BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
October 25, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners’ Conference Room
APPROVED 7/25/07
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE AGENDA
There will be an 11:00 a.m. time certain Executive Session. Item 15 c. is not a public hearing.
2. PUBLIC
COMMENTS
John Dodge stated he was interested in vacating Templeton Road. He said last week the Board discussed this
item and it came to a tied vote. He
stated he lives on Templeton Road and wants the road the way it is. He said he knows everyone who lives on this
road. He presented the Board with a
petition from people on Templeton Road.
He noted the options to rectify the situation are to either open the
road or vacate the road. He said having
a gate for limited access for a few chosen individuals didn’t sound right to
him. He said no one uses the road as no one knows where the road is.
Larry Reed, JRH Transportation, Eugene, represented the Swans. He said they were present about the vacation
of Brown Road. He indicated it is a
deadend road and they are asking that 50 feet at the end of the road be
vacated. He said the road goes 17 feet
to the Swans’ house. He stated the road
will never go through, or it would run between her house, garage and barn. He added it would also go into Elijah
Bristow State Park. He said in looking
at the master plan for the state park, it would be counter productive to ever
put a road through the park as it would compromise their security.
Cindy Land, Eugene, continued talking about maintaining the livestock arena for the
fairgrounds. She said the $100,000 in
gross revenue that is currently being proposed by the YMCA is a gross
number. She said if they subtract the
tangible expenses, she calculated about $96,000 per year for the first year.
She wanted the Board to consider that the $100,000 was really about $4,000 per
year in revenue to the livestock arena.
She said there was an incorrect amount given to the Board in the minutes
from the Lane County Fair Board. She
indicated they said there was only $2,275 in revenue that was generated in
2006. She talked to the Eugene Kennel
Club and they received a bill for $6,138 for their use of the livestock arena
for the dog show. She thought there
could be additional funds that could be generated from a livestock arena.
Peter Ferris, Walport, stated he is a statewide advocate regarding the disclosure
issue. He indicated there have been 13
mobile home parks closed in Washington County and 600 people in Bend were
displaced. He said in Lane County they
are trying to declare a moratorium until they get help for people. He said given the law, if an owner closes a
park and gives a year’s notice, most of the people will lose their
investment. He added there are no
places where they can take their mobile home even if they can take it. He said they want a moratorium until
January 2008 in order to get the cities to enhance an ordinance or to get the
legislature to act. He asked the Board
to recommend to the cities in this county to pass a moratorium until January 1,
2008.
Dwyer thought there were ways to fix the problem. He thought Ferris
should go to the people who have the authority and ask them directly.
Mary Jacobs, Junction City, expressed her concern about the public income
measure. She said the wording of the
proposal was voter blackmail. She
indicated that she and her husband will pay over $400 per year if the tax goes
through. She said that was $400 less
that would go into local businesses each year.
She asked if local businesses would not pay as much tax. She asked why they were enacting a tax that
has to go through the state to be collected.
She asked to put a tax on restaurant meals, collected locally and paid
by visitors to Lane County. She thought
it would spread the payment to a wider base.
She thought the Board needed to declare what would happen if the income
tax measure doesn’t pass.
Paul Spain, Eugene, stated he has property on River Avenue. He said the City of Eugene is going to spend
$2.2 million on improving River Avenue Road, designated as a major collector street. He indicated information from Ollie Snowden,
Public Works, said they would close the River Avenue on and off ramps. He said Lane County Public Works is
suggesting that that be eliminated. He
thought they were looking to find an alternative to help improve what is
already a terrible traffic situation.
He suggested working closer with ODOT to move up on their schedule and
reallocate the funding that was taken away.
He wanted to make sure that the River Avenue onramp remains open.
Dwyer commented they were being used by the process. He said someone wants to have a traffic
design to allow the pending hospital to be able to use different
mechanisms. He said the estimates and
impacts are unknown as to the traffic solutions to be considered.
Spain encouraged the Board to do what they can to help mitigate what is
trying to be ramroded down the community’s throats.
Green said they took action in May to withhold funding. He said they have a serious problem with the
Delta Beltline issue. He wanted to deal
with the problem independent of any hospital building. He participated in the
River Avenue process. He asked the
engineer to convene a group of problem solvers. He said they have the option of doing nothing. He wanted to solve
the traffic problem in that area. He was disappointed that ODOT didn’t do the
technical analysis.
Spain indicated the River Avenue project was modified significantly.
Morrison noted that Lane County had no money in the River Avenue
project. She thought the city put a
hold on the project.
Spain said the project will begin in 2007.
Rob Handy, Eugene, discussed transportation issues. He said what is on people’s minds is potholes and dealing with
existing facilities. He said they are not talking about building new facilities
as a new priority. He wanted to see the $17 million from the failed West Eugene
Parkway project be kept in the community for other projects. He said given the unpredictability of the
Secure Rural School Act funding, he suggested that with Division Avenue Bridge
the Board consider Option 6, creating a safety net reserve with transportation
funding.
Chris Orsinger, Eugene, represented Friends of Buford Park and Mt.
Pisgah on the item related to a fire contract with the Oregon Department of
Forestry. He thought it was an excellent idea. He proposed that a fire plan be
incorporated into a broader habitat and vegetation plan that been called for in
the master plan for Parks but had never been developed. He said prescribed fire is being used in the
park not only to reduce fuel loads and the hazard of a wildfire in the future
but as a tool to manage habitats. He
said Friends of Buford Park, the Oregon Department of Forestry and Lane County
collaborated to implement prescribed burns in the park. He said with the idea of a habitat
management plan that incorporates fire as a tool, they could identify regions
within the park that could burn safely.
He indicated that Friends of Buford Park has allocated $10,000 in their
budget for next year to try to move forward with assessments that are the
preliminary steps in a habitat management plan. He wanted to move forward with
the habitat management plan and the fire plan as one and not break the plan
off.
3. EMERGENCY
BUSINESS
None.
4. COMMISSIONERS'
REMONSTRANCE
None.
5. COMMISSIONERS'
BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION AND
ORDER 06-10-25-1/In the Matter of Responding to the LUBA Remand of the
Decision Enacting Ordinance No. PA 1229 and Supporting that Ordinance by
Adoption of Additional Supplemental Findings to Further Show How Modifications
to the Lane County Coastal Resources Management Plan Comply with Statewide Goal
16 [LMD File No. PA 05-5506, City of Florence and Shelter Care Homeowners
Association].
Kent Howe, Land
Management, reported in February 2006 the Board co-adopted a portion of the
Florence City Ordinance that amended the Coastal Resources Management
Plan. He indicated the amendment was to recognize changes that have
occurred in the Siuslaw River Estuary and change the designation from natural
to conservation for sub area ( c)(1) management unit. He noted that action was appealed to LUBA. He said LUBA issued a
decision that upheld the County’s action on most of the issues raised by the
petitioners but remanded the action based on the Goal 16 requirement that the
County consider and describe in the plan the potential cumulative impacts of
the alterations and development activities envisioned. He said Oregon Administrative Rule allows
that such description may be general but shall be based on the best available
information and projections. He
indicated that County staff has worked with the applicant and the City of
Florence staff to respond to the remanded issues. He said the proposed order explains the responses and describes
the evidence in the existing record. He thought responding to the remand issues
does not reopen the record for additional evidence. He said the supplemental findings and description of the evidence
in the record established that the amendments to the Coastal Resources and
Management Plan did not affect compliance with Goal 16 because there is a
considerable body of evidence in the record that addresses the cumulative
impacts that may occur as a result of the change in the management unit
designation. He added that evidence in
the record analyzes the cumulative impacts already considered, described and
acknowledged in the Coastal Resources Management Plan and shows that the
cumulative impacts of the change to the management unit for sub area (c) (1) is
consistent with the overall cumulative impacts anticipated in the acknowledged
Coastal Resources Management Plan.
Howe explained that
evidence in the record shows that due to changes in the ecological condition of
the area, the change in designation for sub area (c)(1) is consistent with Goal
16 requirements for comprehensive plans.
He said since they presented the original agenda cover memo, two items
came in: one suggesting language to be
added to the board order, and comments about the proposed order. He thinks the record shows that due to
changes in the ecological condition of the
area, the amendment to the Coastal Resources Management Plan is consistent with
all of the Goal 16 requirements for comprehensive plans, and with those
amendments the Coastal Resource Management Plan reflects sufficient
consideration of the potential cumulative impacts of the alterations and
development activities envisioned by the amendments. He noted the proposed board order does cite evidence in the
record supporting the additional text, but explains how the redesignated area
buffers other more productive areas and connects the language to the impact
analysis to address the shortcomings identified by the LUBA remind
decision. He said for those reasons,
adoption of the original proposed order is recommended.
Dwyer stated their
decision is based upon the record that shows it doesn’t relate to Goal 16
directly and any additional
action will require subsequent review.
Vorhes said the two
issues that LUBA focused on indicated that the decision previously adopted
didn’t have adequate findings to
describe the things this order will do.
He indicated they went back through the record and pulled out the parts
that were the substance of the analysis that lead to the Board’s decision. He said it wasn’t articulated clearly and
specifically directed to what evidence in the record was indicating what the
impacts might be. He said this order
with the proposed findings attempts to do that. He added for this area specifically, there are code provisions
the City of Florence adopted to show what could be done in these areas. He
indicated that these provisions include a long impact assessment that leads to
a lengthy cumulative impact analysis.
He said they looked at all the studies and facts that were presented to the
Board through the course of the proceeding and this Board proposed in the
findings a basis for the action previously adopting the ordinance.
Sorenson asked if
they were under any timeline for making a decision.
Vorhes responded that remand proceedings
are left to the governing body in the remand because they have not adopted in their code any specific timelines or processes for addressing
remands. He said in this case there is
a statutory provision that says they have to act on a remand within 90 days. He said the applicant asked them to move so
they are moving within that period of time.
He said in this case they have reviewed what the remand said and what
the options were. He said their
recommendation is to do the action without reopening the record or
holding any public hearings. He said
they think all of the evidence is in the record that is necessary to address.
Sorenson wanted an
expanded process. He thought there was
a mistake made in the material presented
and that was why LUBA reversed it.
MOTION: to approve 06-10-25-1.
Green MOVED,
Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
6. COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION
a. Announcements
None.
b. ORDER 06-10-25-2/In
the Matter of Authorizing Submission of a $50,000 Grant Application to the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department and Authorizing the County
Administrator to Sign the Grant Application Documents.
Dwyer explained that
this was an application for a
study grant.
Mike McKenzie-Bahr,
Economic Development, noted that the application required the attachment of a
board order to the application showing the governing body has approved the
application submission. He said the
cost is $50,000 for a feasibility study for ethanol, a major component of
alternative fuel. He said it would fund
three studies statewide.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-2.
Stewart MOVED,
Morrison SECONDED.
Morrison was concerned about the outcome. She said she has seen a lot of dollars
wasted to this point regarding this type of activity and wanted to be cautious
as to who will get the contract to produce the study.
Stewart said he was supportive of them doing whatever they
can for development in the area. He
thought it would be a good idea if they could take the product and create an
alternative fuel and make money for the County.
McKenzie-Bahr stated
he brought this to the Economic Development Standing Committee and there was a
unanimous vote to submit the application.
VOTE: 5-0.
7. PUBLIC
WORKS
a. ORDER 06-10-25-3/In
the Matter of Ratifying Agreements With the Eastern Lane Forest Protective
Association For Fire Response Services For the Howard Buford Recreation Area
(HBRA), Armitage Park and Hendricks Bridge Park.
Todd Winter, Parks,
noted that this is for three of their facilities outside of the fire protection
districts. He indicated the Five Year Armitage and Hendricks Bridge Parks
Agreement were executed by the Public Works Director on August 22. He said the five year HBRA and Mt. Pisgah
agreements were executed by the county administrator on September 16. He explained that ratification of the
agreements by the Board is appropriate for consideration with a catastrophic
fire. He said a catastrophic fire could
result in unforeseen expenditures to fire suppression equipment and fire
crews. He indicated if there is a fire
at Howard Buford Recreation Area under the current contract, the unit will use
all of its resources to fight the fire at no additional cost to the County. He added if the unit needs to call in a
helicopter or an additional fire fighting crew, they would pass the cost along
to the County. He stated if there were
no contracts in place and a major fire were to spread, it could be possible the
County could have civil liability for the fire spreading to other properties.
Winter explained
that annexation within the unit’s district boundary would possibly eliminate
the additional cost of resources beyond the unit’s capacity, if the County had
a mechanism for paying full district membership fees or taxes. He added the boundary changes and
annexations cannot occur until the state
completes a study, and the Oregon Department of Forestry estimates this
should be completed within a year. He
indicated at that time, Public Works will request that the Oregon Department of
Forestry consider including Howard Buford Recreation Areas and Mt. Pisgah,
Armitage and Hendricks Park and Short Mountain within the fire district’s
boundaries. He said they do prescribed
burns and the Oregon Department of Forestry uses it as a training exercise. He said it also reduces a fuel load to
prevent a catastrophic fire. He noted
in extreme fire danger where it is dry, they work with the Oregon Department of
Forestry to close the park. He
indicated they had not called the HBRA within the last two fire seasons. He noted they did close the park in 2002 and
2003 for about six weeks.
Winter stated they
do have fire protection in place for the facilities. He said if a bad fire broke out at Mt. Pisgah, they might have to
call a helicopter that might exceed the delegated authority of the county
administrator or the Public Works director.
Dwyer asked about
the cost.
Winter said the cost
is $3,419 per year or about $1.41 per acre.
He noted that the Goshen Fire Department covers the structures.
Wilson said these
were three year agreements so they would need to change the board order.
Snowden stated the
cost falls within his and the County Administrator’s authority, but there is no
upper limit to their liability.
Dwyer stated that
they need to look at capping their liability.
Stewart recalled
that Chris Orsinger spoke and wanted to make a management plan that allowed
some areas to burn. He was concerned
because when a fire starts, they don’t know where the prevailing winds are
coming from, the weather conditions and who it is going to affect. He didn’t want to make a document that would
open them up to potential problems in the future.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-3 with the
correct year on the contract.
Green MOVED,
Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
b. REPORT BACK
Delta/Beltline Interchange Funding. (NBA & PM 5/17/06)
Dwyer said the
reason this has come back was because they were approached for a bridge that
doesn’t exist for prospective traffic studies that would foster someone’s
application for a hospital.
Snowden indicated
they came back to the Board because the Board asked them in May to get together
with ODOT to look for a way to spend County money to make substantial
improvements. He said they knew at the
time that Triad had a process going on with a metro plan amendment on River
Ridge. He recalled when the Board set
up this process, the direction was Lane County’s process would run parallel to
Triad’s but if there was some opportunity to partner with Triad, they weren’t
going to shut them off without coming to the Board first to discuss it. He noted at one time McKenzie-Willamette
came to them to use the Division Avenue Bridge in their traffic impact
analysis. He said in order to do that,
as part of their mitigation measures of their application, they would need
something from MPC that would take the Division Avenue Bridge out of the future
list and put it in the regional transportation plan. He sent out e-mails and had a work session planned to discuss the
possibility. He added in the meantime
McKenzie-Willamette decided that they didn’t want to have to rely on Division
Avenue Bridge as part of the mitigation strategy. He said on September 16 they submitted a revised traffic impact
analysis to the city that didn’t consider Division Avenue Bridge, but back to
ramp metering on the Beltline ramps. He
said that was under review. He said
that McKenzie-Willamette was going to add more information today.
Tom Stinchfield,
Public Works, stated he was going to Salem and it was his understanding that
McKenzie-Willamette was going to submit additional materials that revise their
September 15 study. He said the
application is in process but they are still revising their materials and no
hearings have been scheduled.
Snowden commented
that a couple of months ago it looked like the County and Triad process might
converge, but they are separate. He
reported the County staff met with Eugene and ODOT staff and they looked at
three alternatives: a split diamond, auxiliary ramp lanes on westbound Beltline,
and the Division Avenue Bridge. He said
ODOT’s high level analysis concluded that of those three projects, only the
Division Avenue Bridge is one that would provide some significant traffic
relief and could be separated from the ODOT process. He said ODOT starts with
a corridor study in the Area 5 planning budget (a two year program). He indicated that in FY 09 they would start
with the environmental process that would lead to a NIPA document. He thought after talking with ODOT, the
soonest for any construction to start would be 2013, if they had money for the
project. He added that they don’t have
any money for construction. He asked
the Board what they wanted to do with any unallocated County money from the
County road funds regarding Division Avenue Bridge. He recalled this past year they eliminated 10 positions out of
the road fund and engineering because they didn’t have enough CIP work to keep
the positions busy. He added they are
planning on eliminating another six jobs the next fiscal year because if they
don’t eliminate more positions, the $4 million or $5 million in reserves might
not be there. He asked the Board to
take the money to see if they could find partner money to build the Division Avenue
Bridge, but their revised estimates are $28 million. He said they could take direction to take the money for other CIP
projects, or to put it aside to wait to see how the Secure Rural Schools
legislation plays out before they decide to reallocate the money. He recommended holding the money aside.
Morrison thought in
the longer term, they need to make a note that they have to remove the corridor
study money from their United Front package.
She said in looking at the state, the bonding with the Connect Oregon
project is on hold. She noted nothing
is moving forward until after the election.
She said they have to look into the longer term picture. She thought they should put the money into a
reserve.
MOTION: to approve Option 6.
Morrison MOVED,
Green SECONDED.
Green supported
reserving the money. He was
disappointed that ODOT didn’t do anything substantive and no scoping had been
done. He commented that they aren’t
getting any relief from ODOT and this is the biggest traffic problem they
currently have. He said many accidents
have happened.
Snowden indicated
that ODOT is saying if Lane County wants federal money to provide relief for
the Beltline corridor, they have to play by the federal rules, including a
corridor study and a NIPA process. He
said if there is no federal money, the Division Avenue Bridge could be a local
project that wouldn’t involve federal money.
He noted they would still have environmental constraints but they
wouldn’t be bound to the federal process.
Stewart asked if the
traffic speed could be lowered through the area to make the area safer.
Stinchfield
indicated they are reviewing the speed zones based on a public request. He said it is actually 45 miles per
hour. He said they have a request to
extend the zone on Delta Highway south of Goodpasture. He stated they hadn’t reached a conclusion
on that.
Green thought the
easiest solution was to have a dedicated exit lane on both sides of the
highway.
VOTE: 5-0.
c. ORDER 06-10-25-4/In
the Matter of the Vacation of a Portion of Brown Road (Co. Rd. 1196), Located in the Southeast Quarter (SE
1/4) of Section 6, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian,
in Lane County, Oregon, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact
(19-01-06).
Bill Robinson, Land
Management, stated there was public comment this morning from Mr. Reed on the
property. He said the area is 50 feet
in length, 60 feet in width and Mrs. Swan is the owner on both sides. He said
she petitioned so she could have better use of her property and wanted to
reconfigure part of it. He added that
she also wants to sell off one of the preconfigured lots. He said she would get the barn, shed, the
well and the house on the same property and move the end of the road from where
it is now 17 feet from her house, another 50 feet further.
Dwyer stated he has
a philosophical opposition to vacating any public land without a public
hearing.
Robinson said they
notified the neighbors about this and they gave six weeks for the neighbors to
respond. He received one call back.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-4.
Green MOVED, Stewart
SECONDED.
Sorenson asked if
this was approved what the impact would be on the land use of the properties in
the area.
Robinson said it
wouldn’t trigger any land use issue as she currently has multiple legal lots.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
d. ORDER 06-10-25-5/In
the Matter of the Vacation of a Portion of Lamb Road, Co. Rd. 517 (Originally
Demming Road), Located in the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 7, Township
17 South, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County, Oregon,
Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (17-05-07).
Robinson noted there
is about 1500 feet of road being petitioned.
He said it came about because the owner of tax lot 1001 found out the ten
acres they had couldn’t be partitioned because they didn’t have enough square
footage. He recalled in 1902 when the road was laid out, it began at
Territorial Highway and ran less than a half mile to the quarter section line
and jogged up to the north. He couldn’t
find in the petition why the road was jogged up to the section line. He said in 1975 there was a dedication for
another 30 feet along the site. He
added in 1947 there was a subdivision along the south side of the section line
creating a 60 foot road. He noted the road as physically built and located was
on the south side of the section line.
He said they sent notices out.
He stated if they could get 15 people to sign the petition, they could
do it without a public hearing. They
received 16 signatures.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-5.
Morrison MOVED,
Stewart SECONDED.
Dwyer was against
passing this without a public hearing.
VOTE 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
e. FIRST READING AND
SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1235/In the
Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From
"Forest" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning That Land From
"F-2/Impacted Forest Lands” to "ML/Marginal Land", and Adopting
Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 04-6308; Dennis) (Second Reading
& Public Hearing: November 8, 2006, 1:30 p.m.).
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a
Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1235 for November 8, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.
Green MOVED, Stewart
SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
8. HUMAN
RESOURCES
a. ORDER 06-10-25-7/In
the Matter of Ratifying the Tentative Agreement Between Lane County and the
Federation of Oregon Parole and Probation Officers (FOPPO).
Frank Forbes,
Management Services, explained that this was the new bargaining unit. He indicated that this is a two year
agreement in keeping with the similar patterns of the other bargaining
units. He said the money is available
in the existing budget He recommended
approval. He added they will be
bargaining again next spring.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-10-25-7.
Green MOVED, Stewart
SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
9. MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
a. WORK
SESSION/Animal Control Code Issues.
David Suchart,
Management Services, said they worked with County Counsel and to list items for
Board input on how high each priority is.
He said they have resource issues and they are two officers short. He indicated he would bring the issues the
Board supports back in a board order.
Pet Food Tax
Suchart stated it
was their recommendation not to do anything but to defer until later.
Sorenson thought the
department needed revenue. He didn’t
want to pursue a pet food tax.
Wilson recalled when
the Board received the Animal Control Task Force Report, they gave staff
direction to implement the items. She
said these were the remainder of the list and they are ready to be taken to the
next step.
Dwyer said he
wouldn’t oppose a pet food tax at the wholesale level. He wanted someone to review where the tax
could be implemented at that level and what the success could be.
Green didn’t want to
work on this as they are still working with the public safety issue. He commented that he didn’t want confusing
issues with the public.
Morrison recalled
there was an Eco Northwest study dated 2002 that gave that information. She supported Suchart’s recommendation.
Suchart said he
could come back with a follow-up memo.
Cats
Suchart said there
had been discussion about cat licenses and vaccinations for the regulation of
domestic and feral cats. He said it is recommended that an ordinance be
developed requiring cats to be licensed.
Green supported it.
Dwyer didn’t support
it. He commented that it was not fair
to have something apply in the rural area that doesn’t apply in the city. He indicated he would support it if the City
would follow the same ordinance.
Suchart said the
City of Eugene would look closely to what Lane County does with the different
regulations. He said when they bring
this back they will gave a status of the cities.
Morrison thought
this was a way to address the subject.
Stewart asked if
they had looked into a surcharge of rabies vaccinations. He said if the goal is to generate money, it
might be a legitimate way to do it. He
added the reason they have people license their animals is to get them back in
case they get lost. He thought they
should sell this as a service to people.
Suchart said they
are trying to generate revenue because cats are a major resource problem.
Sorenson asked what
other communities had for cat licensing.
Suchart said they
hadn’t done the research yet. He said
if the Board wants them to move ahead with this, they will bring back the
detailed information on implementation and cost. He said they will bring this back as a piece on cats.
Mike Wellington,
LCARA, responded that other cities that have cat ordinances are Gresham,
Portland, Multnomah County, Spokane, Oakridge, Lowell and Seattle. He said they are trying to recover some
costs but their main charge is to get the cats back out. He added they do it with a microchip
registration.
With regard to
regulation of domestic cats, Suchart said they are recommending moving forward
to bring it back to the Board.
Under Cats, Suchart
said there is a recommendation that the person providing the care be deemed the
owner of a feral cat.
There wasn’t
consensus to bring this back.
Morrison said she
had problem with livestock animals.
Green was against
enforcing laws with livestock animals.
Suchart asked if
they wanted Animal Regulation involved in the fining of livestock animals. He said these were recommendations from the
task force.
Sorenson wanted to
move ahead with the idea of a livestock ordinance but put it in the context of
being civil instead of criminal so they would have the discretion to issue
citations.
Suchart indicated
that he would bring this back to the Board.
Minimum
Requirements for Pet Shops and Breeders and Other Organizations based on
Housing Standards
Suchart recommended
rejecting it and letting the housing still stay under Land Management.
There was consensus
to reject it.
Unsafe
Transportation Regulations
There was consensus
to leave it with the Sheriff and Police.
Suchart said they
will prepare a memo in which they state
what they believed was said at this meeting.
He added they will put together an outline and a timeline and send it
back to the Board.
10. CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
None.
11. COMMISSIONERS'
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
12. EXECUTIVE
SESSION as per ORS 192.660
None.
13. OTHER
BUSINESS
None.
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting
at 11:55 a.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary