BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
April 14, 2004
Commissionersí Conference Room
Commissioner Bobby Green presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
This afternoonís meeting will be held in Harris Hall.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
David Eisler, 88613 Nelson Mountain Road, Walton, stated he represents a 15-member citizens advisory group working with the Siuslaw National Forest.† He said they were requesting an opportunity for the Siuslaw Stewardship Group to give a 20-minute presentation to the Board about the Siuslaw National Forest community based collaborative project.† He reported his group formed 18 months ago to work with the national forest on their stewardship thinning operations and to monitor and advise on designs, contracting, restoration and developing a business plan.† He noted the stewardship authority was initiated to provide aid to diversify rural communitiesí economic basis and to improve the economic, social and environmental well being of rural America.†† He noted there is currently $200,000 available from timber receipts for the first forest thinning for reinvestment into community development and restoration.† He added the stewardship group is going to be evaluating proposals that will be submitted for the use of the funds in the next few weeks.† He noted beyond the available funds for re-investment, the Siuslaw Stewardship project has been successful in developing a relationship with trust and respect between a federal agency and the local community.† He wanted to demonstrate the opportunities the projects offer the County and fund leveraging and matching for rural forest communities.
Sorenson requested having this presentation as part of an agenda item.
Green recommended Eisler contact Zoe Gilstrap to set up the agenda item.
Dwyer asked about who was on the committee and their occupation.
Eisler responded he would provide that during the presentation.† †
Jim Baker, President, Blue River Community Development Corporation, 51013 McKenzie Highway, Finn Rock, wanted to bring to the Board two projects for the Community Development Block Grant public hearing this afternoon.† He had a conflict and couldnít appear at that time.† He noted the projects are within the boundaries of the Blue River Water District, an area that meets the 51 percent low-to-moderate family income level qualified for CDBG grants.† He said they are attempting to get the Blue River Forest Service upper warehouse for use as a community center.† He said they want a fire station with secure storage for groups and fire departments.† He added it would provide for all weather emergency response training.† He said they want to provide a secure location for one or two small businesses as incubation areas.† He said they need money to remodel the warehouse and are requesting aid in the amount of $195,000.† He added they need a transportation corridor for the people of Blue River.† He said the project would make the Forest Glen rest area/boat landing more environmentally acceptable and people friendly.† He said the project would aid economical development in the business district of Blue River.† He noted for that project theyíre requesting aid of $200,000.
Sorenson thought some of Lane Countyís road fund money could be used to build and maintain rest stops.
Janetta Overholser, 30300 Cottage Grove Lorane Road, Cottage Grove reported that kitten season had started and Greenhill took in 9 cats.† She said she is getting phone calls from people who find kittens.† She noted that the last year LCARA was in operation, they took in over 3,000 cats and there is no longer any place for those cats to go.† She added that per law Greenhill could no longer take strays unless they have a contract.† She asked the Board approve the task force report when it comes before the Board.† She said there needs to be funding for the facility coming to LCARA.† She noted politicians in North Carolina were also considering a pet food tax.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson commented that today Senator Wyden and Governor Kulingoski are in Lane County to kick off their clean up of the Willamette River.†† He hoped there would be assistance to local governments dealing with water pollution problems in their communities.
a. RESOLUTION 04-4-14-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming the Week of April 19, 2004† as Letter Carrier Week. †
Sorenson read the resolution into the record.
MOTION:† to approve RESOLUTION 04-4-14-1.
Sorenson MOVE, Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Morrison out of room).
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 04-4-14-2/In the Matter of Appointing Janice L. Mackey to the Lane County Economic Development Standing Committee.
Hampton recalled that the Economic Development Standing Committee wanted a lay citizen to be a part of the committee.† He explained they advertised for a first tier but didnít get applications that were enough in the lay citizen category so they re-wrote the advertisement and Ms. Mackey submitted an application.† He said the committee is recommending her inclusion in the committee.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-4-14-2.
Hampton MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor announced it is budget season and the budgets had been delivered.† He said that next week they begin the process.† He noted that several weeks ago Bob Cantine† of AOC called him to say he was working with Gary Weeks of the Department of Administrative Services on a performance and accountability summit with state and local governments and involving the League of Oregon Cities.† He noted it is now called Best Practices and the forum is on April 26, 2004 in Salem.† He said that two people from Lane County would be making presentations. †
Dwyer noted the Emergency Board met on April 8 and only allocated a small portion of the amount they are cutting from public safety.† He asked if they would be having a discussion on whether they should serve notice.
Van Vactor responded that Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations, was coordinating with Health and Human Services and the Sheriffís Office in trying to organize a meeting at the staff level to formulate a recommendation for the Board.
b. ORDER 04-4-14-3/In the Matter of Establishing a Regional Tourism Infrastructure Strategy Task Force to Identify and Recommend Countywide Tourism Infrastructure Development Opportunities and Appointing Members to the Task Force.
Randy Derrick, Economic Development, explained that in January 2004 the tourism summit in Lane County recognized that tourism infrastructure was an area for development to help make Lane County a destination point.† He noted after the summit an informal working group was established to examine infrastructure tourism and to look at the convention facilities.† He added that out of the working group came the recommendation to create the Regional Tourism Strategy Task Force.
Derrick said the role of the Economic Development Committee was facilitating the task force.† He said the staffing for the task force would be provided by tourism agencies.† With regard to funding, a grant for special projects funds was submitted but not funded.† He noted the question before the Board is whether or not to establish the task force and appoint members.
Sorenson stated he didnít like the extension language in the proposed board order.† He thought it should just state they will report their findings no later than ten months. †
MOTION:† to move approval of ORDER 04-4-14-3 as presented with the following changes:† 1) delete the phrase for request and extension from the last sentence in the proposed order; 2) to appoint the following people:† Kari Westlund, Bob Zagorin; the Mayor of Florence or designated appointee; the Mayor of Eugene or designated appointee; the Mayor of Springfield, or designated appointee; Dave Hauser, Dan Egan,† the President of the Lane County Lodging Association or designee; Dan Williams,† Lane County Parks Manager or designee; Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Morrison was concerned about meeting the timelines through November. †She asked if they could select an RFP in two weeks.
Peter Thurston, Economic Development, responded it was intended that the working group identify the issues.† The soonest would be February.† He said they would have to extend the process for retaining services.† †
Morrison wanted to know what it would cost Lane County at the end of the project.
Sorenson said his motion was to have the task force completed ten months from today.† He asked if ten months was reasonable.
Thurston responded it would be reasonable.
Green supported that.† He stated it was a response to the summit.† He said it is to discuss the infrastructure needs.† He thought they could accomplish this within the timeframe.† He agreed about taking the extension out and having a deadline.
Wilson reiterated that it is a Board task force that reports to the Board.† She added its meetings are public meetings that will require a public meeting notice and written minutes.
Sorenson asked who would staff the task force.
Thurston responded that a consultant would take care of the staffing functions.† He said if the Board wanted to address the issue of funding that would be based upon a $10,000 request that was not funded under special projects, they could bring the matter back to the Board with a separate order.
8. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-4-14-4/In the Matter of Creating a Classification and Salary Range for Corrections Health Services Manager.
Hector Rios, Management Services, explained the Sheriffís Office and Human Services have been working on creating a classification for a Corrections Health Services Manager.† He said they had been using a generic classification for staffing the support services manager.† He noted that John Clague, Corrections, had approached Human Resources with a need to create the classification where the focus would be primarily to oversee medical and mental health staff in the adult corrections division.†† He said they did a study with other counties to see if other counties had a classification that might meet their needs and they werenít able to find a match.† He indicated after they conducted an analysis of the skills, knowledge and abilities and the requirements needed, they developed a draft in cooperation with the Sheriffís Office.† He noted it was in response to an audit by The National Institute of Corrections.† He said they needed to have someone who would have the specific focus of overseeing medical and mental health staff and who would have three years of experience in a managerial type of position.† He noted even though this is a managerial classification, the Sheriffís Office in their efforts to streamline their operations is deleting two managerial classifications from the budget.† He explained that based on the duties, qualifications and certifications needed, they point factored a grade 42, which is a salary range of $50,690 to $70,158.
Green asked how this position would be paid.
Clague explained the medical and mental health sections each had their own supervisor and a middle manager that was a support services manager who also oversaw maintenance and food service.† Clague indicated he restructured the unit and now maintenance and food service are reporting directly to him so the supervisory positions go away.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 04-4-14-4.
Morrison MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
b. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 8-04/In the Matter of Authorizing the Transfer of Surplus County Owned Real Property Located at 651 East 32nd Street, Eugene to the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation for the Purpose of Providing Affordable Housing (Map No. 18-03-03-22-10100) (Second Reading and Public Hearing April 28, 2004, 1:30 p.m., Commissioners' Conference Room).
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 8-04 for April 28, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
9. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 04-4-14-5/In the Matter of Amending the Parks and Recreation SDC Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), to Identify Long-Range Planning Activities Eligible to be Funded With SDC Revenues.
Todd Winter, Parks, explained the Lane County Parks and recreation system development charges methodology report and the SDC capital Improvement Plan, dated September 4, 2001 were adopted by the Board on March 13, 2002.† He noted that Lane Code Chapter 4 identifies planning as an SDC-eligible activity, but the activity and any cost model were not included in the SDC charge capital improvement plan.† He stated that Lane Code Chapter 4, paragraph 6.45 indicates that SDCís were intended to include appropriate planning costs, and that SDC revenues may be used for purposes that may include design and construction plan and long range park planning. He explained they need new capacity to meet the needs of growth and major reinvestment in existing infrastructure that continues to serve the public interest and operational changes driven by a changing public demand and environmental realities.† He thought it was reasonable to amend the SDC capital improvement plan to include long-range planning with 33.3percent of planning costs eligible for SDC funds.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-4-14-5.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Winter indicated the fees were coming in higher than anticipated.† He stated they had collected $55,000.
b. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ Ordinance No. PA 1200/Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan and the Coburg Comprehensive Plan to Enlarge the Coburg Urban Growth Boundary; Redesignate Affected Lands From a Rural Comprehensive Plan Designation of Commercial and Park and Recreation to a City Plan Designation of Highway Commercial; Rezone These Affected Lands From a Lane Code Chapter 16 District of CR Rural Commercial and PR Park & Recreation to a Lane Code Chapter 10 District of CT Tourist Commercial; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; (File PA 03-5883; City of Coburg) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: April 28, 2004, 1:30 pm).
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1200 for April 28, 1004, 1:30 p.m.
Hampton MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
c. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1202/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Adopt an Updated Lane County Transportation System Plan; to Amend the Lane County General Plan Policies (an Element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan) By Revising Goal 12 Transportation Policy 4 to Comply With Statewide Planning Goal 12; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Second Reading & Public Hearing: May 5, 2004, 1:30 pm).
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Setting Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1202 for May 5, 2004, 1:30 p.m.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 10-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 10, 13, 15 and 16 of Lane Code to Implement the Lane County Transportation System Plan by Adopting New and Revised Rules, Regulations and Standards Relating to Existing and Future Transportation and Access Needs in Lane County (Second Reading & Public Hearing: May 5, 2004, 1:30 pm).
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 10-04 for May 5, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
e. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-4-14-6/In the Matter of Acquiring Fee or Other Interests in Certain Real Properties or Portions Thereof for the Reconstruction and Improvement of Royal Avenue (County Road No. 28) at Fisher Road (County Road No. 668) Intersection.
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, recalled the Board had discussed this project on February 11. He stated he underestimated the Boardís interest in the project.† He noted it was smaller in scale to other CIP projects.† He said the Board voted to deny their request to acquire right of way for the project.† He urged the Board to reconsider the project.
Chickering explained that Royal Avenue is an east to west avenue.† He noted in past years prior to the realignment and reconstruction of Beltline, Barger Drive and Royal and Fischer Roads have been used as a by-pass for congestion on Beltline and West 11.† He noted with the improvement of Beltline and sections of West 11, they donít believe the detour is being used as extensively as before, but it is frequently used around congestion in the area.†† He noted there are an average of 2,300 vehicles per day on Royal and 2,100 on Fischer.† He added there was a predominate movement from Royal to Fischer in both directions.† He noted between 1988 and present there have been 12 significant reported crashes from property damage to a fatality in 1989.† He added it is on their list as one of the most dangerous intersections in the County and it made it onto the CIP and is scheduled in the current CIP for reconstruction in 2004.
Chickering said it is their recommended improvement for a 35-mile per hour horizontal curve that would connect Royal and Fischer Avenue.† He added they would bring a minor leg of Royal Avenue to a T intersection and it would be a controlled stop.† He added other alternatives included a roundabout, but it didnít address the problem at the particular intersection and they didnít recommend it as a final alternative.† He said they studied a traffic signal and because of the low traffic volume on Royal Avenue, none of the warrants are met.† He said they considered a stop sign on westbound Royal but they would be stopping the drivers unnecessarily. He said they considered a flashing yellow light but the reviews of yellow flashing lights are inconclusive.
Hampton suggested a flashing red light.
Chickering said they could go to that option but they were not sure of the benefit versus the cost, whereas with the horizontal curve, they think they are addressing all the issues and are more confident of the results.
Green was concerned about the lack of visibility.
Chickering stated he was recommending that they put in overhead lighting no matter what alternative is chosen.† He said they were recommending the 35-mile per hour curve.
Dwyer was concerned about the cost.† He was also concerned about the taking of land that was related to the first alternative.† He wanted to see a minimal way of addressing the problem.† He wanted to see other alternatives.
Green wanted a red flashing light with a clear light on top.
Chickering thought the light would be at a $30,000 to $40,000 range.
MOTION:† to move to give direction to come back with a proposal that includes general lighting and a blinking yellow and red light with a cost proposal.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Green stated he approached this as a first step approach.† He commented it was that publicís driving behavior that costs money.
Green asked Chickering to come back in a few weeks.
f. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance PA 1198/In the Matter of Adopting Criteria for Determining Significant Goal 5 Riparian or Wildlife Habitat Sites Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting an Updated Goal 5 Inventory for the Eugene Urban Growth Area; and Adopting a Severability Clause. (NBA & PM 3/17/04 & 3/31/04)
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, stated he was not present at the last meeting but listened to the comments and viewed the video.† He said he had a sense of some of the concerns that were raised.† He didnít think legal issues were raised as much as policy issues for how the Board wanted to address the Goal 5 resources.† He said the packet has the City of Eugeneís proposal for work they have done to date to address the riparian Goal 5 resource and the wildlife habitat Goal 5 resource.† He said there was concern from the Board on how that was being developed and if there was a different way to develop it under the Goal 5 Rule.† He said there are some policy implications, not legal implications.† He noted in the area outside of the urban growth boundary the approach used is a safe harbor tool that is available in the Goal 5 Rule to identify wetlands, riparian and wildlife habitat resources.† He said it involved the work effort that mapped the resources based on the Goal 5 Rule description of what the safe harbor would yield.† He noted the City of Eugene has decided to use the safe harbor identification for the wildlife habitat resource.† He said if the Board decides that the safe harbor is the approach they want to use to identify the Goal 5 riparian resource sites, that would necessitate going through the steps of identifying what and where those resources are as it is not something the city had done using a standard approach.
Vorhes indicated the materials deal with the urban growth boundary around Eugene alone because that is the area the Board will express in the policy where things should go.† He said that had been done together with the City of Eugene and it is not a Metro Plan amendment.† He said there wasnít an absolute need for adoption of identical materials but if they adopt something different, then the city would have to access where and what happens.† He said if the Board wanted to exercise the policy control for that area, the consequences might be significant in terms of the Metro Plan.† He said they would get to the adoption of the Metro Plan policies in the area similar to what they are doing outside of the urban growth boundary.† He said the question is what happens next and who does the work to fund the identification of the riparian resource sites and the development of the relations that will implement the protection of that Goal 5 resource.† He indicated what the Board has is what the city proposed as an initial identification and before they get to the policy adoption of the Metro Plan at the policy level, Board implementation regulations will identify how these resource sites are protected.† He said if the Board decides to go with the safe harbor, the work that has been done would not be of significant value.† He said they would have to allocate the resources and make choices on whether it is a priority.
Dwyer asked what process the City went through and who supported this on the city council.
Neil Bjorklund, City of Eugene, explained the original inventory was created in the late 80ís under the Metro Plan update.† He said the work proceeded to a policy proposal that went before the elected officials in 1992 and 1993.† He said the city council approved it but it didnít go into effect because Lane County and Springfield didnít adopt it.† He noted that three years later when the periodic review came around, they started to work again.† He said between 1995 and 1996 they had a new Goal 5 Rule that changed some of the options and requirements.† He said between 1996 and 2001, there was work done with all three planning commissions and the elected officials giving direction.† He said there was an agreement made that the County would pursue safe harbor outside the UGB and inside the UGB the cities would basically take the lead and use the standard process.† He noted in 2002 they held the first hearing before their planning commission on adopting the inventory.† He said up to that point, all the action that had been taken had been advisory from the elected officials and the planning commissions.† He said their planning commission recommended an inventory within the Eugeneís UGB that was more comprehensive than what the city council approved.† He added when they got to the city council level, there wasnít support to keep all of the forested uplands on the inventory so the council directed staff to apply the safe harbor criteria that caused those areas to drop off the inventory.† He said what stayed on the inventory was waterways.† He explained what was in front of the Board is the portion of that inventory that is outside the city limits and inside the UGB.† He said the vote from the City Council was 5-3. He noted that Kelly, Bettman and Taylor had voted for the original Eugene Planning Commission recommendation that was to keep the forested upland areas in the inventory and the other five votes were for the inventory minus those areas.
Bjorklund indicated the main point of contention with the Eugene City Council and the Planning Commission had to do with the south hills.† He noted there were a large number of property owners that testified about their yards being inventoried.† He said the council responded to the property owners by removing the areas from the inventory.† He said once the areas were removed, the next step was the County adopted process.† He said they went from having many people testifying to two or three people testifying at the County.† He said the major issue at the community level got addressed.† He noted in the inventory that is presented to the Board, they notified over 800 property owners but they had testimony from five people. †
Green asked if the Board would choose to go in a different direction than what the City of Eugene had, if they would be able to make the commitment of dollars to do that work
Vorhes stated they had already done the work on safe harboring outside the UGB.† He said if they choose not to adopt what the city has adopted and exploring safe harbor for the riparian resource sites, they would have to look at the costs of doing that inventory as it relates to the area inside the UGB.
With regard to costs, Kent Howe, Land Management, reported there is the cost of the adoption of an inventory and the second set of costs would be the implementation measures and the permitting and processing whether it is by the county or the city.† He said that ultimately the logical provider for services is the city and for outside the UGB the primary issues are waterways.† He indicated that inside the UGB the waterways are more than riparian, they are a conveyance of storm water and there are more complicated systems within the UGB for the things they have to plan for.† He explained to go back and adopt the safe harbor would involve policy amendments to the Metro Plan and they would have to amend Lane Code Chapter 10, for implementations measures similar to Lane Code Chapter 16 for outside the UGB.† He said there would be inventory where they would have to do GIS work and there would be a Ballot Measure 56 notice and public hearings before the planning commission and the Board.† He thought it would be about a $30,000 project with the time frame of four months.
MOTION:† to adopt Ordinance PA 1198.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Hampton asked if they were in favor of the standard approach but thought an item didnít meet the requirements if it should be moved.† He asked what process they needed.
Bjorklund said they would want to direct staff to make findings indicating how the site doesnít meet the criteria and adopt those findings and attach them to the ordinance.
With regard to the adoption, Vorhes said they would have to ask the city if they were comfortable with removing it.† He said the Board might have to go back to the city council, and an ESEE analysis could end up in the same place where a particular site no longer is protected or affected by regulations.† He said in order for them to remove a site, they would have to identify a site and articulate why it doesnít fit in Exhibit A in the significance criteria.
Green asked how Hamptonís concern was different than the concern raised by the city council about the south hills when they didnít want that portion included.
Vorhes responded it was the same.† He said what the council decided to do instead of going standard was use the safe harbor and that had the effect of cutting it out.†† †
Bjorklund commented that if the Board amends the ordinance, it would be different than the City of Eugeneís ordinance.† He said it nullifies the cityís ordinance because their ordinance states it doesnít go into effect unless the County adopts the same thing.† He said they would have to go back to their council to revisit this because they donít have policy direction to do an ESEE analysis because their council had not co-adopted the inventory.† He explained the ESEE process allows them to go into greater detail in looking at sites, implications of protecting or not protecting, what the details of the sites are and they expect recommendations to amend the inventory as part of the ESEE process.† He thought in the next stage the Board would have better information to create the finding.
Morrison asked who pays on a parcel-by-parcel basis to have the ESEE analysis done to determine whether or not it meets the riparian corridor requirements. †
Bjorklund responded the ESEE analysis is paid by taxpayerís dollars.† He noted at the next stage they are going to take every step to make sure that the inventory they adopted is as accurate and up to date as it could possibly be, including incorporating new information.† That would be paid for by Eugene staff.
Howe explained this is the first step of a two or three step process that is in the Eugene work program to continue working on the inventory to complete the Goal 5 effort.† He said the next step is the ESEE analysis that will adopt findings that will determine whether the sites in the inventory are significant or not.† He said that is funded for the next step and it isnít something a property owner has to pay to determine whether or not their property is a significant resource and trying to justify if it should be on the inventory.
Morrison thought there are things in the inventory that donít meet the criteria.† She didnít want to pay to have an ESEE analysis done when they already know it doesnít meet the criteria.† She thought it was a waste of money.† She wasnít supportive of moving forward.
Hampton said he observed a site that he knows does not meet the requirements.† He wanted to take it off the list.
Sorenson thought they should adopt the ordinance.† He said they had testimony from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce.† He said if the Board were to adopt a separate ordinance from what the cities adopted, they would have a patchwork and it would be very confusing.† He said they need to get into compliance and a delay puts them in greater jeopardy of being ordered into compliance.† He wanted Lane Countyís ordinance adopted so it is consistent with the City of Eugeneís.
Bjorklund explained their analysis would not focus on the individual property ownerís lot, but the site.† He said whether a property ownerís property comes off of the inventory doesnít change the cost of doing the analysis.† He said they would still analyze the site as a whole, unless they remove the entire site.
Green asked what opportunities are at the next level if they adopt this knowing some of the sites donít meet the criteria.
Bjorklund commented that based on analysis and information, everything on the map meets the criteria.† He said the way they are written, they only have to meet one.† He commented that they had met extensively with property owners.† He said they want to make sure they do the right thing.† He noted the inventory is not perfect but everything that is on there does meet the criteria. He said the criteria could be interpreted in various ways.† He said they are not clear and objective criteria and there is room for people to disagree on whether a certain sites meets the criteria or not.† He said they made an effort to be consistent throughout the inventory and treat all property owners the same.† He didnít have information that clearly states that the site E 76 in its entirety should be removed from the inventory.
Bjorklund explained it is the Boardís prerogative if they want to take the site off.† He said they want to be consistent and make good findings that the site doesnít meet the criteria.† With regard to the council action, he noted there were many individual property owners who asked to get off the inventory list that didnít get off.† He said what the council did in the south hills was take an entire class of properties and habitat off.† He noted the Goal 5 Rule allows dividing up a site or a category of sites between safe harbor and the standard process.† He said they could take off portions of the site in the Countyís jurisdiction off of the inventory either by making findings (that they donít meet the criteria) or by saying they believe that the safe harbor criteria should be applied to these areas.† He noted the direction from the state to them was to make sure there is a clear distinction to say this part of the site is different from the rest of the site that allows applying the safe harbor. †
Vorhes explained that articulating the reasons for removing properties because they donít think it meets the significance criteria under the standard process is necessary.† He added that articulating it is important for purposes of governing what they do, so the reasons are there in the action to document why there are any sites the Board thinks should not be on the inventory because they donít meet the criteria. He said if the city council disagrees they would have a challenge of resolving it.† He said it would have to be resolved when the policy for adoption into the Metro Plan gets to the Board and the council and articulates what the final inventory is.† He added if they choose to use the safe harbor for a particular resource site, it would be necessary to articulate what site it is.† Then they will have to address that through an ordinance that deals with it under the safe harbor regulations if it still fits into a Goal 5 riparian corridor definition under the safe harbor delineation of the resource sites.† He said they would have to do that analysis and come back to the Board to tell them it is no longer a Goal 5 resource site, depending on the analysis.
Dwyer wanted to move forward.† He thought the safe harbor approach had serious ramifications outside the urban growth boundaries. He said the City of Eugene has tried to be consistent.
Hampton asked what the process was with citizen involvement.† He asked if citizens had a chance to appeal the decisions and who would they appeal them to.
Bjorklund responded that the Boardís action (because it is a periodic review work program) has a different appeal process than a normal land use action.† He said instead of appealing it to LUBA or the Board, they would file an objection with DLCD and they would respond.† He said they could issue an order or remand the ordinance back to the county or city staff to do further findings or make changes if they found the rules were not followed.† He said if satisfaction doesnít happen at that level, they could file an appeal of the order once DLCD has taken action.† That appeal is heard by LCDC.† He added if LCDC rules and they arenít happy with the results, they could go to the Court of Appeals.† He noted that once the inventory is settled and adopted, they have hearings before the City of Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions for the ESEE step of the process and then hearings before the City Council and the Board and then another round of appeal actions.† He added their protective ordinances within the city limits would build into the ordinance provisions to address mapping errors.
Vorhes stated that if any of the Board has information that points to a result, it should be conveyed to staff so the views on where the sites are and how they should be addressed in the ESEE analysis are part of the process.† He said if the ordinance as proposed is adopted, and they have information that could affect the rest of the process, to convey that to staff.† He noted the cost of doing that process is borne by the city.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-1 (Morrison dissenting).
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
October 25, 2003, Joint BCC/Florence, 5:30 p.m.
February 18, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 10, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 10, 2004, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. Children and Families
1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-4-14-7/In the Matter of Accepting an Award from the Oregon Commission on Children & Families for the Oregon Positive Youth Development Demonstration Project; Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in General Fund Number 124 by $12,000 for an Initial Planning Year and a Subsequent $125,000 Annually for an Additional Four Years Pending Approval of the Implementation Plan by the Board of County Commissioners and the Oregon Commission on Children & Families; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Accept the Funds and Execute Grant Documents, Intergovernmental Agreements, and Contracts Related to this Grant.
C. Public Works
1) ORDER 04-4-14-8/In the Matter of Revising Load Posting on the London Road Bridge at M.P. 13.01.
2) ORDER 04-4-14-9/In the Matter of Certification of Final Assessments for Improvements to Marcola Road Between Mile Post 10.49 and Mile Post 11.75 to be at no Cost to the Adjacent Property Owners and Satisfaction of Pending Liens Against Adjacent Properties.
MOTION:† to approve the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
11. ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION
a. ORDER 04-4-14-10/In the Matter of Approving Submission of Assessment and Taxation Grant Budget to the Oregon Department of Revenue.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-4-14-10.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Jim Gangle, Assessment and Taxation, passed out information. (Copy in file).† He said they identified the nine percent reduction in Assessment and Taxation and it would be cut $451,000.† He said it would take an additional $197,000 to stay in compliance.† He said the amount of revenue lost that they take the reductions, not withstanding the actual grant monies would be $432,000.† He stated he would be submitting this information to the Budget Committee.† He wanted to see the $197,000 restored and added back to the grant but it is in conflict to what the Boardís instructions were to the departments.
Van Vactor indicated there is an appeal process.† He said consistent with the past recommendation, they should stay with the original nine percent reduction and go through the budget committee process.
12. PUBLIC SAFETY
a. ORDER 04-4-14-11/In the Matter of Proclaiming May 6, 2004 as Earthquake Preparedness Day for Lane County to Coincide with Governor Kulongoski and Oregon Emergency Managementís Spring 2004 State-Wide Earthquake and Tsunami Preparedness and Mitigation Campaign Taking Place from March 20, 2004 Through May 20, 2004.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-4-14-11.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Hampton out of room).
13. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
14. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
17. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting at 11:40 a.m.