Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance Property Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lane County highlights decade-long cleanup after foreclosure at Highway 126 and Poole Creek Road
Summary
County staff described a years‑long code enforcement and foreclosure that ended with county ownership and removal of more than 406,000 pounds of debris from a privately owned property on Highway 126 West; commissioners praised staff and discussed fines, safety and the long process.
Lane County commissioners on Oct. 20 recognized staff who led a years‑long code enforcement and cleanup after the county assumed ownership of a privately owned property at the corner of Highway 126 West and Poole Creek Road.
County staff described a lengthy process of enforcement and foreclosure that followed failed attempts to get the property owner to comply with land‑use and nuisance rules. “We try to really work with property owners to get these issues rectified,” a county presenter said, describing outreach and legal steps prior to foreclosure.
Why it matters: commissioners said the site presented public‑safety and environmental hazards, with neighbors reporting criminal activity and people living in uninhabitable RVs and structures. The county reported removing 406,298 pounds of trash, not including scrap metal or tires, and said hazmat teams consolidated waste and secured structures after the county took ownership.
Details and context: county staff said the cleanup followed a foreclosure after the owner failed to pay accrued liens; the owner had a statutory redemption period and did not reclaim the property. The county placed large concrete blocks at driveways to block access, moved remaining tenants off the site and completed a thorough cleanup last fall. “It’s been over a decade long effort,” Kier Miller, land management division manager, told the board.
Commissioner comments: commissioners from rural districts said the fines set by the county rarely cover cleanup costs and discussed the balance between protecting neighbors and addressing the needs of people on the property. Commissioner Buck summarized the county fine structure: fines are adopted by the board and are progressive per the Lane Manual, with aggravating and mitigating factors, but often do not cover enforcement costs. Commissioners asked staff about whether fines should be revisited and suggested a future work session on code compliance so board members could better explain the process to constituents.
What the county said it did: staff said they performed legal lot verification, obtained an appraisal, placed the property for sale (the board approved an order to sell in July and it went to market in August) and conducted environmental cleanup with hazardous‑materials personnel. The county also credited teamwork with the sheriff’s office and road maintenance staff in securing the site.
Next steps and follow-up: commissioners asked for more detail on fines and enforcement costs and discussed a possible December work session on code compliance and enforcement procedures. Travel Lane County and other agenda items followed after the recognition.
Ending: Commissioners applauded the land management and code compliance teams for the outcome and praised staff for balancing public safety, regulatory requirements and compassion when people on the property needed services.
