BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

9:00 a.m.

November 3, 2004

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 4/6/05

 

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 Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

Item 6. a. was pulled.

 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

John Berg, Cheshire, said in 1997 it was determined that he had too many inoperable vehicles on his property and it was referred to as solid waste.  He asked the Board for help for his potential liability in a way it doesn’t make him devastated financially.  He sold his house in Baker City in order to pay off the note of $33,048 and $5,500 in delinquent taxes.  He believed the zoning violation would be eliminated after he cleaned up the property as agreed by July 15.  He said he paid $350 per month for a year from August 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004, for a $4,200 total.  He said it was suggested by Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel, that there was a possibility the lien could be settled with a 10% payoff of $2,541. He offered to pay that to settle the claim.  He was told that the County would not negotiate that unless the property was already cleaned up.  He said it was then that the payment of $350 per month was agreed upon.  He mistakenly thought the trailer house on the property was not part of the issue, he cleaned up all the issues by the agreed upon date of July 15.  He said the trailer house was moved off later when he became aware he was wrong.  He said he tried to get the property into compliance and that was done.  He wanted this settled.  He wanted the lien removed.  He said there is a lien of $25,410 on the property and he paid $4,200.  He thought the $4,200 he already paid would go against that.  He stated if the lien goes forward he will have to sell the property or go through foreclosure.

 

Mike Wolf, DEQ, Eugene, was present to express their continued support of the County’s efforts to develop the grant applications.

 

3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

 

None.

 

5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

None.

 

b. DISCUSSION/Possible Lane County Telecommunications Tax.

 

Van Vactor explained that Lane County is faced with deficits.  He discussed with the Finance and Audit Committee urban renewal and the success the City of Eugene is having with the Telecommunications Tax.  He noted it was adopted several years ago and it was challenged, litigated, and sustained.  He said the tax produces for the City of Eugene (at two percent) approximately $2.8 million per year.  He indicated the City of Eugene at first thought the tax needed to be restricted to telecommunication and infrastructure in the industry.  He said since then they had changed their opinion.  He indicated if the County were to pursue a tax it could flow to the Lane County general fund.  He noted the other items in the packet are a primer that provides a background regarding telecommunications taxes.  He added that the City of Springfield is considering a broader proposal, a general utility tax that would be five percent.  He noted the proposal had not been formally presented to the Springfield City Council.  He said it had been discussed at the regional managers meeting and there would be significant interest from some of the smaller cities if Lane County considered a tax structure like transient room tax.  He indicated that each city council would need to adopt a resolution asking to do that and have it apply inside the city.  He said the Finance and Audit Committee has considered the proposal and wanted it brought forth to the full Board to have a discussion.  He thought the Board should take a serious look at this tax on an interim basis because the County is facing a deficit for the next few years.  He thought a modest tax might serve as a bridge to get them to 2006 and beyond in order to avoid further reductions in their service delivery system.

 

Morrison said when they discussed this they didn’t get a good feel on where some of the other cities would be.  She said she hadn’t had a chance to see the changes that Springfield made from what they had before.  She wanted to hear from the city councils.  She said there wasn’t a knowledge level with them yet.

 

Dwyer said they needed to spend more time educating the small cities.  He didn’t want to give up on it.  He thought they had to have discussions, bringing back the results.

 

Sorenson asked what the impact would be on the economy or individuals who are customers.

 

Van Vactor responded that there would be a two percent gross revenue and it would show on any telecommunication bill

 

Sorenson asked what the impact would be on a family.

 

Van Vactor indicated it didn’t affect cable television.  He said it would be a two percent charge.

 

Sorenson wanted to receive more information.  He was concerned about the disproportionate impact it could have on residences on having a hard time struggling with the overall tax shift.

 

Green said they owe it to the citizens to review it.  He said there is interest from the Board that Van Vactor should talk to all the small cities.  He wanted it done officially in a written correspondence.

 

Wilson explained that at this point she would build on the research and the knowledge base the Cities of Springfield and Eugene have developed to get more information about where the legal issues are.  She said she would start working on a draft ordinance.

 

Green asked if they could do a cost benefit analysis.

 

Van Vactor stated he would explore that with the City of Eugene.

 

Morrison commented this is pending upon what the small cities say.  She said if the majority of the cities are not interested in pursuing this, she didn’t think it would be worthwhile to draft an ordinance.  She wanted to see how much money would come into the general fund.

 

Van Vactor thought the tax within the City of Eugene would raise $2.8 million and a one percent tax would raise $1.4 million.

 

Sorenson thought Van Vactor should discuss this with the cities and report back to the Board on whether there is interest at all.  He said if there is interest, they would discuss how much energy they would put into it.

 

6. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

 

a. ORAL REPORT/Domestic Violence Presentation by Thurston High School Students. (PULLED)

 

b. ORAL REPORT/Youth Court Programs.

 

Joaquim Schulz, Children and Families, distributed materials about Head Start. (Copy in file).  He commented that investing in early childhood development has the highest investment for economic development.  He explained the function of the youth court is to determine a fair and restorative consequence for juvenile offenders.  He said the youth court is a diversion program, in that juveniles receive community based services as opposed to interventions from the Department of Youth Services.  He added the programs are funded through a mix of federal grants from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and for some courts there are local municipality funding available.

 

Bruce Steinmetz, Coordinator of Bethel and West Eugene Peer Courts, introduced different youth from other peer courts in the county.

 

7. RESOLUTIONS

 

a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-11-3-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming November 2004 as National Runaway Prevention Month in Lane County.

 

Green read the resolution into the record.

 

MOTION: to approve Resolution and Order 04-11-3-1.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

8. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. REPORT BACK/Service Stabilization Task Force Report.

 

Kate O’Donnell, Stabilization Task Force, reported the task force was given two months to consider the financial situation that faces Lane County and to respond to requests that they study and recommend strategies on how the County might address the serious structural deficit in the general fund.  She indicated that they agreed to the recommendation by consensus.  She noted the time period was short and they didn’t have time to articulate all the implications of their recommendations or to give specific recommendations regarding new revenue sources.

 

O’Donnell noted the task force recommended the Board of Commissioners live within Lane County’s means on an annual basis.  She added they agree that Lane County should remain a general-purpose government.  She indicated since additional revenue won’t be available during FY 2005/2006 and into the future, the Board would need to establish a clear set of priorities comprehensible to the public and County staff.

 

O’Donnell said the group requested that the Board immediately determine the service priorities and desired results for Lane County government.  She said the Board should not make across-the-Board reductions by using the resources available to funds its highest priorities.  Those priorities should be based on what the citizens of Lane County consider to be most beneficial.

 

O’Donnell stated the Board should prioritize its goals and establish outcome measures.  She noted that table 1 on page 6 (copy in file) shows the priorities and outcome measures recommended by the task force.  She indicated that based on the revenue projections available for FY 05/06, the County won’t be able to fund all of its goals so the funding decisions should be based upon the highest priorities.  She added the Board might want to consider making further reductions in 05/06 to make the reductions that are necessary in the future.  She said they recommended the Board use the process as a template.

 

O’Donnell explained in establishing the priorities in Table 1, they discussed the mission statement and saw that a mission-driven organization needed to have a mission that is adequate to serve as criteria for making decisions about the services to be provided.  She added they did not prioritize the County’s goal that deals with efficient and effective financial and administrative support.  She said they saw it as a cost of doing business and would be included in the cost of implementing each of the other goals.  She said they also discussed but did not reach consensus on adding an additional goal dealing with educational, cultural and recreational opportunities.

 

O’Donnell said if the Board thinks the recommendations provided by the task force need additional discussion or input that the Board achieve 1) a. and 1) b. by the 2006/2007 budget.  She said the task force recommended that any reductions in 05/06 not be across the board, but based on a determination of priority outcomes.

 

With regard to reducing the cost factors that drive the deficit,  O’Donnell said the task force recommended that the Board be clear about priorities and the criteria used to justify the priorities.  She thought the Board might want to refer to the United Way of Lane County’s most recent needs assessment.   She noted the task force recommended that those strategies that are independent of a service priority be implemented within one year or as soon as possible.  She said they suggested approaching the governing bodies of all public agencies within the County, with the exception of schools, to propose pooling the health care benefits provided by each agency to its employees.  She thought they could possibly reduce the goal of the annual increase in insurance costs to under 10%.

 

For the audit department, O’Donnell explained they should evaluate what department services are necessary to meet the prioritized outcomes determined by the board, determine which services in the department are being done by another department or agency and justify why those services should continue to be provided.  She added (of the services that are not required or mandated), they have to determine whether they are secondary to meeting the prioritized outcomes desired by the Board.  She said the audits could be completed either internally or by contracting with independent outside auditors.

 

With regard to making more County programs self-supporting, with planning, building permits and waste management, they thought by charging more of the cost of some programs, the general fund will have resources available to fund high priority services.

 

O’Donnell said they recommended budgeting to outcomes, not outputs.

 

O’Donnell commented that some services like public safety should never be contracted out because the County could provide them more efficiently or because they provide more functions.  She added if the decision were made to pursue contracting out services, the Board would need to comply with legal requirements of collective bargaining agreements and committed to protecting existing employees to the extent possible.

 

With regard to pursuing revenue, O’Donnell said the task force recommends that the Board of Commissioners pursue new revenue options in order to meet its long-term policy choice to remain a general-purpose government.  She said they recommend that the Board establish a public process that would include a revenue task force to complete an in-depth analysis of revenue options and consider the implications of each of those options.  She indicated the task force did not have adequate time to complete an in-depth analysis of the revenue options available to the Board or to consider their implications.  She said they were unable to make a recommendation about the sources of revenue that the Board should consider.  She said they believe the County needs to acquire additional revenue if it is going to continue as a general-purpose government.  She said the public process to explore new revenue should include a task force and ongoing procedures for testing the public’s perception and the development of strategies for positive communication with the citizens.  She stated if the Board undertakes such an effort, the task force recommends that each potential revenue source be given a cost benefit analysis.  She said they identified new options that the new task force could consider.  She said the ideas included a personal income tax, liquidate excess County assets, review existing system development charges, expand taxation of tourism, recover the full cost of services for which the County currently charges, seek voter approval for a levy for sheriff and district attorney services, establish a pollution tax, a telecommunication tax, a gas tax, seek voter approval for a corporate income tax, legislative relief from the cost of unfunded mandates, voter approval to establish a county sales tax with a corresponding reduction in county property taxes, a business license fee, a transportation tax, a payroll tax, a tax on tobacco and alcohol sales, a tax on the value of land, consolidate governmental services and assess an entertainment tax.

 

With regard to a public safety district, O’ Donnell said the task force recommended that the Board of Commissioners consider the barriers to the creation of a public safety district before deciding whether to proceed.  She said the task force reached consensus that it could not take a position on a creation of a public safety district.  She thought there were issues that needed to be resolved before they proceed.

 

O’Donnell said there is a lack of clarity on what services would be included.  She said if funding for drug and mental health treatment is included in a public safety district, they need to be managed independently and cooperatively with law enforcement.  She said the boundaries of the district are not contiguous and it might be difficult to obtain Boundary Commission approval.  She said the Board would need to determine if  the proceeds of the special district would be revenue neutral or raise replacement funds that could be used to fund other critical county services.

 

O’Donnell stated the task force encourages the Board to continue to provide leadership necessary to overcome the current budget crisis so it doesn’t become permanent and the Board could meet its goal of truly being a general purpose government.  She said they recommended to immediately determine outcome priorities for the County so the Board could move toward funding for outcomes, not outputs, complete a thorough analysis of how the County might reduce some of the costs of doing business, pursue new revenue so all of the citizens have a safety, recreational, cultural and health and human benefits that only a general purpose government could provide.

 

b. REPORT/Periodic Review Goal 5 Process for Riparian Areas Inside the Eugene Urban Growth Area.

 

Green recalled that Debbie Jeffries had come before the Board before and made the statements that the City of Eugene was acting on behalf of the County and documentation that went forward showed the City of Eugene was speaking for the County.

 

Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, stated it is what the City developed and brought to the Board and the Board adopted.  He noted they have other appeals of Board action where the city takes the lead in defending those actions because it is an area where their work had been the primary piece of the puzzle.  He added the urban transition agreement was part of the discussion when they took action.

 

Debbie Jeffries, Eugene, explained this issue is over a specific site, E-76 in the inventory classified as a riparian corridor.   She noted the question is related to the debate the Board had and the fact that the city does not represent her, the Board does.  She said this particular site is on the northern edge of the urban growth boundary.  She said this was a misuse of a definition.  She said the City of Eugene instituted the inventory and they are the ones who are speaking for what they did, but the response the City Attorney’s office provided to LCDC as the County’s position, was never presented or discussed by the Board of Commissioners.  She noted that a 30-foot wide creek that was a tributary of the McKenzie suddenly became 300 feet wide after it naturally abandoned the water supply.  She added she has no one to process it from a representative standpoint.  She commented that E-76 does not belong in the inventory per the definition

 

Dwyer asked how they could remove that from the inventory.

 

Vorhes said the formal way would be to revisit the ordinance that adopted it.  He said when this ordinance was in front of the Board, they had that conversation and there was discussion about taking it out at the time.  He said there wasn’t consensus or description of the reasons for taking it out.  He said it is still in and that was the action that was appealed at LCDC.  He and city staff indicated that there is a second part of the Goal 5 process still to come and that is the ESEE analysis under the Goal 5 Rule.  He said that is still a local process that the city is waiting for the outcome at LCDC of the objections to the initial action to identify the significance criteria and identify the particular inventory sites that the city will do their additional ESEE analysis to see if these inventoried sites should remain on the Goal 5 inventory and be protected.  At that time there was an option to contest the Board’s action on the ordinance in the initial adoption of the inventory at LCDC.  With regard to the response to the objection, Lane County’s objection is what is in front of the Board at the time and the city could defend it without representing Lane County’s position.  He said if the County wanted to eliminate that debate at LCDC, he thought it would take pulling back the ordinance to say they don’t want to take that action.  He added it carries some of the same issues including who would be doing the Goal 5 planning for that area and how that is going to occur.  He said one of the options had always been for the Board amending its ordinance that had been adopted.  He thought the Board might want to hear from the city before they do that.

 

Green asked why the City of Eugene was acting as a representative of Lane  County.

 

Vorhes indicated it was action that the city developed and it has the expertise and did the study and the analysis prior to the  Board action so they are the ones who are presenting the case to LCDC.  He said if the County took the lead in this that they would come to the same conclusion the Board thinks they should come to.

 

Jeffries indicated that the LCDC’s staff report did not include information and they had acknowledged it.  She said the department representative for the area went out to the site two days before the staff report was issued and there was nothing in it about the visit.  She said there was acknowledgment that there is the appearance of no water, and no connection to any body of water.  She commented while the staff issued a report, they are preparing a second report.  She added the city is not waiting for this decision at the state level, they had proceeded with their ESEE analysis.  She stated this is not her fault or any other property owner.  She said this was messed up because of LCOG and the City of Eugene, not paying attention and reading OAR 016 and OAR 023.  She said they are using the rule as a property control rule.  She agrees that Goal 5 is important for the state but it wasn’t intended to be used as a development control.  She said it is supposed to be set aside for significant resources and it is not being used for that.  She added this particular situation falls within that category.  She said a riparian corridor by definition could go from one end of the spectrum to the other.  She said the intent of Goal 5 is to set aside riparian corridors that are natural resources for wildlife.  She noted the property does not have water, is not connected to any water and was a farm pond.  She submitted a written statement signed by the original homestead family property owner of how that pond developed.  She said it was dug as a compromise between the sand and gravel company and the farmer because they needed water.  She said for some reason the city of Eugene has failed to put that in the report.

 

Dwyer’s concern is that they were given the assurance that an ESEE analysis would be developed so there is another process.

 

Vorhes said the Board choice at that time was to leave it on the inventory.  He said if the Board has information and they have a position they want to express as part of the ESEE analysis, they could do it.  He encouraged the Board to do.

 

Jeffries said that originally she wanted the site to be pulled off.  She said it does not belong on the inventory.  She said the concern she has with the ESEE analysis is that the Board defers to the City of Eugene.

 

Vorhes said the Board could do whatever they want but in the land use arena, they are discussing specific properties and he said procedurally it could be awkward to do anything today.

 

Sorenson asked why couldn’t Jeffries make a Measure 37 claim.  He asked if they wanted to either add or subtract areas of the inventory how they would do it.

 

Vorhes thought Measure 37 might be another option.   He recalled that City staff also indicated to the Board that as part of the ESEE process that it could result in taking parts or whole sites off of the inventory.   He added there was an indication that the protection regulations they were looking at for sites to end up on the inventory would also have in it a provision that would provide for any particular property owner to come and show why their property didn’t meet the definition of that Goal 5 resource and the protection measures should not apply to those properties.  He indicated that it is up to the Board to decide how they want to proceed.

 

Dwyer stated when he supported the ordinance, he supported it on the basis that there would have been an objective analysis, an ESEE analysis that would, if applied, eliminate the property.  He thought there would be a case-by-case review.  He said there was not much objectivity in the analysis.  He said the issue becomes what could the County staff do so they could make the analysis more objective and based on what they think.  He requested that the planning department find an objective way to have another voice in the issue that is before DLCD.

 

Morrison commented that ever since they stated the periodic review of Goal 5 with the city, the inventory had been an issue from the beginning.  She said there were a lot of properties that were on the inventory that were completely developed, that were not vacant.  She said there is a problem with the maps and the inventory that was done.  She noted that staff had never done a visual take on the majority of the land.  She said they are making assumptions and doing their interpretation on Goal 5 and it is not valid.  She wanted to change the ordinance.  She noted she didn’t support it in the first place.

 

Hampton thought they were misled about how easily a piece of property could be removed from the inventory.  He said if this property is not to be looked at objectively, then the Board should review what they had done.

 

Green commented there is interest by the Board to revisit the ordinance.  He thought they could deal with Jeffries’s matter.  He thought the only issue was the cost and who would do the inventory.  He recalled the Board’s position at that time was they didn’t have the resources or money so they went ahead and approved it.  He asked for the agenda team to work with legal counsel and Land Management to develop a process to deal with this one particular piece.

 

Vorhes indicated that part of the process is that the Board would hear from the city about what the Board intends to do and how they want to process it because it might get back to who wants to fund the Goal 5 inventory for the area outside the city and inside the urban growth boundary.  He said the Board could direct staff to get involved in the second step of the Goal 5 process so there is a voice from the Lane County Planning Department in the process.

 

Jeffries explained that the ESEE analysis is different from the position she has of what she wants to see the Board do.  She said the ESEE analysis means that the site is in the inventory.  She stated it should never have been in the inventory.  She said there is a specific statement in the riparian definition that says manmade farm ponds are excluded.  She said it does not belong in the inventory.  She added it was a bad rule that the Board had approved when it didn’t belong.  She said it was her understanding that the ESEE analysis would not remove the pond from the inventory.

 

Vorhes didn’t agree that the ESEE analysis would result with the property continuing to be in the inventory.   He thought the Board might want to have staff look at the issue around the inventory separate from the city’s actions and efforts but he had not looked at the ESEE process and how it would play out.

 

Dwyer requested the planning staff review the site based on the rule and goal and determine whether or not that was an appropriate designation.  He wanted to give relief for the people who ask for it.  He wanted an opinion as to whether or not an objective review would say that based on all the history whether or not it was a correct listing.  He added if it is open to interpretation, the Board could be the interpreters.

 

There was consensus for Land Management to review the site.

 

9. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. ORDER 04-11-3-2/In the Matter of Deferring a Road Realignment Project on Kirk Road, at and Near M.P. 1.38 in Favor of Lower Cost Safety Measures.

 

Sonny Chickering, Public Works, explained they had a situation a couple of years ago that had alerted them that there had been a couple of serious accidents at some sharp curves that make site distance somewhat limited in the location.  He said in response to that request, they had added a possible re-alignment project to their matrix that could be constructed with their own forces.  He said before spending engineering time on the project, they elected to go out and meet with the property owners first.  He said 25 people were present with two-thirds being local residents but others were people who visited the area.  He said the general consensus of the group was that lower cost alternatives like signage and speed zones, etc., would be much preferred over a realignment project.  He said at their request, he went back and had his traffic engineer present a signing plan and they went ahead and implemented that prior to the school year.  He said September 1 they installed new signs up and down the road advising of sharp curves ahead.  He said those measures met with positive response from the locals and they are getting anecdotal reports that work is already helping to keep the speeds down.  His concern was that the corners had been identified as a potential safety problem.  He wanted to make sure the Board was comfortable with not proceeding with the realignment.

 

MOTION:  to approve ORDER 04-11-3-2.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

b. ORDER 04-11-3-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign an Intergovernmental Revenue Agreement With the City of Springfield in the Not to Exceed Amount of $1,245,000 for Engineering Services Associated With Reconstruction of South 42nd Street.

 

Chickering indicated that until recently this section of South 42nd was an ODOT road transferred to the City of Springfield.

 

MOTION:  to approve ORDER 04-11-3-3.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

c. FIFTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1210/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning That Land From "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" to "Ml/Marginal Land", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 02-5838; Ogle). (NBA & PM 6/23/04, 7/14/04, 8/25/04 & 9/22/04).

 

Jerry Kendall, Land Management, recalled he gave the Board a supplemental memo two days ago and there were three attachments.  With regard to attachment three, he said it was withdrawn.  He noted the second attachment was Mr. Farthing’s final rebuttal.  Kendall noted attachment one is Mr. Just’s October 7 objections.  Concerning the first item, Kendall said Just took the position that the Oregon Administrative Rule dealing with forestlands is applicable to this application.  Kendall recalled the subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and the Oregon Administrative Rule Division 6 for forestlands specifically states that division applies to all forestlands as defined by Goal 4.  He noted that Goal 4 states that forestlands are all lands that were acknowledged as forestlands as of the amendment of Goal 4.  He said that this property was always zoned Exclusive Farm Use prior to the amendment of Goal 4 and never changed over.  He commented that the application still passes the cubic foot productivity test.

 

On the second item, Kendall explained aerial photos are always subject to interpretation because of the altitude.  He said staff did not rely on those documents, they were introduced late in the record.  With regard to the BPA and EWEB easement lines, what the applicant’s forester did was give the soils under the easement a rating of zero cubic feet productivity because the easement states that one is not allowed to grow trees under those power lines.  He said while staff doesn’t necessarily agree that automatically changes the ratings of the soils, the operative term in the law is whether the property is capable of producing.

 

Dwyer asked if this was ever in forest deferral.

 

Kendall stated he didn’t recall.  He said the issue is whether it is capable of producing 85 cubic feet of merchantable timber.  With regard to the growth cycle and whether to take the 50-year versus 60-year deferral the applicant originally used the 60-year cycle and Goal 1 objective.  He added the applicant then reverted to a 50-year cycle, per the Board’s guidelines.  He said the objection is that the 60-year cycle is more reasonable to use.  He said the topic on whether other forest tree species can be grown on the property was discussed throughout the application.  He said the applicant’s forester maintains that because of specific site conditions, water limitations or other tree species, that standard is covered and the highest and best value and most merchantable species on the property is Douglas Fir. He said the file record contains evidence that is below the 85 cubic foot standard.  He noted there is a supplement that was introduced during the prior reading, Exhibit C 1, attached to the ordinance.

 

Green supported this ordinance.  He noted the opponents offered no scientific evidence to the contrary.

 

MOTION:  to move to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1210.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 2-3 (Dwyer, Hampton, Sorenson dissenting) MOTION FAILS.

 

MOTION:  to deny the application and direct development of an order and findings to that effect.

 

Sorenson MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.

 

Dwyer said there were things that weren’t provided and not enough information on how the land was deferred or taxed.  He said they couldn’t get forest deferral, benefit from that aspect of the land but when it comes to develop it, claim that it is not suitable.  He said he didn’t see anything in the record that related to that.  He said they couldn’t build under the power lines so all the land that is under the power lines is not developable.  He said there was nothing in the file stating it was being deferred on the basis of being productive.

 

Sorenson said when the Board takes action, they work with the people on the prevailing side to acquire information.

 

Hampton found the arguments on both sides to be weak.

 

Vorhes said they would put an order together that articulates the reasons the Board didn’t vote in favor.

 

Sorenson thought they should look to the statements and arguments and work with the opponents.  He added that the applicant failed to meet their burden of proof in the presentation of the information.  He said the Board is the arbitrator of the credibility of the witnesses that submitted the information.

 

VOTE: 3-2 (Morrison, Green dissenting).

 

d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 4-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 10 and 16 of the Lane Code to Add Provisions Pertaining to Unauthorized Work Without a Permit and Double Permit Fees (LC 10.900-16; 16.262) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: November 23, 2004, 1:30 pm).

 

MOTION:  to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 4-04 on November 23, 2004, at 1:30 p.m.

 

Dwyer MOVED Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

10. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

A. Approval of Minutes:

March 31, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

April 28, 2004, Joint City/County Finance Meeting, 6:00 p.m.

July 28, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

July 28, 2004, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

September 22, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

 

B. Health and Human Services

 

1) ORDER 04-11-3-4/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Contract Amendment with DePaul Industries in the Amount of $36,000 for the Period July 1, 2004 Through June 30, 2005.

 

MOTION: to move to approve the Consent Calendar.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

11. MANAGEMENT SERVICES

 

a. ORDER 04-11-3-5/In the Matter of Authorizing Submittal of Grant Applications to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to Provide Funding for Remediation of County Owned Tax Foreclosed Property Containing Hazardous Waste (267 Van Buren St., Eugene, 86714 McVay Hwy., Eugene).

 

Jeff Turk, Management Services, indicated he had received some additional letters of support from each of the projects from LRAPA for the McVay Highway property that will be attached to the application and from the Whitaker Community Council for the property on Van Buren.

 

MOTION:  to approve ORDER 04-11-3-5.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

12. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

None.

 

14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

To take place in the afternoon.

 

15. OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary