[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6497009,"mediaKeyId","5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f","parentId",5499909,"title","Lane County IT leaders report progress on cybersecurity, warn federal funding cuts will raise local costs","audioSeconds",1354,"startMs",5084000,"endMs",6438000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f&start=5084&end=6438","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f/thumbnail_5084000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6497009/Lane-County/Oregon/Lane-County-IT-leaders-report-progress-on-cybersecurity-warn-federal-funding-cuts-will-raise-local-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6497009-7efb07ffa234741c175812aa822721ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1773707788&Signature=gfDn0nrPupDYIKQzq9rllUwpWPKZZDbmv9ZnM0r7vqzWQRBJ7h6VwmGMYiPS6qt~McAirudB4VWBOF9zp0NTjqW8E8myeYhWHOSyynC8f3o6cee06IgUOHIJF~bGytmq2tlwif0kIUj7CQQ3lyWzFJIkLw5~muoy4ta4hZ9Z952QSBgtuny5OOcbaOgncPoI3-DduHZNbhEv1o3knpAgskVpaatyrbPTxwprke-Z9hkKDkCamX6uVQz0IlULs6aKvAIQg6KCzwUcknntvg0judijM2TiicTYS5pGiXnTIAxfUV6iv3NSjVS4HOvUogTGK3pGo0RxLj85PTZQMkTbOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lane County, OR","date","2025-07-25T20:24:15Z","article","Kim Morgan, Lane County information security officer, briefed the Board of County Commissioners on March 18 about the county’s cybersecurity and compliance program, the department’s recent operational changes and an emerging federal funding gap for multi‑jurisdiction threat services.

Morgan summarized a 10‑year timeline of actions taken: device encryption and remote‑access controls, creation of HIPAA and criminal‑justice information policies, a county‑wide multifactor authentication rollout (MFA) and the 2024 migration of shared files to Microsoft OneDrive to reduce legacy server exposure. “It isn’t a matter of if, it is when” an organization experiences a major cyber incident, Morgan told the board, arguing the county must continue to invest in technical controls and processes to reduce risk.

Key points presented

- Operational milestones: Morgan and director Michael Finch (Technology Services) said the county has implemented laptop encryption, multifactor authentication for external access since 2018, and is finishing an internal MFA rollout that staff said covered roughly 85–90% of accounts. Staff reported a new engineering/operations emphasis on intake and front‑line checks so incomplete or risky requests are caught at submission.

- OneDrive migration and modern controls: staff described moving file storage off older on‑prem servers to Microsoft 365 OneDrive to enable modern patching, centralized security controls and remote access with MFA.

- MS‑ISAC changes and cost risk: Morgan explained that the Multi‑State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS‑ISAC) — which for years provided threat intelligence and services such as the Albert sensor and malicious‑domain blocking at little or no direct cost — faces federal funding reductions. Morgan reported a vendor quote of approximately $39,000 for an Albert sensor replacement and an estimate near $100,000 for endpoint security services if procured outside the MS‑ISAC model. The county plans to subscribe to a minimal MS‑ISAC membership package this fiscal year to preserve critical visibility, Morgan said, and to re‑use updated firewall capabilities to replicate some blocking functions in‑house.

- Grants and capabilities: staff noted a prior $100,000 Homeland Security Grant used for risk assessments and cyber planning and said continued grant eligibility may depend on participation in certain resilience reviews the state and federal partners administer.

- Staffing and coverage: Morgan said the cybersecurity team is a small unit of roughly four staff in the cybersecurity and compliance division and handles a broad set of responsibilities including badge provisioning, software vetting, audit tasks, Microsoft 365 security management and incident triage. The county currently lacks 24/7 security‑operations staffing; Morgan described daily prioritization of alerts rather than round‑the‑clock monitoring.

Board discussion and next steps

Commissioners asked for briefings to the county’s federal‑policy transition team and coordination with county clerks and other partners on elections‑security implications. Morgan and Finch asked for board support to pursue a limited MS‑ISAC subscription by September 1 so the county can lock in an 18‑month membership term under current pricing and avoid a potential service gap. Staff also requested direction on balancing modest subscription costs against internal technical mitigations (reprogrammed firewalls, continued MFA and standard‑user account rollouts).

Morgan and Finch said they would return with a fiscal estimate for the minimal membership and with a more detailed schedule for finishing the internal MFA, Windows Hello work and the standard‑user configuration that limits local administrative rights.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Commissioners Afternoon Meeting: July 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kim Morgan, Lane County information security officer, briefed the Board of County Commissioners on March 18 about the county’s cybersecurity and compliance program and warned that cuts to federally funded threat‑sharing services will increase local costs for monitoring and endpoint protection.","taxTitle","Lane County, Oregon","taxId",2761,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6497014,"Lane County staff urge code changes, add staff to speed legal-lot reviews amid high appeal rates",1630,564000,2194000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f&start=564&end=2194","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f/thumbnail_564000.jpg","/articles/6497014/Lane-County/Oregon/Lane-County-staff-urge-code-changes-add-staff-to-speed-legal-lot-reviews-amid-high-appeal-rates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6497014-610385182a98a83b810d03116713b342/orig.mp4?Expires=1773707788&Signature=JDbbheQDXv6SSpyp6oyApA7Od3-AgvDnVeLHVM2JZU7PxljEZcjFShNkDYoIANlm4-KRV0~z4JpizzcdvXyyFNb1TnQWEhevUrSjFPXx-oLEqnfvCbt2f7W5Gk5dI~BiC99XkqNBspIzPPLj6-B5L7oUjA8gO8FMFr4pki-nCWQFgvJUW2tekNgbvSmuDrND57pJoKRjcEzsgq4Cb4B76ZVdBP-jDa1kIA-mXw1IpBnB-oXIDM5LM1M1s2T00jynmu36iPwi226pPqWthHo2HCX4fV0ZBFSsuTebrXHczf-YLWOC90wuTzLw2RZ-KjkIXvhlQ57m71pjcTn0DzUO0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Keir Miller, Lane County land management division manager, told the Board of County Commissioners on March 18 that staff are seeking direction on improving the county’s legal-lot verification process after years of contested decisions and frequent appeals.

A legal-lot verification determines whether a parcel is a “lawfully established unit of land” under Lane County code and state rules; that status is required before many building permits, land divisions or new dwellings can proceed. Amber Bell, Lane County planning director, said the county’s definition incorporates state requirements and Lane County Code Chapter 13 and that the review typically involves examining historical deeds, plats and past ordinances.

The work session focused on why legal-lot reviews are repeatedly appealed and what the county can change administratively or by code amendment to reduce uncertainty and staff workload. “We approve about 80% of all applications that we receive,” Miller said, adding that denials are appealed much more often: about 70% of denied legal-lot decisions are appealed while roughly 10% of approved decisions are appealed. Miller summarized the five-and-a-half‑year aggregate data produced by the county’s Office of Data and Analytics: nearly 1,000 decisions, an 81% approval rate overall, an approximately 21% appeal rate and an overall reversal rate of roughly 5%. For legal-lot applications specifically he reported a 31% denial rate and a slightly higher reversal rate of 7% on appealed legal-lot decisions.

Why it matters: legal-lot status is effectively the building block for development. A verified legal lot is generally required before a parcel can be partitioned, subdivided or receive permits for new dwellings or commercial uses. Staff emphasized appeals are costly to applicants, neighbors and the county and can stretch to LUBA (the Land Use Board of Appeals) or the Court of Appeals.

Key details and staff proposals

- Appeals and causes: Miller and Bell told the board that Lane County draws a high volume of contested cases because the county’s code gives relatively limited, discretionary guidance for legal-lot approval, County staff said a combination of a constrained land base, active land‑use watchdog groups, experienced private practitioners and older, ambiguous local ordinances produce frequent appeals to hearings officials and LUBA.

- Data: Office of Data and Analytics totals presented by staff showed roughly 1,000 decisions in the last five-plus years; 81% approved, 18% denied, 21% appealed overall, and ~5% reversed overall. For legal-lot decisions only, staff reported a 31% denial rate, a 21% appeal rate and a 7% reversal rate. Miller noted that 10% of approved decisions are appealed while nearly 70% of denied ones are appealed.

- Staffing and timeliness: staff added one engineering-analyst FTE to process property line adjustments, validations and legal-lot applications. Bell reported that in the first quarter after the hire the average timeframe from complete application to decision was about 64 days (staff routinely tracks toward a 70-day target) and that the new analyst participates in intake meetings to reduce incomplete filings.

- Front-end service and outreach: staff described steps already taken to help applicants “get to yes,” including in-person intake review, posting historical ordinances and hearing-decisions online, updating decision formats with explanatory graphics, and increased consultation with Assistant County Counsel Anne Davies on complex or potential-denial cases.

- Code and procedural options: staff identified several policy options for board direction: refine the “minor shift” definition (the board adopted a 25%‑of‑smaller‑parcel threshold in a 2018 code change), pursue a board-level “call up” procedure to allow the board to review selected quasi‑judicial hearings‑official decisions, expand nonappealable objective (Type 1) pathways where state law allows, and consider more frequent appeal reporting. Staff also noted an option under the Oregon Administrative Rules for selective upzoning of some unincorporated communities (staff referenced Blue River as an example), a resource‑intensive long‑range planning option that would be multiyear if pursued.

- Constraints: Bell and Miller repeatedly reminded the board that county staff must apply evolving case law from hearings officials, LUBA and appellate courts; that historic deeds sometimes require interpretation against decades of ordinance changes (staff referred to a 1949 starting point for subdivision regulation in Lane County); and that county authority is limited where state law prescribes the appeal and standing rules.

Board discussion and next steps

Commissioners asked for more granular appeal tracking and for the Office of Data and Analytics dashboard broken out by decision-maker stage (hearings official, LUBA, Court of Appeals) so the board can see intermediate outcomes. Multiple commissioners indicated interest in pursuing a narrow set of code or process changes rather than a wholesale rewrite; at least two commissioners signaled support for staff work on the minor‑shift threshold and for exploring a call‑up process to bring significant hearings official decisions to the board. Commissioner comments also stressed balancing applicant service with robust, defensible decision‑making.

Staff requested direction on whether to draft specific code amendments and to return with a scope and estimated staffing/resource needs for any board‑directed changes. Miller and Bell said they would return with additional materials if the board wanted formal proposals, and staff noted they can increase appeal‑reporting frequency if directed.","Lane County planning and public-works staff described their legal-lot verification workload, presented appeal and reversal statistics, and asked the Board of Commissioners for direction on code changes, reporting frequency and a limited set of process options including a possible \"call up\" procedure and a refined minor-shift threshold.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6497004,"Lane County staff say chalkings allowed outside fair booths; county will review policies after complaints",429,6660000,7089000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f&start=6660&end=7089","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5499909-5ade1c32abd6185f771bfab1b39c9e3f/thumbnail_6660000.jpg","/articles/6497004/Lane-County/Oregon/Lane-County-staff-say-chalkings-allowed-outside-fair-booths-county-will-review-policies-after-complaints","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6497004-e93905c589f838205b0189efcb28ba72/orig.mp4?Expires=1773707788&Signature=P24siCy8NAnHcyEbNXK5rcThPZJ--8LujI01bPzkWfgfxgoVbtUw9LTKDS4rUks5TIzzJ8SZp8DnpHQMo2OCG7iZMGEo8IrUi5tShgpTncGxZ5zl~iS0XzYrPxgV47pMnRGbQF6EWK-nIOBY08P8x8wETxevO0Mn0Ef~BmPzgZFtjAQLVgueV5LXI~masvYY5AWVPYLBu40psLBgScoyVU5rv9~wpK4ZfzfqclHG-EvUe0bIebZbZN0XW8mCLJdUJwYZ2Enj3uL77o6Dl2tPu5SzLjsZickrUVwRIsTNcByFn288X0v3fIM0sD3W-YY6RZ~238CqcrprQePz~z770A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A staff statement presented by county staff at the March 18 meeting said Lane Event Center staff will review fair contracts and policies after public complaints about items and messaging in vendor booths at the most recent fair.

The statement, prepared “coming out of Dan” and read during announcements, said the event center is a public facility and that rented vendor booth space can be used by a variety of organizations. “These organizations choose to express their purpose or values in a variety of ways that do not necessarily reflect the endorsement of Lane County,” the statement said.

Staff also addressed sidewalk chalkings near the fairgrounds and said chalk drawings on sidewalks outside the fair were allowed. Fair staff said the aisles between booths are treated as fire lanes and must remain clear; the county will review policy and contract language to address future concerns.

Staff promised to take public comments into consideration when reviewing Lane Event Center rental policies and fair vendor contracts. The board did not take formal action during the announcements section; commissioners complimented fair security staff for their on‑site work during the event.","County staff delivered a prepared statement about controversial booths and sidewalk chalking at the recent county fair, saying outdoor booth content does not equal county endorsement and that sidewalks outside vendor aisles were permitted drawing space but that aisles and fire egress must remain clear.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lane County IT leaders report progress on cybersecurity, warn federal funding cuts will raise local costs

Lane County staff urge code changes, add staff to speed legal-lot reviews amid high appeal rates

Lane County staff say chalkings allowed outside fair booths; county will review policies after complaints