspapers and the public could comment when the Board is going to the small cities.† She didnít see how having a full-day meeting would make things different.† She noted when there are staff presenting items, all staff have to go with the Board.† She questioned if that was the best utilization of time and money.
With regard to jail inspections, Morrison said this was something they would have to start preparing for the next legislative session for Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Director.†† She noted that the Board didnít have the knowledge or expertise to examine the jails.† She questioned whether she was qualified or competent to do it.
Sorenson suggested Dwyer write a letter to the mayors of the small cities suggesting pairing cities to meet together:† Westfir/Oakridge; Creswell/Cottage Grove and Dunes City/Florence.†
Dwyer added there was also Veneta, Junction City, Coburg and Lowell.† He added the city councilors are not paid and donít have meetings in the daytime.†
Sorenson suggested joint meetings with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield.
Green agreed a letter should be sent to the cities.† He wanted to ask for their feedback and if the current process works for them.† He didnít want to include Eugene and Springfield.
Morrison concurred with Green.† She supported a letter going to the other cities asking for recommendations.
Dwyer stated he would write the letter.
c.† DISCUSSION/Tuesday Work Sessions - Board of Commissioners' Meeting Schedule.
Dwyer explained this was to consolidate the agenda so they donít have meetings on two days.† He said if they meet two days a week, they will, or meet one day and go into the evening to accommodate agenda items.
Green noted the charter was clear that the Commissioners are to work full-time.† He didnít think they worked longer or harder than any other Lane County employee.† He said the current way of meeting works.† He said when there is a need for a Tuesday meeting, they schedule it.† He commented they always reserved Tuesdays for board meetings.† He didnít want to send a message that they were looking for fewer days to work.
Morrison concurred with Green.† She noted that most Tuesday meetings were half-days.† She noted when Sorenson was chair they had 62 meetings between Tuesdays and Wednesdays, whereas last year they had 58.† She said the reason they have to have the additional Tuesday meetings is because Boardís direction to staff creates the need to have the agenda items come back.†
Weeldreyer wanted to be as efficient as possible and take time with complex issues to allow for comments.† She didnít want the wrong perception that the Board didnít work the rest of the workweek, when they do.
Sorenson wanted all meetings on Wednesday.
Green didnít want a blanket policy to not meet on Tuesdays.
d.† DISCUSSION/ORDER 02-1-16-6/In the Matter of Special Dues Assessment and Proposed Endowment Fund Participation.
Morrison explained this item was before the Board previously from O & C Counties.† She noted they issued a letter in October to request that each of the O & C Counties increase its level of support so the work of the association could be continued.† She said the requested increase consisted of a one-time special dues assessment.† Also, the counties that are already participating in the endowment are asked to continue.† She said the original endowment had come up for renewal. †She noted in the past Lane County had not participated in the endowment.† She said they received billings from the O & C Counties on their share of whatever expense was incurred coming out of the endowment fund.† She said if the Board chooses to enter into the endowment, the 2001 contribution would be $150,000. The contribution for next year would be $75,000 and would establish Lane County as a participant in the endowment. She said if they want to look at the reauthorization of the funds, they should join.
Dave Garnick, Senior Budget Analyst, discussed enclosure No. 1 (Copy in file).† He stated the funds were available and the Board should go ahead and do this. He noted they have $15,000 they budget every year to pay legal dues but had only spent $5,000 this year.† He said the $150,000 they would take out of the reserves to move it into spending authority.
MOTION: to move ORDER 02-1-16-6, to do the 2001 special assessment as well as the contribution for the Endowment Fund for 2001.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Sorenson noted that most of the counties listed didnít have another paid lobbying firm.† He was concerned because Lane County was already participating in the United Front with Smith Dawson, paid from the general fund.† He asked if this meant a greater commitment to this association, versus others.† He said the reason for not being in the endowment is as strong now as it was when the Board chose not to be involved.† He didnít want to reverse board policy on the endowment.
Dwyer had concerns because it requires that this agreement go to November 2009 without any unilateral withdrawal.† He asked if this was in the Boardís best interest.† He said it would be committing future boards so they couldnít unilaterally extract the County from the agreement.
Wilson explained it was an intergovernmental agreement and the Board is authorized to enter into a longer term.† On binding future Boards, she said it was an issue at a budgetary level.† She added they were not binding future budget actions by future boards.† She didnít think there was a constitutional problem with the arrangement.† She said it was a political and policy choice to determine if it was in the Boardís best interest to have the ongoing relationship with the O & C Counties group.
Van Vactor suggested a withdrawal clause that states as long as the County didnít want to withdraw funding, they could cease to be a member of the endowment.
Weeldreyer supported the motion for the reasons Morrison outlined.
Wilson wanted to specify in the order that the County Administrator was authorized to sign the agreement.
Green amended his motion to reflect Van Vactorís suggestion of the withdrawal clause.
Dwyer thought it would be more appropriate to make Lane Countyís commitment contingent upon budgetary approval.
Van Vactor said once money is placed in the endowment, it is there for the association to spend.† He explained the purpose of the withdrawal language would be for future boards.
Sorenson didnít think this should go forward.
Dwyer reiterated the motion was to become a part of the endowment as per the discussion with instruction given to counsel and to the County Administrator.
Van Vactor stated he would draft withdrawal language, but not get the money back and to clarify in the resolution that the second payment is subject to budget approval.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
e.† DISCUSSION/Pearl St.
Weeldreyer announced she met on Monday night with Sonny Chickering and the Coburg City Council and Truck and Travel.† She said they discussed the opportunity to craft a letter.† She noted the City of Coburg had sent a letter to the Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Portland.† She drafted a letter from the Board of Commissioners for the Boardís consideration that asks the DSL and the Corps to watch for a modified Lane County environmental permit for the Pearl Street intersection project that is scheduled for construction this summer.† That would extend the culvert and the muddy irrigational canal approximately 150 feet.† She explained the additional cost of the public right of way would be incurred by Truck and Travel.† She asked the federal and state regulatory agencies to partner with Lane County to minimize negative economic impacts that the construction project would have this summer on Truck and Travel, and to make it safer for trucks and cars to get into the restaurant.† She noted if the permit goes through and they get it by March 1, the project could move forward this summer.† Her request is for the Board to make corrections to her draft letter and send it off as soon as possible to the state and federal agencies.
MOTION: to move to have the Board make corrections to her draft letter, sending it off as soon as possible to the state and federal agencies.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED
5.† PUBLIC WORKS
a.† DISCUSSION/Direction to Staff on the Metro Natural Resources Study.
Kent Howe, Land Management, reported the Metro Natural Resources Study was last before the Board in June 2000.† He said at that time it was being reinitiated from a prior effort as part of the Metro Periodic Review.† He noted that MPC in 1997 came to a conclusion that for areas outside of the urban growth boundary, the safe harbor approach would be used for the inventory process and effort under the Natural Resources Study.† He added for inside the urban growth boundary it would be the site-specific inventory approach.† He added that both city councils had reviewed it and Eugene City Council recommended moving it forward.† He noted that the Springfield City Council made changes to the proposal which were brought to MPC.† He added staff thought the changes Springfield suggested could be worked out at MPC.† He asked the Board to make a motion to move forward the staffís recommendation on the criteria and the inventory.† He said staff of Lane County had been involved up to this date in the product that was before the Board.† He added as a result of the staff reductions, Land Management would not be involved in carrying forward the Boardís perspective in the project team meetings.
Kathi Wiederhold, LCOG, explained the study is a metro wide study, extending to the metro plan boundaries, involving the three jurisdictions and the staff team from planning and public works.† She stated this was an interim report.† She said they were looking at inventory and significance criteria that are the first step of the study.† She said the bulk of the work has yet to take place on the study.† She noted that Goal 5 gives three broad policy choices: to fully protect the site, partially protect the site or allow for development on the site.† She noted the implementation phase will not be part of the study, it will be handled by each jurisdiction separately.† She noted this item would come back again before the Board during the adoption phase, between mid-2003 to 2004.
Weeldreyer asked if Lane County could still abide by Goal 5 and remove sites listed as significant.
Wiederhold said they had made provisions for sites in the study that have an approved development plan.† She noted for those types of sites, they would add a footnote to the maps and the documents that the inventory site has an approved development plan and there will be no further analysis or application of protection measures in the study.† She stated the study deals with three resources: wetlands, riparian corridors and wildlife habitat.† She said they are doing this to meet Goal 5 requirements in the periodic review program and local governments are required to complete the portion of Goal 5.† She added the study is also to increase development certainty on the inventory sites.† She noted they are dealt with on a case-by-case basis when a development application comes in.
Wiederhold explained there is a detailed methodology inside the urban growth boundary.† There is a less detailed one, called the safe harbor approach, they are using outside the urban growth boundary.† She added Goal 5 allows jurisdictions to choose and apply either one.† She noted there had been extensive public involvement in the study with workshops attended by 200 people.† She added the planning commissions jointly held two meetings, each with a public comment session.† She said they mailed out 15,000 notices that included affected property owners.
Wiederhold said they had a number of questions raised on the Goal 5 Rule.† She said they spent time with legal counsel and DLCD to resolve the issues.† She noted they had been resolved as well as they could be.† She recommended moving forward as their approach is reasonable and supportable.† She added the three planning commissions have all reviewed the inventory and significance criteria and made recommendations.† She noted both city councils had reviewed it and provided direction to move forward.† She noted that Springfield had suggested changes to some of the criteria.
Dwyer asked how Lane County would accomplish the work involved in the study and still maintain the level of service required to service the customers.
Green asked what the implications would be if they didnít do this.† He asked how the inventory changed as a result of this study.
Howe responded that County staff was not part of the project team effort.† He said the main impact is that Lane Countyís perspective would not be carried forward in the project team effort.† He said it was important for staff to carry the Boardís perspective.† He noted there would be a check-in with the Board.
With regard to timelines, Howe noted that no timeline extension had been requested.† He said they have been in communication with DLCD and asked what Lane County needed to do to be in compliance.† He noted they chose not to enforce the timeline and they indicated they are aware that local government is doing the best it can with the level of funding and they are proceeding at a slower rate.
Green asked what the penalty would be if they donít get it done.
Howe stated if they stop, they would be out of compliance with periodic review and the state would have enforcement order capabilities under periodic review to withhold further grant monies to Lane County.
Weeldreyer was concerned about the lack of funding to be able to be on the project team as it goes to the metro plan boundary.† She said there are county residents impacted by the decisions.† She wanted sponsorship of a position in Land Management to be part of this project team.† She said it was unwise to move this forward without Lane County's involvement on how it would be implemented.† She wanted Wiederhold to address Debra Jeffries' concern in public comment.† Weeldreyer stated Jeffriesí comment was they should start a new process that does not have as significant an impact on properties as what the inventory currently has.
Wiederhold responded she didnít know what impact the current inventory would have on property.† She noted they have an inventory of significant sites.
Morrison was concerned about what the Planning Department was doing.† She asked what the timeline was in the metro area compared to the rural areas to complete the periodic review.
Howe noted the rural periodic review was done in 1998 and they are given two years for each of the five watersheds.† He said they were to be completed by 2008.† He said they completed the McKenzie Watershed and had gained efficiencies and will be able to do two watersheds the next two years and two the following year so they should be completed by 2005.† He explained Lane Countyís participation was linked because the Board of Commissioners are participants outside the city limits.
Morrison said until Measure 7 is resolved, she would have concerns about items in an† inventory that would impact private property rights.
Eric Wold, Planner, City of Eugene, stated he received public comment about adding sites to the inventory.† He said the basis by which they analyzed the requests was based on whether they met the significance criteria in the packet.† He added if a citizen submitted comments asking that a site be added to the inventory, they had to meet the significance criteria.† He noted if a request came to remove an area from the inventory, it was based on whether a site had previously met the criteria but had since been developed, and then it would be removed.† With regard to the property that Carol McWigan raised, the portion of the site that is still in the inventory had not been developed, it still had characteristics that met the significance criteria.
Morrison said she listened to the tapes of the joint planning commissions when they discussed the criteria and the rating scale.† She was concerned about how the ratings were applied to the different parcels in the inventory as to whether or not they met the criteria and if that was a fair evaluation of that particular parcel against the criteria and having it included in the inventory.
Sorenson asked when this would be completed if they approved the motion.
Wiederhold said with the adoption package, it would be mid-2004.
Sorenson asked how much of the land involved is Eugene and Springfield versus unincorporated Lane County.
Howe responded the predominance is in Eugene and Springfieldís urban growth boundary and they are using the safe harbor approach outside the urban growth boundary.† He noted they already have the Class 1 stream inventory adopted and the process required by the rule in dealing with wetlands.† He said the other area that would require some County involvement is dealing with the wildlife habitat sites specified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Natural Heritage Program.† He noted those inventories would be outside of the urban growth boundary.
Wiederhold explained part of the safe harbor inventory and methodology entails skipping the analysis steps using the policy dictated in the Goal 5 Rule.† She said it was a streamlined process.
Green asked Van Vactor if he had concerns.
Van Vactor responded he had concerns due to the financial condition of Land Management.† He said he hoped next yearís budget would let them participate.
Morrison was concerned about using the old code for the new code and how it is interpreted.† She asked how they would get around those issues.
Wiederhold explained the periodic review work program was adopted before the New Goal 5 went into effect.† She said it allows local government to choose on a resource-by-resource, government-by-government basis whether they use old Goal 5 or new Goal 5 in the Natural Resources Study.† She said the Natural Resources Study is using new Goal 5 for all but seven wetlands in Eugene.† She said there are differences in interpretations, locally and with DLCD, about how to do it.† She said it was Lane Countyís interpretation that the rule allows them to make the choice.
Wold noted the City of Eugene has the West Eugene Wetlands Plan.† He noted beyond that there were no large wetland complexes remaining in the Eugene area.† He noted the others were already city parks.† He added without having money to conduct a full scale wetlands inventory for the remaining part of Eugene, they decided to use the old Goal 5 to continue the analysis on the Delta Ponds area and still move forward with the remaining parts of the Goal 5 process.
MOTION: to move approval of Option 1.
Sorenson MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.
Dwyer stated that all the unresolved issues relating to Springfield would come back to the MPC.
Sorenson stated it was imperative that the Natural Resource Study move forward.† He said the County has a minimal role with direct financial dollars in the study.† He noted the County has a significant role in complying with the requirements of the land use laws.† He said it was unfortunate Lane County was so far behind in getting the inventory.† With regard to the political issues and Measure 7, he said they should move ahead and take the political process as they normally would.
Green was against the motion.†† He said it was not consistent with the Strategic Plan.† He was concerned that staff would just be present in spirit. He supported directing staff to move forward to make the changes at MPC.† He said the funding is not there for Lane County to be at the table in a meaningful way.† He requested Option 2.
Weeldreyer echoed Greenís remarks.† She was more comfortable with Option 2, although she said the Board had not been direct enough in identifying what they want to bring to MPC.† She asked who would be doing the work.† She agreed with Sorenson about moving forward to comply with state law, but she had Measure 7 concerns.† She would not support the motion, but would support a new motion for Option 2.
Howe noted the first alternative directing staff to move forward is one that is already going to MPC due to the changes Springfield recommended.† He added that under Option 2, the intent of staff was if Lane County has specific changes they would suggest them in the criteria or inventory.†
Dwyer stated that Option 2 requires more work.† He said there wasnít a difference between Option 1 and 2.
Green stated they had not discussed any changes because the planning commission approved what had taken place.† He added there hadnít been a conversation† about what specific changes they would want because Lane County hadnít been involved.
Dwyer asked if the Planning Commission had highlighted any issues that might be of significance to the people in the County who are not represented by the cities outside the urban growth area.
Howe responded the Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Commissioners that this move forward to the next phase.† He said that phase would be where the bulk of the work would take place.
VOTE: 2-3 (Motion failed).
Howe explained that staff had been involved up to this point.† He noted the Planning Commission recommended that there are no issues or concerns they had with the inventory and criteria the way they are in the packet.† He said staff is also in agreement the inventory and criteria are fine.† He noted that Springfield had requested changes in the criteria.
Green asked about Westechís and the Riverfront Research parkís concern about buildable lands.
Wiederhold responded that Ms. Wiley made her comment about the Riverfront Research Park earlier in the study. †She noted they had already made changes in the study to respond to her comment about that site and other similar sites that have an approved development plan.† She stated they would footnote on the map and in documents where a site has an approved development plan.† She added there would be no further analysis on such sites or policy recommendations on those sites.
Carol McWiggin, Westech Development, stated they have a development in West Eugene and in 1992 they went for the process of subdividing the property, putting in facilities and what was necessary for development.† She noted they developed two of the lots and at that point is when the wetlands study was in process and it identified part of their property as wetlands.† She added they decided the wetlands were developable, but in order for them to develop them, they had to go through the process of having them identified and mitigated, costing them over $250,000.† She noted in order for them to get their subdivision, they had to make the lots big enough to accommodate the wetlands and develop on the lots because they hadnít finished the wetlands process of mitigation.† Her concern is they have taken two full lots into the study for the habitat uplands.
Wold explained that wetlands are regulated by federal agencies nationwide and any developer who proposes to build on wetlands needs to do mitigation.† With regard to the Natural Resource Study,† the property she described meets the significance criteria listed in the Board packet.† He said because they meet the criteria, staff thought despite the landownerís interest in having the property removed from the inventory, the basis on which staff evaluates such request is based on the significance criteria. He said it did meet the criteria.† He noted the important issue is whether staff would consider the infrastructure improvements and other inputs the property owner already put into the property.† He stated the answer was yes and they do it with an ESEE analysis.† He noted the comments McWiggins had made are in the record and staff will consider them during the ESEE analysis.
Wiederhold noted the property that McWiggins discussed is not part of the study.† She stated that Goal 5 offers jurisdictions flexibility in how they conduct the ESEE analysis.† She said there are concerns from officials about the takings concern and economic impacts on property owners.
Weeldreyer supported Morrison on developing specific criteria to consider referring to MPC if there are issues beyond the recommendation from Planning Commission and Land Management staff.
Morrison stated she would come back with concerns she thinks the Board should take to MPC around the inventory and criteria that were used.
MOTION: to approve Option 2.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Van Vactor recommended that county counsel work with Morrison on this issue.
Weeldreyer asked if Lane County could accept private contributions to fund the position for someone in Land Management to be part of the project team for the remainder of the financial year.
6.† CONSENT CALENDAR
A.† Approval of Minutes:
June 5, 2001, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
July 24, 2001, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
September 26, 2001, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
October 16, 2001, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
October 17, 2001, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
November 20, 2001, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA
November 20, 2001, Lunch Meeting, Noon
November 27, 2001, Interview Panel, 9:00 a.m.
December 5, 2001, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
December 11, 2001, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
December 12, 2001, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
January 2, 2002, Regular Meeting, 11:30 a.m.
B.† County Administration
1)† ORDER 02-1-16-2/In the Matter of Awarding Contracts to the City of Creswell for $9,782, City of Florence for $58,635, and City of Lowell for $5,892 for Implementation of 2002 Rural Tourism Marking Plan (RTMP) Projects.
2)† ORDER 02-1-9-15/In the Matter of Appointing Representatives to Various Committees and Agencies.
C.† Children and Family Services
1)† RESOLUTION AND ORDER 02-1-16-3/In the Matter of Awarding a One Year $65,076 Contract with RMC Research Corporation to Provide Evaluation Services to the Family Violence Response Initiative and Delegating Authority to the County Administrative Officer to Execute the Contract.†††††††††††††††††
D.† Public Works
1)† ORDER 02-1-16-4/In the Matter of Approving† and Authorizing the County Administrator Execution of Joint Agreements for Planning Coordination with the Cities of Coburg, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Florence, Junction City, Lowell, Oakridge, Veneta, and Westfir.
2)† ORDER 02-1-16-5/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Holden Creek Lane Located Easterly of the McKenzie Highway Near the Community of Deerhorn† (County Road No. 426) (17-15-17).
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
7.† COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
8.† CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
a.† DISCUSSION of Letter Requesting Reconsideration of the Lane County Board of County Commissioners' Tentative Decision on the Post-Acknowledge Plan Amendment Submitted by Eugene Sand and Gravel and Possible Action and Direction to Staff.
Dwyer stated the chair would accept a motion to reopen the record to all parties in the matter by which it failed to find in the applicantís favor regarding the Eugene Sand and Gravel application for the express purpose of accepting the request of reconsideration and to receive written and oral comments from those that both support and oppose this request and to set a public hearing for the afternoon of January 30, at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of receiving public testimony and to decide whether or not to grant the request for reconsideration.
Dwyer said that voting on this motion is not an indication of how one would vote on the question,† but a vote to give the opportunity to comment.
MOTION: to reopen the record to all parties for the express purpose of accepting the request of reconsideration and to receive written and oral comments from those that both support and oppose the request and to set a public hearing for January 30, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Sorenson noted when this subject came up under commissioners announcements, he raised a point of order that he didnít think the public had been given proper notice discussing a contested land use matter without it appearing on the Boardís agenda.†
Dwyer stated the motion they just voted on was the notice and it would give everyone an opportunity to comment.
Vorhes stated that given the Boardís direction, Land Management will devote a fair time in getting a notice out to all of the parties that had participated in the proceedings to date to advise them of the boardís action, reopening the record, the opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration and the hearing on January 30.† He stated that would take priority over preparation of the order.
Green commented they had taken the correct parliamentary procedure with the reconsideration.
10.† OTHER BUSINESS
Dwyer explained they had received two letters, one was on Fern Ridge to be dealt with next time and a letter from HALA, wanting to know what happened to the petitions they gave to the Board.† He said they would put these letters on the agenda for next week under Correspondence.
Vorhes asked the Board to forward to Thom Lanfear whatever they receive regarding Eugene Sand and Gravel relating to the reconsideration issue.
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer, recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.