BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

June 2, 2004

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners Conference Room

APPROVED 9/28/04

 

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr. 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 Malinda Dodson were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

2.                  PUBLIC COMMENTS 

 

Robert Hursh, 5104 Woodlake Way Florence 97439, spokesperson for 109 homeowners in Heceta South, commented on the proposed sale of Oceanwoods.  He stated that the sale of Oceanwoods would rob Florence residents of a county asset with no planned replacement, and that the process from taking local assets and transferring them elsewhere for the benefit of others is unfair, and in this case unnecessary.  He expressed that some Florence residents feel that Commissioners were provided with less than accurate information prior to making the decision to sale. 

 

Hursh stated that it is his hope that prior to making any final decisions on the sale of Oceanwoods, that Commissioners would review the 40 year history of the property as well as the negative impact on the wildlife that make Oceanwoods their home.  Hursh said that he believes that Florence residents are entitled to their original understanding and vision of what their community would be like over time.  For years, perhaps decades, local realtors have told clients that the Oceanwoods property would never be developed. Hursh stated that many homeowners surrounding Oceanwoods would have thought twice about buying real estate there if they knew that it would some day be sold and developed.  

 

Commissioner Sorenson requested that Hursh elaborate on his statement that Commissioners were provided with less than accurate information.

 

Hursh stated that he was not convinced that Commissioners were aware of the deed restriction and the terms that the County agreed to when the State Highway Commission transferred title to the County.  He added that the conditions by which the County took title are clearly stated in an Oregon Revised Statute. 

 

Hursh said that the obligation of the County was to use the property for public purpose but that it has never been used for that purpose.  He referred to a memo dated May 6 from the Assistant Director of Public Works stating that there were never funds available to use it for public purpose, therefore the County has not complied with state law that says the property must be used for public purpose for twenty years. 

 

Hursh said the bottom line is that residents feel that they were blindsided and never given an opportunity in the initial stages of the process to provide input. Hursh felt that the County was not in compliance with the public interest review process under Oregon law.

 

Jim Price, resident of Heceta South, stated that in 1995 the streets of Heceta South were deeded to Lane County.  The deed stated that residents would need to fund the maintenance on the streets.  To cover those future maintenance costs, residents have taxed themselves. The proposal to open Oceanwoods for development would mean the primary entry would be through Heceta South on Heceta parkway and that no provision has been made to reimburse Heceta South for maintenance due to increased traffic on those streets.  Price stated that this does not meet a fair and balanced standard. 

 

Brad Foster, 15555 Old Stagecoach Rd Walton, 97490 commented on the proposed project to rebuild the entrance to Stagecoach road.  He stated that residents did not find out about the project until the deal was all but signed, sealed and delivered.  He believed the reason they weren’t notified is that most people who live out there do not own the property they live on.  He requested that the project not be done as designed, stating that the current design will destroy the historic flavor of Stagecoach road.  He asked that the project be scaled back to be more in line with what Stagecoach road is.

 

Ann Jenson, 1642 North Danebo Eugene, 97402 stated that the attempt by LCARA to eliminate the non-commercial kennel license and to require the animal owner to obtain individual licenses appears to be a blatant attempt to have owners of more than three animals self-incriminate themselves.  She said that since Lane County land use and zoning still allows no more than three dogs, an owner who has lost their non-commercial license and attempts to license seven or eight dogs, even if they are the same dogs who lived on the property for years, are now considered illegal in the eyes of the zoning department.  She stated that if the costs for administering the program are greater than the revenue received from the license applications, why not just increase the license fees to what the program costs. 

 

Lorraine Still, 83076 North Bradford Road Creswell, 97426 spoke on behalf of Linda Kornhi of 35561 Westminister Street Pleasant Hill 97455.  Lorraine read Linda’s comments stating that she has been attempting to obtain a non-commercial kennel license since August, 2003.  Repeated phone calls to LCARA yielded the same information from various personnel in that she needed to obtain permission from the zoning department before a non-commercial kennel license could be issued, despite the fact that under current code a non-commercial kennel license is allowed use in the county.  Nearly a year later after struggling with zoning and retaining a lawyer when it became obvious she could not accomplish this on her own, she finally obtained her license.  The paper work from zoning was never received and after an inspection of her property by zoning and a verbal assurance that nothing was amiss she was in compliance with code in front of two witnesses.  Then, last Tuesday, a client at the veterinary clinic where she worked was instructed by an LCARA officer to obtain a current rabies vaccination and to purchase a non-commercial kennel license.  There was no mention of needing to obtain paperwork from zoning.  She mentioned that there is nothing in the code regarding a breeding permit but that LCARA is asking for this. Ms. Still stated on behalf of Ms. Kornhi that it seems that LCARA is making up policy up as they go along without permission or direction from the County.  She added that the community of dog and cat fanciers should not be punished for the irresponsible acts of a few, and suggested that the non-commercial kennel license remain with an adjustment in fee to reflect current needs of the County. 

(Copy in file)  

 

Dan Dunning, 87904 Kelsie Way Florence, 97439 commented that with the foresight of past elected officials, Oregon has maintained its beaches, its waterways, and has some of the finest parks in the nation.  He said it is for that reason people from California, Washington, and other states come here for vacations and retirements.  He acknowledged the beautiful parks, waterways, and fairgrounds in Eugene, all of which accomplished by the foresight of elected officials who planned ahead.  He stated that 40 years ago the state of Oregon gave Lane County a deed for ocean woodlands in the Florence area with a restriction that the land be used for parks and recreation.  It was a promise to the people of Florence, Lane County, and Oregon that the land would be there for future generations.  He commented that he believes that current elected officials are being given an opportunity to keep that promise.  He also mentioned that the governor has stated his support for this type of activity.  He emphasized that the selling of the property is a one-time deal and if it is sold, it is gone forever.  He stated he believes officials have the ability to overcome short-term deficits to save this land.  

 

Susan Thomas, 15555 Old Stagecoach Road Walton, 97490 requested that the widening of Old Stagecoach road be done at 10 to 20 percent of what they are planning.  She said the extent of the project at 34 feet wide is not consistent with the rest of the one lane mostly gravel road.  She also stated that during a two-month road closure, the only option residents have is to walk one mile of railroad tracks to get to their homes because the alternate one-hour trip is financially impossible for them.  It would also endanger their lives due to the steep one lane desolate roadway where many accidents have already occurred.  Ms. Thomas maintained that the residents are willing to work with the project as long as it is scaled back. 

 

Delbert Spencer, 48374 East First Oakridge, 97463 spoke on behalf of the resolution to add spurs off the Oregon Trail to the National Park Service.  He compared the old Free Emigrant road of 1853-1854 to a sunken treasure.  With the help of volunteers, they have pin pointed much of the road from Indigo Springs, southeast of Oakridge to Bend, Oregon. The US Forest Service has had active jurisdiction over most of the area for the last 100 years and even they were not too clear of its whereabouts.  He commented that the opportunity exists to preserve this treasure by placing it under the care of the National Park Service and explained that much of it has already been lost due to development and logging.  Spencer said it may be their last chance to rescue this American heritage that is unique to Oregon and Lane County and encouraged support of the resolution.

 

Bob Still, 83076 North Bradford Road Creswell, 97426 asked Commissioners to compare the benefits and joys that pets have brought to the community compared to what loss it may bring if the wrong choice is made.  He stated that over the last 56 years, their kennel club has been a physical and financial entity in the community and provided examples of financial help that has been given to local high school programs.  (Copy in file)   

 

Bob Hart, 189 Braeburn Eugene, 97405 new director of the Lane County Historical Museum spoke in favor of recognizing June 5, 2004 as National Trails Day.   

 

Susan Forester, 834 Brookside Drive Eugene, 97405 requested that Commissioners consider opposing a proposed power plant to be sited north of Coburg stating that it is a 980 mega watt power plant which is enough energy to easily fuel the city of Portland.  She explained that the power plant will extract approximately 6.5 million gallons of water per day.  After evaporating much of the original water into the air, what is left will be pumped back into the McKenzie River.  Of the original 6.5 million gallons of water extracted, roughly 1/10 will be returned to the McKenzie River.  In summary, she stated that power plants such as this one is not locally need based and if the city of Coburg is looking towards an urban growth boundary change, and to make Coburg a desirable place to live in the future, a power plant does not make much sense.  (Copy in file)

 

Emily Shu, 3122 Willamette Eugene, 97401 member of the County Parks Advisory Committee, commented that the advisory committee has looked at the property and understands that it fell into public ownership due to non-payment of taxes.  She stated that County parks are regional parks providing things such as boating, fishing, horse trails, hiking, and group picnics as opposed to neighborhood swing and slide parks for young children.  The property is not well suited for the regional park that the County operates and is not in a location that lends itself to the kind of park that the County operates.  Furthermore the County owns other property north of Florence that does have good access to Hwy 101.  She concluded by stating that she would like to reinforce the decision to sell Oceanwood. 

 

Ann Jenson, 1642 North Danebo Eugene, 97402 spoke on behalf of David and Laura Hagey 90750 Hill Road Springfield, 97478 who were unable to attend. Written comments were submitted to the Board.  (Copy in file)  The Hagey’s requested that non-commercial kennel licenses not be revoked and that hobby breeding, subject to nuisance laws, be allowed to continue.    

 

3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660  

 

4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE  

 

Commissioner Dwyer announced the celebration of his 70th birthday and stated that it has been great living in Lane County for over forty years and acknowledged what a great place Lane County has been to raise his family.  

 

5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a.                   REPORT/Extension Service.   

 

Nellie Oehler and Ross Penhallegon provided a quarterly report on the Extension Service. Ms. Oehler provided an overview on a program called: Women Secure Your Financial Future.  She stated that in 2002-2003, they reached women in Linn, Benton, and Lane counties and that women were targeted due to retirement challenges faced by women.  National statistics show that nearly 2 out of 3 working women earn less than $30,000 per year and half of those women work in traditionally female roles which are traditionally low paying jobs and many without pensions.   

 

Oehler explained that the class is taught in a four part series addressing basic financial management, getting your legal house in order, investment options, and covering your risks in retirement.  She stated that the results accomplished through this program include 100 percent of participants have indicated they feel much more comfortable making financial decisions and 94 percent of participants have indicated that they have changes in debts and savings.  Additionally, 14.3 percent of participants have indicated new investments in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, while over 50 percent of participants were able to increase their investments.

 

Other areas being addressed in the program include looking at emergency and reserve accounts.  Oehler stated that the Lane County group averaged 8.4 months of emergency reserve accounts.  National statistics state that an absolute minimum should be 3 months and more along the lines of 6 – 12 months.   

 

As a result of the women’s program, Oehler commented that a new six week program has been established for retired seniors entitled:  Don’t Let Your Golden Years Be Tarnished.  The series was similar to the women’s program but included a series on quality of life and healthy aging, which resulted in tremendous feedback that will be included in future reports.   

 

Oehler added that they are also working with low income and low literacy individuals on basic budgeting.

 

Ross Penhallegon thanked Commissioners for their continued support of the Extension Service and provided an overview of the following activities:  He announced that Sharon Riseguard has accepted the position of staff chair and will be joining them on July 1, 2004.  Both Nellie and Susie are doing great work within the family and community development area and the study groups are making great headway.  Penhallegon announced that 23 people are graduating within the master troop preserver, with 48 percent of them being rural.  The nutrition program is working with 25 community organizations helping people in need.  The 4-H program remains strong with over 600 youth and 250 adults who are currently preparing for 4-H camp in July.  Penhallegon said they continue to update their web program and stated that within the last quarter, over 26,000 hits were made to their site.  (Copy in file)

 

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

b. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-6-2-1/In the Matter of Recognizing and Declaring National Trails Day on June 5, 2004 and Supporting Passage of the Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act (HR 1051).  

 

The Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act is being advocated by the Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA), a non-profit (501 (c) (3) organization that promotes the recognition and preservation of significant historical trails and branch trails that contributed to the migration to the west in the mid-1800s. 

 

OCTA has been working for over four years to identify and study for further designation the trails and branch trails. Among these trail listings, is the Free Emigrant Road, leading into Lane County. A designation would include the Free Emigrant Road among officially recognized pioneer trails and make matching funding available to place markers at trailheads on public lands and along highways at historic interpretation sites.

 

MOTION:  to approve Resolution and Order 04-6-2-1, Commissioner Sorenson MOVED, Commissioner Green SECONDED.  VOTE:  5-0.   

 

7. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-6-2-2/In the Matter of Authorizing a Sheriff’s Sale of Surplus County-Owned Property Identified as Assessor’s Map 18-12-10-20, Tax Lot 400 Located in the Florence Area, Commonly Known as Oceanwoods Park.  

 

Ollie Snowden, Public Works Director, provided background information on plan designation and zoning related to the Oceanwoods property.  He distributed an addendum predicated from earlier discussions on zoning issues.  (Copy in file)  He explained that from the city of Florence’s perspective since 1988, the vision for the property has been residential. He added that currently, Florence is updating their comp plan and Oceanwoods is still shown as low density residential.  The comp plan also shows 240 acres of open space within less than a mile of the Oceanwoods property, 160 of which are already in County ownership.

 

Snowden stated that the plan designation is clear, however, the County zoning is a little more complicated because when staff did the appraisal of the property they looked at the R-Lid designation and found that it was designated RA/U, residential zoning.  Upon checking the files on the property, it was discovered that the 1979 ordinance is in tact but there was no map attached to it.  Further checking resulting in finding the adopting ordinance in 1980 for the beaches and dunes overlay, which had a map attached zoned NR, natural resources.  Legal Counsel took a look and indicated that it is probably natural resource zoning, although not reflected in the appraisal.

 

Snowden stated that developing the property as residential would require a zone change and that it would be a hearings official decision because the zone change would be consistent with the adopted comp plan.   

 

Snowden provided eight different options to be considered by the Board.  (Copy in file)  Snowden recommended directing the Board towards Option 2, which is authorizing the Sheriff’s sale of the property without a minimum bid requirement.   

 

Howard Schussler, Assistant Director of Public Works, addressed the issue of the deed restriction on the property.  He stated that the changes to the deed restriction were based on informal communications between state parks and county approximately one year ago trying to determine what the deed restriction actually meant.   

 

Schussler stated that the first response from the state indicated that the property needed to be used for parks and open spaces, or proceeds from any sale need to be used for parks and open spaces.  Schussler said that after further discussion the state council decided, that because the property went to the state without any restriction from the County, they would remove the restriction.   

 

Commissioner Green asked about the timing and the dates of those informal conversations.   

 

Schussler stated that the conversations took place in June or July of 2003.   

 

Commissioner Morrison asked if the state gave those informal conversations to the County in writing.

 

Schussler stated that the County received the quick claim deed from the state.

 

Commissioner Morrison asked County Counsel if the quick claim deed would serve as the basis for changing it.

 

Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel, stated that the quick claim deed that released the restriction was recorded and filed on June 10, 2003.   

 

Commissioner Sorenson asked how the state received the property from the county.   

 

Snowden stated that the county sold it to the state for $30 in 1942 with no deed restriction.   

 

Sorenson asked what the rationale is for selling the property knowing that it is zoned natural resource.   

 

Todd Winters explained that Oceanwoods was identified ten years ago as surplus property and a candidate for disposal.  He stated that the parks division infrastructure has sat idle for about twenty years with limited ability to invest in capital repairs. Proceeds from the sale of Oceanwoods would enable them to fund projects that are in need of repair such as Richardson Docks and some tree houses at Camp Lane.  Winters said that they are losing approximately $17,000 per year in revenue due to the deterioration of Richardson Docks.   

 

Winters stated that criteria is used in determining whether a property could be developed as a parks property and that it is reviewed by the parks advisory committee.  He explained that Lane County parks are regional and that Oceanwoods met the criteria for park development.  He added that over the last ten years the property has been identified as a source of needed revenue for capital repairs.    

 

Winters further commented that it was their belief that the sale of Oceanwoods would provide a greater public good and that the proceeds would allow them to reach many more users and visitors. He stated that they recognize the importance and the value of open space.

 

MOTION:  Approve Option 3, to retain the property in the County’s inventory of surplus property.  Dwyer MOVED, Commissioner Sorenson SECONDED.  VOTE:  5-0.

 

b. FIFTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance PA 1197/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C; Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (NBA & PM 1/21/04, 2/10/04, 3/17/04 & 5/11/04).   

 

Kent Howe, Land Management Planning Manager, reminded Commissioners that on May 11, 2004 a number of questions were raised regarding work program and policy clarifications.  Howe categorized the issues into two general areas: 1) Those directly related to the periodic review work program of the metro plan, and 2) Those issues not included in the scope of the periodic review work program.   

 

Howe stated that the Eugene City Council took action on the proposed metro plan revisions on April 21 and Springfield City Council adopted them on May 17.  He expressed that it is his hope that there will be an adoption by the Board of County Commissioners today so that a large portion of the periodic review work will be behind the metropolitan area, and efforts could then be turned towards other planning issues that the Board and cities have.   

 

Howe introduced staff from Eugene, Springfield, LCOG, and the Sheriff’s Office and stated that they will be available for questions throughout his presentation.   

 

Howe defined the first issue raised by the Board regarding the Safe Harbor versus the Standard Process.  Under the Safe Harbor process, the McKenzie and Willamette river drainages are classified as streams that have 1,000 cubic feet per second or more of flow.  He stated that the provisions the Board is looking at adopting, both in policy and in ordinance, are to protect the riparian resources of the metro plan.  He described its location as being outside the urban growth boundary and inside the metro plan boundary.  He clarified that the provisions would not apply on land that is zoned sand and gravel and that they are not applicable to park lands as there is no development occurring on those lands.  He also added that the likelihood of further development in land that is zoned exclusive farm use is very limited.

 

Commissioner Dwyer stated that Eugene defines high value farmlands as interim use.   

 

Howe responded by clarifying that interim applies to, and is limited to, areas that are in an urban reserve area.  He said that at the elected officials direction, those are being removed from the metro plan designation.  He further stated that areas that are zoned farm and forestland within the metro plan are under the rural policies and are not an interim category, but are under the Safe Harbor inventory and protection provisions of the Goal 5 rule.  In conclusion, Howe stated that the potential for additional development is extremely limited.   

 

Commissioner Sorenson asked why the sand and gravel lands, located outside the urban growth boundary and inside the metro plan boundary, would not be affected.    

 

Howe responded by stating that they are a Goal Five resource that riparian standards do not apply.  

 

Howe stated that current provisions, in exclusive farm use zone within the metro plan, has a hundred foot set back. Lane County’s riparian provisions allow up to a 25 percent alteration.   

 

Commissioner Sorenson asked where the Matthews property is located.  Howe explained that it is located outside the metro plan boundary and inside rural Lane County that is not included in the proposal.

 

Howe resumed his comments on set back provisions and stated that under the Safe Harbor provisions of the state rule exclusive farm use zone, there is a 75-foot set back.  He stated that this might sound like a reduction in protection, but the Safe Harbor provision works so that the forward 50 percent of the setback area is to remain unaltered. Howe said that in staff’s opinion it is a wash and that there is a higher protection standard for the Safe Harbor riparian zone.   

 

Howe stated that the work program for the standard process is projected at approximately $48,000, .5 FTE, and a completion timeline of one year.

 

Next, Howe addressed the issue of river channel migration as it relates to the Goal 7 hazard issue and referred to a work program projecting $70,000 for a one-year completion time and .8 FTE.   

 

Howe said that from the standpoint of the metro plan and the riparian provisions, riparian protection is very different from developing provisions for natural hazards.  For example, provisions for wild fires, earthquakes, floods, etc. are not being addressed.  He stated that the Sheriff’s office Emergency Management program, which is currently federally funded for conducting a natural hazard mitigation plan for Lane County, would be an appropriate fit for this.   

 

Howe introduced Linda Cook, Emergency Management Coordinator and welcomed any questions for her.    

 

Howe said that from the standpoint of adopting new regulations, to try to figure out where a dwelling would be safe to go and not be affected by river migration, a regulatory approach is much more difficult than an educational approach.  He added that the Sheriff’s office proposal under the natural hazard mitigation planning effort is an education program.    

 

As a way of connecting with that program, Howe suggested handouts could be given to people who have development proposals located along the rivers in the metro plan - and even expand it to all of Lane County so that it achieves the educational purpose of identifying where properties would be safe to develop in relation to river migration.  

 

Howe referenced the Cedar Flats property as an example of site-specific analysis that wasn’t in the flood plain.  He said if they were to use just flood plain as their standard there would need to be a different set back requirement in consideration of erosion problems.

 

Howe addressed the issue of the metro plan boundary.  (Attachment D)  He stated that outside the urban growth boundary and inside the metro plan, the policies that are applicable to the farm and forestlands are the same policies applicable outside the metro plan.  In essence, this is applying those same policies that were adopted last year to be applicable inside the metro plan for farm and forestland.  

 

Commissioner Dwyer asked if that approach was appropriate.  Howe stated that they are rural lands outside the urban growth boundary so that it is appropriate and consistent.   

 

Howe explained that outside of the urban growth boundary, Lane County has exclusive jurisdiction on zoning.  Metro plan amendment procedures require that the home city and Lane County would have to agree to plan amendments outside the urban growth boundary.   

 

Howe addressed the issue of MPO Federal Transportation, including Coburg and other outlining areas  (Attachment D), and Commissioner Sorenson’s questions about expanding the energy conservation policies.  (Attachment E)  

 

Commissioner Sorenson referred to Attachment E that reflected the 1994 Metro Plan energy discussion proposing a one-year, $61,000 project and asked if the energy element is deleted from the work plan or deleted from the adopted plan.

 

Howe introduced Carol Heinkle from LCOG, Project Manager of the periodic review.  Heinkle stated that the energy element of the metro plan is in chapter 3-J and that it is being retained as a potential project in the future.  She said the 1994 attempted study was done to see if there was interest in updating the energy element, and at that time there was no interest.    

 

In response to Sorenson asking whether or not it will be worked on, Heinkle stated that it was never in the work program and that the purpose of doing the 1994 communication with the utilities was to see if there was interest from participants in updating the energy element at the same time of periodic review.  She added that it is not a state requirement so it would not have been in the periodic review work program, but that it was done concurrently since other elements of the metro plan were being updated.  She clarified that its status has not changed and that at any point in the future that the jurisdictions, and/or the utilities wanted to undertake that study, they could.   

 

Commissioner Sorenson asked if there was a formative decision made not to pursue a work program for energy policy.   

 

Heinkle stated that at the time, there were four meetings that took place with the utilities where issues were discussed and meeting notes were put together and there simply wasn’t any interest to pursue it at that time.   

 

Sorenson asked why the focus is on utilities when the energy policy is a much broader issue than the people who distribute electrical energy.

 

Heinkle stated that the energy policy in chapter 3-J has more of a focus on the utility aspect of energy.  She said the transportation element of the metro plan also has an energy aspect to it and was updated recently during the TransPlan update.   

 

Commissioner Dwyer questioned the City of Springfield’s view on continuing their participation in the metro plan.   

 

Springfield responded by stating that at the May 17 meeting there was a desire to approve the plan document and the update as submitted and move forward. The prospect of having to go back, revisit, and make additional changes has been frustrating.  Springfield expressed that it was their hope that the County would adopt the packet and if there were additional changes that the County wanted to make, that they could pursue those issues independent of this process.   

 

Commissioner Green asked Mr. Howe if Eugene City Council established a Safe Harbor area.   

 

Howe responded by stating there are three Goal 5 resources that are being treated, one of which is the riparian, the second is the wetlands, and the third is the upland wildlife habitat, which was adopted by the City of Eugene.  He stated that the riparian and the wetlands are included in the standard process.   

 

Commissioner Green commented that this portion of the plan should go forward and that the Planning Commission as well as the other two jurisdictions support it.  He added that issues raised by the Board need to be addressed otherwise they are contradicting policies already established and putting Lane County in a greater liability situation.    

 

Commissioner Hampton requested that some guarantee be made that issues raised by the Board will be pursued.

 

Commissioner Green stated that they can direct staff to make it part of their work plan to meet those expectations.   

 

Dwyer commented that education is not enough and that we have a responsibility to maintain a regulatory approach. Dwyer agreed with Hampton in wanting to see a plan on how we are going to identify areas.     

 

Commissioner Sorenson remarked that he does not plan to support the ordinance feeling that it is not in the public interest not to include the energy update.  He felt that the Board was making a policy choice not to take an interest only because the utilities have chosen not to.  He further commented that the decision in the plan that exclusive farm use riparian set back would decrease from 100 feet to 75 feet is not in the public interest, stating that we have seen how set back ordinances are relied upon by the public.   

 

Sorenson acknowledged that the relationship between Land Management and the Sheriff’s Office in the arena of hazard mitigation is very important and that he does not agree that an educational approach only, is the right way to go.  He stated that certain minimums need to be established which people rely on.   

 

In conclusion, Sorenson stated that he does not think the ordinance should be approved and that the Board should let their partners know that they think energy is an important issue which should be a part of the plan and that set backs should be greater.  He added that in terms of Safe Harbor versus Standard, he believes that the Board is making the wrong decision and that they should be supporting Standard.    

 

MOTION:  to adopt Ordinance PA 1197, Commissioner Morrison MOVED, Commissioner Green SECONDED.  VOTE: 4-1 with Commissioner Sorenson dissenting.

 

c. FIFTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. 5-04/In the Matter of Amending Lane Code Chapter 16 to Adopt Riparian Protection Regulations to Implement Goal 5 Outside the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Urban Growth Boundary and Within the Metro Plan Boundary (NBA & PM 1/21/04, 2/10/04, 3/17/04 & 5/11/04).

 

Steve Vorhes, County Counsel, distributed materials supporting Ordinance 5-04 and explained its similarity to what was done with the rural commercial and rural industrial changes.  He stated that the ordinance was printed with changes already enacted by previous actions by the transportation system plan and the rural commercial and rural industrial zones so that the pages attached to the ordinance accurately reflect those previous changes.  He stated that they are intended only to adopt the changes that will incorporate the new regulations for the area between the metro plan boundary and the urban growth boundary to implement policies that were adopted by the Board in Ordinance PA 1197.   

 

MOTION:  Approval of Ordinance No. 5-04, Commissioner Morrison MOVED Commissioner Green SECONDED.  VOTE:  4-1 with Commissioner Sorenson dissenting.

 

d. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance PA 1201/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan and the Creswell Comprehensive Plan to Enlarge the Creswell Urban Growth Boundary; Redesignate Affected Lands From a Rural Comprehensive Plan Designation of Airport Operations to a City Plan Designation of Public Facilities/Government; Rezone These Affected Lands From a Lane Code Chapter 16 District of AO Airport Operations to a Lane Code Chapter 10 District of Airport Operations District; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 02-6010; City of Creswell). (NBA & PM 4/7/04, 4/28/04 & 5/18/04).

 

In looking over the supplemental materials, Hampton expressed disappointment that there is still a level of mistrust between the city and the critics on this issue.  He said that he personally preferred that the airport master plan was completed so that the Board could see what it looked like, but believes the city did a good job showing the Board the land around the airport and making an argument how this would not create an urban sprawl. 

 

Hampton stated that he is in favor of the ordinance primarily because he trusts the gentlemen behind it.  He said if it gets to a point where other changes in zoning need to be made, he would be more critical, but for now he is taking them at their word in that it is just to get water to the airport.  

 

Dwyer commented that he is not convinced that this needs to be done to get water to the airport.  He asked Ms. Schulz if there are administrative acts that the city can pursue within their own government that would allow them to service the airport, such as changing resolutions or making changes to goals and objectives.

 

Stephanie Schulz replied that it could be done if they chose to do so.

 

Steve Vorhes added that they could certainly act on the resolution that they control by themselves and that there is a current comprehensive plan that the City of Creswell has jointly adopted with the Board that enters into the picture as well.  The city could initiate an amendment to the comprehensive plan and ask for Board approval, but they couldn’t do all of it by themselves.

 

Dwyer stated that if they really wanted to provide the service there are ways they could - if safety was an issue as well as comprehensive planning surrounding the whole area.  Dwyer felt it was unnecessary to pass an ordinance that would allow the city to bypass the process involving public participation and was not in support of the ordinance.

 

Green expressed support of the ordinance stating that it involved an application process that was followed by the applicant.  He stated that the applicant met the legal tests involved, and that if the Board has a problem with their own application process, it should be discussed so that future applicants can apply to those criteria.  He felt that it would be conflicting and disingenuous to require an applicant to go through the application process and then require additional criteria afterwards.  Green felt the City of Creswell provided sufficient proof in claiming the need for water service.

 

Sorenson commented that this expansion issue is pretty narrow and acknowledged the “mud-slinging” on the part of some citizens towards the city government.  He stated that the city’s rebuttal letter made it clear that the main reason for wanting the urban growth expansion is to provide water at the airport.  Sorenson felt that the FAA, the State Fire Marshall, and those involved with regulating airports know how much water airports require and that he isn’t questioning their decision. 

 

Sorenson referred to a letter from the city stating that they understand that current administrative rules make it possible to extend municipal water extra- territorially and that officials realize that although they can amend their comprehensive plan to restrict extra-territorial water extensions, they prefer to stick with the restrictive method in their currently adopted plan. 

 

Sorenson expressed the Board’s concern in granting urban growth boundary expansion if it involves high value agricultural or forestland.  He recognized that although that is not the issue in this case, the precedent for granting this expansion, when there is an acceptable alternative that does not involve expanding the urban growth boundary, gets everyone what they want.

 

Sorenson stated that he is in favor of the City of Creswell getting water to the airport and respectful of the relationship between the Board and the elected city government, but prefers to see the city get the water to the airport without invoking land use laws and requiring the Board to expand the urban growth boundary.   

 

MOTION:  to approve Ordinance PA 1201, Commissioner Hampton MOVED, Commissioner Green SECONDED.  VOTE:  3-2 with Commissioner Dwyer and Commissioner Sorenson dissenting.

 

e. ORDER 04-6-2-3/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract for Grading and Paving on Stagecoach Road (MP 0.00-MP 0.70), Contract No. 03/04-12.  

 

Sonny Chickering, Public Works Engineer, distributed photographs of Stagecoach Road.  (Copy in file)  Chickering stated that plans and specifications have been prepared for the project, it has been advertised for bid, and bids have been received.  He requested direction from the Board as to whether or not to award a contract for the capital project.

 

Chickering addressed related issues stating that the project was estimated at $1.1 million and the bid came in over budget with the lowest bid being $1.75 million.  Additionally, he said there was an issue regarding public process and public concern over whether the project should be constructed as designed, whether the project was too large, and whether the proposed 60-day road closure was an acceptable burden on local residents.

 

Chickering explained that during the project approval process, the Board adopted a design concept in April 2003 and during that time it was difficult to obtain input from the local residents.  He added that at that time a 60-day road closure was not anticipated.  Chickering said that prior to releasing the bid, it was determined that economically, a 60-day road closure would allow a contractor more flexibility and a shorter construction time frame.  Residents however were not supportive of the 60-day road closure because of the extra time and cost for alternative routes of travel.  In addition, residents expressed concern about additional response time for emergency services, as well as a concurrent ODOT closure on Hwy 36.   

 

Chickering stated that modifications were made to project specifications including allowing the contractor to open the road one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening to make commuting more convenient for residents.  Additionally, a $1,000 penalty and incentive was added for every day that the road was closed shorter or longer than 60 days.

 

Addressing the emergency services issue, Chickering mentioned that the Fire Chief in that district was opposed to the 60-day closure.  Chickering stated that the cost of the project in comparison to the budgeted amount, as well as negative support from local residents and emergency service providers in the area, prompted Chickering to recommend Option 4A:  For staff to perform minimal repair sufficient to maintain a one lane paved roadway using County road maintenance crews.   

 

Chickering expressed that residents were split 50/50 between Option 4A and Option 3A: Direct staff to provide options for reducing scope and associated costs of project and reduce impact to residents.

 

Chickering stated that option 3A would fix the current slide situation but that it would only be temporary and ongoing repair would need to occur.   

 

Chickering commented that an emergency management plan has been drafted addressing what would happen in the event that a 60-day closure took place.  

 

Chickering mentioned that there is enough money in the contingency fund to cover the difference in the project amount if the capital project was awarded as proposed. 

 

Commissioner Dwyer felt that it was unacceptable to close a road for 60 days regardless of an emergency management plan and that scaling back the project would be a better option.

 

Chickering explained that residents were informed that the funding for this project would not come back anytime soon if they passed on the money.

 

Commissioner Sorenson expressed an interest in a blend of both options 3 and 4 and asked if minimal repair is a realistic option. 

 

Chickering answered by stating that it may not be as feasible as he thinks and that it could potentially be much more expensive.

 

Commissioner Morrison stated that in terms of safety for residents, the 60-day closure is a reasonable trade off.

 

MOTION:  To recommend Option 4A, Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

Commissioner Green commented that based on the pictures that Chickering provided, if they are going to fix the road, they may as well do it right, addressing the liability involved with doing minimal repair. 

 

Chickering also addressed the railroad below and the possibility of covering the railroad if a slide took place. 

 

Commissioner Hampton expressed a preference for Option 3A in reducing the scope and stated that it was more in line with what residents wanted.  He stated that he was concerned whether minimal repair would be sufficient and asked what it would cost to pursue Option 3A.

 

Chickering stated that they would need to come back to the Board with a scaled back design concept and provide the Board with some options. 

 

Dwyer withdrew his motion supporting Option 4A and agreed that 3A was a better option. 

 

Chickering asked County Counsel for an opinion on not making a decision to award a bid until the scope of the project was discussed further.

 

Steve Vorhes stated that a new proposal process would need to take place unless the eventuality discussed today was among the options in the original proposal. 

 

MOTION:  to approve Option 3A, canceling the capital project Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.  VOTE:  5-0.

 

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

(All items listed here are considered to be routine by the Board of Commissioners and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately.)

 

A. Approval of Minutes:  None.

 

B. County Administration

 

1) ORDER 04-6-2-4/In the Matter of Appointing a Member to Fill a Vacancy on the Public Safety Coordinating Council.

 

C. Assessment and Taxation

 

1) ORDER 04-6-2-5/In the Matter of Allowing the Department of Assessment and Taxation to Write Off Remaining Taxes on Accounts Involved in the WorldCom Bankruptcy.

 

D. Children and Families

 

1) ORDER 04-6-2-6/In the Matter of Awarding a $153,706 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.

 

E. Management Services

 

1) ORDER 04-6-2-7/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Creg Westenskow, Former Owner of Record (Map #16-05-09-00-00504, 26451 Hall Road, Junction City).

 

F. Public Works

 

1) ORDER 04-6-2-8/In the Matter of Awarding Requirements Contracts for Professional Services in Bridge Engineering Consultation to Otak, Inc. in the NTE Amount of $325,000 and CH2M Hill in the NTE Amount of $175,000.

 

2) ORDER 04-6-2-9/In the Matter of Amending the On-Call Bridge Design and Special Services Agreements with OBEC Consulting Engineers and Otak, Inc.

 

G. Workforce Partnership

 

1) ORDER 04-6-2-10/In the Matter of Appointing a Member to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.

 

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

MOTION:  to approve Consent Calendar, Commissioner Dwyer moved Commissioner Sorenson SECONDED.  VOTE:  4-0 with Commissioner Hampton excused.

9. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

 

a. ORDER 04-6-2-11/In the Matter of Ratifying the County Administrator’s Execution of a Grant Application for a Victims of Crime Act Project Grant for $80,000 for a .62 FTE Victim Advocate and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Grant Acceptance Documents.  

 

Kent Mortimer, Assistant District Attorney, briefly explained that they want to keep the restraining order clinic alive.  He said that with the current budget, it wasn’t possible, but if they apply for the Victims of Crime Act Project Grant the clinic could survive.

 

MOTION:  approval, Commissioner Morrison MOVED, Commissioner Dwyer SECONDED.  VOTE:  4-0 with Commissioner Hampton excused.

 

10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Commissioner Morrison announced that she attended the Western Interstate Region Conference in Ogden, Utah.  She stated that it was well attended and they moved forward on the Government-to-Government Resolution in regards to negotiations with tribes.  She stated that there were 12 state associations represented including New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Arizona.   

 

Commissioner Dwyer announced the Tourism Task Force meeting on Friday, June 4.   

 

12. REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS

 

13. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

14. OTHER BUSINESS

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting at 12:15 p.m.

 

 

 

Malinda Dodson

Recording Secretary