September 20, 2000 Letter

September 20, 2000

Jim Brock, Commissioner

Harold Haugen, Commissioner
Frank Iverson, Commissioner
Josephine County
Room 154, Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526

Steven Rich
Josephine County Legal Counsel
500 NW 6^th Street Counsel
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Dear Jim Brock, Commissioner:
Dear Harold Haugen, Commissioner:
Dear Frank Iverson, Commissioner:
Dear Steven E. Rich, Legal Counsel:

One of the Hugo Neighborhood Association’s (HNA’s) passions is to have meaningful public involvement and, therefore, an “informed public” and “informed decision-makers” when it comes to land use decisions in the Hugo community and in Josephine County. In a nut-shell the NHA thinks an effective citizen involvement program would facilitate planning decisions which better reflect the desires of the community. We believe an effective program will also decrease later conflicts.

While the county government’s citizen involvement plan (i.e. Josephine County Ordinance No. 93-13) for supporting citizen involvement in land use planning contains good points, it “falls short” in executing key areas.

This communication is a continuation of the HNA’s effort to promote citizen involvement [reference October 5, 1999 minutes of meeting between HNA representative and Josephine County Board of Commissioners (BCC) and HNA’s January 19, 2000 letter to the BCC which after eight-months has not been acknowledged with a response by the BCC]. This letter represents a request to the BCC as the first phase of a citizen-initiated enforcement order petition on citizen involvement. It will follow the process identified in OAR Chapter 660, Division 045.

The HNA believes that Josephine County should comply with state and local land use laws, in this case, Oregon Statewide Goal 1 on citizen involvement and its own citizen involvement plan (CIP). The reasons presented in the attachment support an enforcement order by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the county to comply with the law.

The HNA has the following summary position. Everyone is complicit in trying to make the state’s and Josephine County’s citizen involvement system look good without merit. The first goal adopted by the LCDC in 1974 was a citizen involvement goal - Goal 1. The right of citizens to participate in all phases of the planning program was considered essential to the success of the State of Oregon’s land use program. Goal 1 required every city and county to have a citizen involvement program to encourage widespread participation in the development of comprehensive plans. The HNA believes that local government efforts in the early years, including Josephine County, produced reasonably good results.

However, by the early 1980s citizen participation had diminished in Josephine County. The county had adopted its comprehensive plan and it appeared the big decisions had been made. The county found it difficult to politically support sustained citizen interest in the daily grind of land use decision-making. We believe there was a sense by the BCC that the job was done and financial support was not needed at the same level. Since the mid-1980s, citizen participation has been sporadic in the county, rising to epic proportions for some large developments, ebbing at most other times. We believe there is nothing surprising about this pattern; it is typical across the state. But, it is not good for Josephine County.

It is clear to us that there is no lack of citizen interest in growth and development and land use planning in Oregon and Josephine County. But, neither the state nor Josephine County provides adequate resources to make the “land use planning exercise” a real opportunity for citizens to participate. Without adequate funding we will never restore Josephine County’s CIP to health. Any credible implementation plan of the CIP must have a detailed budget through which Josephine County can demonstrate its commitment to the effort.

Sincerely,

Wayne McKy, Chair Mike Walker, Secretary
Hugo Neighborhood Association Hugo Neighborhood Association
6497 Hugo Road 681 Jess Way (Street)
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 3388B Merlin Road #195
541-476-4006 Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
541-471-8271
email: hugo@cdsnet.net

OAR 660-045-0040(2)(c) - The affected local government is Josephine County, Oregon.

OAR 660-045-0040(2)(d) - The requesters clear intent is to “petition the LCDC for an enforcement order pursuant to ORS 197.319 to 197.335.

OAR 660-045-0040(2)(e) - The HNA’s petition is based on non-compliance of Josephine County to follow or comply with:

2. Josephine County Comprehensive Plan and its implementing authorities (i.e., Josephine County Ordinance No. 99-13/Citizen Involvement Program, Josephine County; Josephine County Ordinance No. 99-13/Adopted By-Laws Josephine County Citizen Involvement Committee, September 1978, Amended 1993 hereafter referred to as JCO 93-13

The specific provisions of the law as described in ORS 197.320 on which the petition is based follow.

1. ORS 197.320 Power of commission to order compliance with goals and plans. The Land Conservation and Development Commission shall issue an order requiring a local government, state agency or special district to take action necessary to bring its comprehensive plan, land use regulation, limited land use decisions or other land use decisions into compliance with the goals, acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions or land use regulations if the commission has good cause to believe:

2. ORS 197.320(6) A local government has engaged in a pattern or practice of decision making that violates an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation. In making its determination under this subsection, the commission shall determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the decisions made. The commission shall not judge the issue solely upon adequacy of the findings in support of the decisions;

OAR 660-045-0040(2)(f) - The requesters’ statement of facts that establish a basis for seeking enforcement and for invoking the subsection of ORS 197.320 follow.

Josephine County’s citizen involvement program does not comply with Oregon Statewide Goal 1 and it does not comply with Josephine County Ordinance No. 93-13.

1. Josephine County’s Citizen Involvement Program Does Not Comply With Goal 1

Oregon Statewide Goal 1 calls for the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. It requires each city and county to have a citizen involvement program with components specified in the goal. It also requires local governments to have a committee for citizen involvement (CCI) to monitor and encourage public participation in planning.

Citizen involvement is first among Oregon’s 19 statewide planning goals. Authorities want to take credit that citizen involvement has been the hallmark of the state’s planning program from its outset and still is. On the surface Oregon’s land use program encourages citizen involvement. Credit is taken that every county has a CCI to monitor and encourage active citizen participation. However, everyone is complicit in trying to make the state’s citizen involvement system look good without merit. In truth, the following land use programs are the first to go and fail: adequate inventories, meaningful citizen involvement, real monitoring, and accountable enforcement.

Josephine County’s CIP is not adequate and focuses on control of citizens through its citizen advisory committee (CAC) certification process rather than promoting and enhancing citizen involvement. What is important is that implementation of Goal 1 in Josephine County is a hollow shell - citizen involvement as envisioned by Goal 1 is failing. This failure is the issue of noncompliance.

2. Implementation Of Josephine County’s Citizen Involvement Program Does Not Comply With Josephine County Ordinance No. 93-13

The purpose of the Josephine County CIP is to ensure that citizens from all geographic areas have continued involvement in the land planning process and that citizen input in the land planning process is adequately considered by planning officials. The CIP requires technical information to be available to the public in an understandable form and that adequate human and financial resources be allocated to accomplish the purposes of the program.

The CIP requires a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) to be the focus of citizen participation in Josephine County and identifies its specific duties to 1. review the citizen involvement program on a regular basis and to recommend any changes to the Board of County Commissioners, and 2. to evaluate the success of the program.

Theoretically citizen involvement is important to the BCC and the CIC. Members of these groups all emphatically state it is. The BCC points out that there are hundreds of citizen groups in Josephine County. It points to large angry groups of citizens at land use hearings as evidence of citizen involvement working. On paper the CIP encourages citizen involvement.

However, authorities and committees charged with responsibility for citizen involvement are complicit in ignoring meaningful implementation of the CIP. Members of the BCC and CIC do not try to make it look good. They readily point out the fact that they believe in citizen involvement, but that there is no money for a citizen involvement program. In truth, there is no program for meaningful citizen involvement. What is important is that implementation of the CIP is a hollow shell - implementation of citizen involvement as envisioned by the CIP is failing as Josephine County does not allocate adequate human and financial resources to citizen involvement and the CIC can not perform its duties without support. This failure of the CIP to be meaningfully implemented is the issue of noncompliance.

a) Oregon Statewide Goal 1 on citizen involvement requires a local government to adopt a CIP [ORS 197.160 (b)]. Such a program shall at least contain provision for a citizen advisory committee or committees broadly representative of geographic areas and of interests relating to land uses and land use decisions.

b) Oregon Statewide Goal 1 on citizen involvement requires the Oregon State Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) to review an amendment to a local government’s acknowledged CIP and to report to the LCDC whether or not the proposed program adequately provides for public involvement in the planning process, and, if it does not so provide, in what respects it is inadequate [ORS 197.160 (c)].

2. Implementation Of Josephine County’s Citizen Involvement Program Does Not Comply With Josephine County Ordinance No. 93-13

b) Where amendments to a local government’s comprehensive plan or land use regulations do not amend or affect the local government’s acknowledged citizen involvement program, the only way a petitioner can demonstrate a violation of Goal 1 is by demonstrating a failure to comply with, or follow its acknowledged CIP.

1. The Nature Of Josephine County’s Citizen Involvement Program Not Complying With Goal 1

The nature of Josephine County’s CIP not complying with Goal 1 is identified by two methods. The first method is an analysis by the HNA; this is an analysis that was required by ORS 197.160 (c), but not performed. The second method is the application of four criteria from Goal 1.

The CIAC did not review Josephine County’s 1993 amendment (i.e., JCO 93-13) to its acknowledged CIP (i.e., Josephine County Resolution 76-12) and did not report to the LCDC whether or not the proposed program adequately provides for public involvement in the planning process, and, if it does not so provide, in what respects it is inadequate. ORS 197.160 (c) (see attachment no. 1; referenced attachments are not part of this request. They are supplemental information located on the HNA’s citizen involvement web page - http://members.nbci.com/hugo_or/land_use/mmcip.htm).

The following is the HNA’s analysis on whether or not the county’s CIP adequately provides for public involvement in the planning process. The following three formal communications more fully describe the analysis.

In summary, the HNA believes that JCO 93-13 does not meet the standards of Goal 1. Approximately 25 percent of the CIP contains some good points on purpose and citizen involvement, but the county “falls short” in executing these key areas [see C.1.b)(2) on CIC]. Further, the remaining 75 percent of the CIP focuses on the internal organizational structure and function of local CACs. This is the area the CIC has invested time - the control of CACs through the CAC certification process rather than promoting and enhancing citizen involvement. At public meetings the CIC regularly addresses citizen responsibilities, citizen ignorance, citizen frustration, citizen apathy, and the lack of funding for the CIP program rather than the role of the CIC defined in the CIP (other than the CAC certification process). The CIP is inadequate in respect to meeting the standards of Goal 1.

It is difficult to demonstrate noncompliance because noncompliance usually has no documentation (i.e., no smoking gun). The nature of noncompliance will be demonstrated by identifying what has not been accomplished. Oregon Statewide Goal 1 was established in 1974; After approximately a quarter century Josephine County should have figured out how to be in compliance with Goal 1.

The following four criteria are used in documenting the noncompliance of Josephine County’s CIP with Goal 1; they are quotes from Goal 1.

Citizen Involvement Is Josephine County providing for widespread citizen involvement?

Historically Josephine County had active citizen advisory committees (CACs) for almost all broad geographic areas of the county. In 1978 it had 17 CACs, perhaps 14 or so active. In 1993 after JCO 93-13 it had three “certified” CACs? Another CAC was formed in the summer of 2000 to address the impacts of a proposed quarry for a total of four certified CACs (see Map One).

In Josephine County there exists a strong distrust of land use regulations and government in general. Why? What happens when citizens complain about Josephine County’s land use planning processes? The normal position of the BCC, Josephine County Planning Department (JC Planning), and CIC is that they are not responsible for land use planning in the county. It is out of their control and in the hands of the LCDC and the DLCD, and others in Salem.

This quarter century decision-making attitude of county government has created a sterile soil for citizen restraint and compromise to flourish. Their is no moderating influence of a CIC that has meaningful support or a CIP that is being implemented. There are few local long-term CACs that can represent neighbors. There are few trusted knowledgeable entities outside of “government” that can gather information, conduct analysis, and make recommendations supporting an informed public and informed decisions.

It is the HNA’s conclusion that Josephine County can not be interested in providing for widespread citizen involvement (i.e., a successful CAC program as defined by the people of Oregon - Goal 1). Josephine County does not allocate a budget for CACs; and it takes almost no responsibility for assisting CACs, except in the CAC certification process. In fact its CIP, or lack of an implemented CIP program, makes it very difficult for the average citizen to see any benefit in forming or being involved in CACs. And, therefore, the BCC’s record of handicapping (through non-support and establishment of barriers) the CAC program from 17 CACs in 1978 to four certified CACs (i.e., three long-term since 1993 and one start-up in 2000) is hardly a surprise. These numbers (i.e., 75 percent of the 1978 CACs and the geographic areas they served do not exist in 2000) force the HNA to the easy, simple conclusion that any county effort to provide for widespread citizen involvement in the county’s land planning process through CACs is failing; widespread citizen involvement in the county broadly representative of geographic areas is not being provided for.

Committee For Citizen Involvement In Josephine County the CCI is called the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). Has the CIC taken responsibility for assisting the governing body with the development of a program that promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land-use planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement?

Involvement of the CIC in citizen involvement as defined by Goal 1 is not happening as the CIC does not have the human and financial resources to implement the CIP.

Technical Information Is technical information available to the public in an understandable form? One of the gargantuan obstacles to meaningful public involvement in Oregon’s and Josephine County’s land use planning system is the complexity of the process. John Eads, Jackson County’s Hearings Officer and Project Coordinator for the One Valley Regional Problem Solving Project, stated September 6, 2000 that Oregon’s land use system was “The most complicated land use planning system.” This statement was made by John at a seminar by the Rogue Valley Public Service Academy entitled, “Land Use Decision Making: Traps & Dilemmas.” It is almost impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand the technical aspects of the system without professional help. Information necessary to reach policy decisions should be available in a simplified, understandable form. Assistance should be provided to interpret and effectively use technical information.

No allocated budget for implementation of the CIP means no county professional land use planner is dedicated to be available to citizens to interpret and effectively use technical information. In Josephine County an ad hoc process is used where the planner assigned to a project is also the one temporarily assigned to answer questions from the public. The problem is that the planner is ultimately answerable to the BCC rather than to the public and differences between citizen defined interests and BCC interests regularity occur. The planner has a “boss” and the boss is not the public.

The Josephine County Rural Land Development Code is very complex and continually changing. Citizens that are not making a living which involves knowing the code can not keep up.

Technical geographic information system (GIS) information is not available to the public at a local library. It is available for public review in one location, the Josephine County Planning Department, but the environment at this room location does not facilitate meaningful access and, therefore, thoughtful contemplation and understanding. Other than developers, cumulative dollar costs of GIS information to the individual is cost prohibitive.

Technical information as defined by Goal 1 is not available to the public in an understandable form. Implementation of the CIP is not in compliance as technical information as defined by Goal 1 is not available.

Financial Support Is there funding for the citizen involvement program? Is there adequate human, financial, and informational resources allocated for the citizen involvement program? Are these allocations an integral component of the planning budget? Does the governing body take the responsibility for obtaining and providing these resources?

We believe that meaningful citizen involvement in land use planning does not happen spontaneously. Oregon’s and Josephine county’s land use programs are strong, but they are also comprehensive, complex, and foreign to many, if not most, citizens in rural Josephine County. It usually takes professional staff to organize meetings, write reports and educational materials, prepare notices, and answer inquiries. We also believes it takes money to pay for staff, advertising, printing, postage, and meeting-room rentals.

There has been no budget allocated to citizen involvement in Josephine County since the 1980 - 1981 budget year and, therefore, the CIP is not being effectively implemented. Implementation of the CIP is not in compliance as funding defined by Goal 1 is not available.

2. The Nature Of The Implementation Of Josephine County’s Citizen Involvement Program Not Complying With Josephine County Ordinance No. 93-13

The HNA has been formally addressing the failure of JCO 93-13 since October 1999.

The following criteria are used in documenting that the implementation of Josephine County’s citizen involvement program does not comply with JCO 93-13 which was established in 1993. After seven years compliance with JCO 93-13 has not occurred; the criteria are quotes from JCO 93-13.

(1) Citizen Involvement Is Josephine County interested in citizens from all geographic areas having continued involvement in its land planning process? In 1978 the county had 17 CACs, perhaps 14 or so active. In 1993, after JCO 93-13, it had three “certified” CACs. Another CAC was formed in the summer of 2000 to address the impacts of a proposed quarry for a total of four certified CACs (see Map One). This is without addressing the activeness of the four certified CACs.

In 1996 the CIAC considered the following four positions as partial answers to the state citizen involvement problem, but went on to reaffirm the validity of Goal 1 on citizen involvement.

The HNA believes that Josephine County's CAC program is failing because a long line of BCCs have not supported the state’s requirements for citizen involvement and the result is that today there is no meaningful implementation of the county’s CIP. It also offers its thoughts about the usual citizen response to county land use processes and decisions. It is usually angry and adversarial, or void of comment because of public apathy. When it is adversarial it is on a case-by-case basis and a not in my back yard (NIMBY) point of view. We feel on any given land use proposal a few citizens will be effective advocates for a particular point of view, lots of others are angry or fed up, but most citizens simply don’t understand how to get involved, or if they do, they don’t think getting involved will make a difference.

The HNA believes ad hoc committees acting like CACs flare into life with the direct or indirect support of the BCC because there is no meaningful CAC program. For example, the North Valley General Service District and Merlin Advisory Committee (NVGSD&MAC) and the Merlin-North Valley Community Improvement Association (MNVCIA) have been formed in recent years, in part, because there was, and is, no present opportunity for citizens to participate through a CAC program in their geographic area of interest.

The HNA believes the NVGSD&MAC was formed, in part, because the original CAC (i.e., North Valley CAC) did not exist any more, and, at the time, there was not a neighborhood association. A neighborhood association for the North Valley area was formed June 2000. There was probably a perceived need (i.e., Goal 1 and JCO 93-13) to have a CAC for the recent regional problem solving exercise to consider expanding Grants Pass’s urban growth boundary and/or for planning and zoning an urban unincorporated community in the Merlin - North Valley area. In effect, the BCC probably appointed a cause specific committee (i.e., the MAC part of the NVGSD&MAC) because its CIP and CAC program had failed in the North Valley area, but it still needed to satisfy JCO 93-13 and Goal 1. Why would Commissioners “appoint” members of an advisory committee, yet allow the original North Valley CAC to disappear through distant neglect? Is the MNVCIA another example of a neighborhood trying to provide citizen land use input in the void of a meaningful CAC program?

It is the HNA’s conclusion that Josephine County can not be interested in citizens from all geographic areas having continued involvement in the land planning process (i.e., a successful CAC program as defined by JCO 93-13). Josephine County does not allocate a budget for CACs; and it takes almost no responsibility for assisting CACs. In fact its CIP, or lack of a implemented CIP program, makes it very difficult for the average citizen to see any benefit in forming or being involved in CACs. And, therefore, its record since 1993 of handicapping (through non-support and establishment of barriers) the CAC program finds four certified CACs in 2000 compared to the possible 17 CACs that historically existed in 1978. These numbers (i.e., 75 percent of the 1978 CACs and the geographic areas they served do not exist in 2000) force the HNA to the easy, simple conclusion that citizen involvement in the county’s land planning process through CACs is failing. Implementation of the CIP is not in compliance with JCO 93-13.

(2) Committee For Citizen Involvement In Josephine County the CCI is called the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). Is the CIC the focus of citizen participation in Josephine County? Does it review the CIP on a regular basis and makes recommendations on any changes to the BCC? Does it evaluate the success of the CIP program? The answer to all three of these questions is no.

Actions of the county CIC are not in compliance with JCO 93-13. Involvement of the CIC in citizen involvement as defined by JCO 93-13 is not happening as the CIC does not have the human and financial resources to implement the CIP.

(3) Technical Information Does the BCC make sure technical information is available to the public in an understandable form? One of the gargantuan obstacles to meaningful public involvement in Oregon’s land use planning system is the complexity of the process. It is almost impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand the technical aspects of the system without professional help. Information necessary to reach policy decisions should be available in a simplified, understandable form. Assistance should be provided to interpret and effectively use technical information.

No allocated line item budget for implementation of the CIP means no county professional land use planner is dedicated to be available to citizens to interpret and effectively use technical information. An ad hoc process is used where the planner assigned to a project is also the one temporarily assigned to answer questions. The problem is that the planner is ultimately answerable to the BCC rather than to the public and differences between citizen defined interests and BCC interests regularity occur. The planner has a “boss” and that boss is not the public.

The Josephine County Rural Land Development Code is very complex and continually changing. Citizens that are not making a living which involves knowing the code can not keep up.

The HNA has been requesting Goal 1 training from either the county or DLCD since October 1999. No training has been scheduled to date.

(4) Financial Support Does the BCC allocate adequate human and financial resources to accomplish the purposes of the CIP?

The HNA believes that meaningful citizen involvement in land use planning does not happen spontaneously. Oregon’s and Josephine county’s land use programs are strong, but they are also comprehensive, complex, and foreign to many, if not most, citizens in rural Josephine County. It usually takes professional staff to organize meetings, write reports and educational materials, prepare notices, and answer inquiries. We also believes it takes money to pay for staff, advertising, printing, postage, and meeting-room rentals.

There is evidence of discrimination by the BCC in failing to provide fair equal support to land use groups and a fair implementation of JCO 93-13. For example, the HNA was denied standing by the BCC because it was not a CAC and did not meet the standards of JCO 93-13. However, the BCC, when it suits itself, ignores the standards of JCO 99-13. For example it will appoint citizens to act as CAC committee members without meeting the elected standards in JCO 93-13.

The ad hoc financial support provided by JC Planning is not adequate and is not consistent. There is no doubt that JC Planning provides some human and financial resources to accomplish the purposes of the CIP, but it is not nearly enough and it is not consistent. It is more of a public relations effort and in some cases it is discriminating. For example, JC Planning did provide the HNA two professional GIS maps for a value of about $80.00.

However, JC Planning then went on to discriminate against the HNA because it was not a CAC. For example, on May 11, 2000 the HNA asked for financial support to distribute a land use survey to gather information on citizen’s values concerning “unincorporated communities” Four months earlier, December 1999, JC Planning had previously provided another non-CAC group, the NVGSD&MAC, paper, envelopes, and most importantly postage in its efforts to distribute a land use survey to gather information on citizen’s values concerning a proposed urban “unincorporated community.” On May 26, 2000 JC Planning denied the HNA’s request because it was not a CAC. The JC Planning then went on to provide the NVGSD&MAC these same financial services again on June 2000.

The Josephine County budget for supporting the CIP through direct cash support and personnel ended with the 1980 - 1981 budget. In 1993 JC Planning estimated that it would cost the county $43, 403.00 to again fund the CIP at the level it ended. In 1993 the BCC declined to support such an action and there has never been a line-item budget allocated to citizen involvement in Josephine County to support implementation of the 1993 CIP [see section III.C.1.b)(3)].

Josephine County’s approach is in sharp contrast to the approach the City of Portland has taken in establishing an independent “Office of Neighborhood Involvement.” In 1999 - 2000 the City of Portland allocated over $4,000,000, a significant portion of its budget, to supporting citizen involvement through its neighborhood involvement program. This number is not as important as it relationship to the total in its general fund of $349,377,196 which is for general fund bureaus and primarily supported by property tax revenues. Its allocation was 1.2 percent of its general fund.

Except for the CAC certification process the CIP is mostly a document not being meaningfully implemented. Implementation of the CIP is not in compliance with JCO 93-13.

The lands affected by the noncompliance are those governed by Josephine County, including the lands represented by the HNA (see Map One and Map Two).

A pattern of noncompliant decision making (i.e., the lack of decisions) representative of a group of decisions (i.e., lack of decisions implementing JCO 93-13) by Josephine County is the reason for seeking enforcement. The lack of implementing decisions cover the same part of the acknowledged plan - its CIP (i.e., JCO 93-13), and the same or similar geographic areas (i.e., citizens in 75 percent of the geographic areas that were historically covered by CACs have no CAC mechanism to ensure that they have continued involvement in the land planning process).

The lack of decision making by the BCC to implement the CIP has occurred over years, included the last three years, as described in the statement of facts above. It is this very long term pattern of not supporting citizen involvement as described by Goal 1 and JCO 93-13 that is the problem. There is no evidence that the lack of decisions to implement the CIP are not likely to occur into the future.

The HNA believes that the total number of decisions that make up the pattern is not as important as the lack of decisions supporting citizen involvement. The lack of decisions supporting Goal 1 has occurred over a period of 20 plus years. For example, there has not been adequate funding for the CIP since 1980 - 1981. The pattern is that since 1981, including the last three years, there has been an annual lack of a detailed county budget through which Josephine County can demonstrate its commitment to Goal 1.

The lack of decisions supporting JCO 93-13 has been for about seven years. For example, there has not been adequate funding for this CIP since the day it was created in 1993. The pattern is that since 1993, including the last three years, there has been an annual lack of a detailed county budget through which Josephine County can demonstrate its commitment to citizen involvement.

JCO 93-13 is itself another example of the decades’ pattern of noncompliant decisions. A quote of the purpose of the ordinance follows:

“AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM OF JOSEPHINE COUNTY (RESOLUTION 76-12), AND THE BY-LAWS FOR THE JOSEPHINE COUNTY CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE (ADOPTED SEPTEMBER, 1978) TO REACTIVATE THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE USING THE RURAL PLANNING COMMISSION.”

The CIP was revisited in 1993 as a part of the required periodic review of the Josephine County Comprehensive Plan. The very purpose of JCO 93-13 acknowledges that the CIC had been inactive and, therefore, the CIP was not being followed.

Our specific concern about this pattern of noncompliant decisions in Josephine County is echoed by Richard Benner, Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development, for the state as a whole (reference his paper, Growth and the Northwest Landscape, May 1998).

V. Practice of Noncompliant Decisions Is Reason for Seeking Enforcement - OAR 660-045-0040(5)

A practice of a series or succession of noncompliant decision making by Josephine County (i.e., the lack of decisions to implement its CIP) is another reason for seeking enforcement. The lack of implementing decisions cover the same part of the acknowledged plan - its CIP (i.e., JCO 93-13), and the same or similar geographic areas (i.e., citizens in 75 percent of the geographic areas that were historically covered by CACs have no CAC mechanism to ensure that they have continued involvement in the land planning process).

The practice of the lack of decision making by the BCC to implement the CIP has occurred over years, included the last three years, as described in the statement of facts above. It is this very long term practice of decision making of not supporting citizen involvement as described by Goal 1 and JCO 93-13 that is the problem.