Top staff lawyer warned CleanLane project posed ‘existential threat’ to Lane County

Before Lane County counsel Rob Bovett left the county in August, he warned commissioners about what he called a “looming fiscal catastrophe” that could ruin the county if it was not addressed.

Bovett was concerned county commissioners didn’t have the full picture before they voted in 2024 on CleanLane, a $150 million recycling project that required a 25-year contract with Bulk Handling Systems, a Eugene-based company hired to run the facility.

If built, CleanLane would process at least 80,000 tons of garbage annually, using artificial intelligence and other technology.

In a June memo, Bovett reported that County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky directed county staff in 2024 to not tell elected county commissioners about an estimate from Bulk Handling Systems that it would make an estimated $20 million a year in net profits. 

For Bovett, the $20 million figure was significant because it is linked to the county’s potential liability. In a report, Bovett warned the county could face more than $300 million in potential liability for lost profits over the length of the contract if the project fails.

“CleanLane is an existential threat to Lane County government,” Bovett wrote in a separate July narrative that details a whistleblower retaliation complaint he filed with the county. His complaint alleges he was mistreated after he brought up his concerns.

Bovett, a seasoned government attorney with more than three decades of experience, started working for Lane County in February 2025, after the county signed the contract for the CleanLane project in October 2024.

His tenure was less than two years. In August, Bovett parted ways with Lane County, a month after he filed the internal whistleblower complaint, alleging he was retaliated against after he flagged concerns about the CleanLane contract with county commissioners.

The whistleblower complaint and the June memo also detailed his efforts to limit the county’s potential liability.

When county commissioners approved Bovett’s separation agreement, they did so “without cause or comment,” other than to note Bovett exceeded expectations in his last performance review. 

Internal county records obtained by Lookout Eugene-Springfield detail Bovett’s concerns about the contract, offer an inside look at the county’s decision-making process for CleanLane, and shed light on what information was shared — and not shared — with elected officials before the contract was signed.

It’s information that Lane County doesn’t want spilling into the public. A Lane County public information officer, arguing that the documents were “privileged” because of attorney-client confidentiality, asked a Lookout reporter to return the documents. Lookout denied the request.

The roots of this conflict go back two years.

Negotiating the contract

In August 2024, commissioners voted 3-2 to grant Mokrohisky, the county administrator, the authority to sign the contract with Bulk Handling Systems without another vote. The commissioners previously had approved the CleanLane project on a 3-2 vote in December 2023.

The CleanLane project has split the board. Commissioners Pat Farr, Laurie Trieger and Heather Buch have supported the project. Commissioners Ryan Ceniga and David Loveall have voted against the project.

None of the five commissioners contacted by Lookout commented about the withheld CleanLane information, with the exception of Loveall, a critic of the project. 

“We’re at a point where I believe the public needs to know key challenges that we’re facing, and I feel like there’s things that are being intentionally held from the public’s knowledge that I think are important,” Loveall said. “I’m here to serve the public in the best interest of the public. This whole situation makes me uncomfortable.”

In September 2024, county staff were negotiating final details of the contract with Bulk Handling Systems. In a meeting that month in his office, Mokrohisky told staffers that the information about Bulk Handling Systems’ profit estimates would not be shared with commissioners, Bovett alleged in the June memorandum.

That October, Mokrohisky signed the contract, records show.

Since then, however, the county’s push to advance the work has stalled, raising concerns about Lane County’s liability if CleanLane does not succeed or never is built.

Under the contract, the project’s timeline required CleanLane construction to start in 2025 and the facility to open in 2026.

But construction has not even started. Plans to locate it at Goshen, as originally planned, have failed to win land-use approval.

County officials have since expressed interest in locating the facility at Short Mountain Landfill, though that would require a change to the contract with Bulk Handling Systems that both sides must approve. Another option officials floated is to change county code to allow the required zoning at Goshen.

The internal documents obtained by Lookout include a June 2026 memorandum from Bovett outlining his continued concerns about potential financial liability to the county from CleanLane. They also include Bovett’s July narrative recounting the events in his whistleblower retaliation complaint.

In that July document, Bovett alleges he was poorly treated and faced retaliation after raising his concerns. He also detailed his work behind the scenes to limit the county’s liability. 

Before Bovett started working for the county, the contract already had a provision that county staff believed limited the liability to a two-year period. But Bovett found the language to be ambiguous, and he worked to clarify the contract terms in the county’s favor. 

Bovett also said he uncovered a series of missteps in the county’s handling of the CleanLane contract, the documents show. 

In an emailed statement to Lookout, Mokrohisky, the county administrator, said he had not seen a copy of Bovett’s narrative, as it’s deemed confidential, but he was aware of allegations as Bovett was negotiating his exit.

“Based on the information you shared with me in your email, his narrative is inaccurate, incomplete and unverified,” Mokrohisky said, without elaborating. “In every instance with this project, I have followed the Board’s direction, worked side by side with the County’s legal counsel and relied on department leadership to ensure the best interests of Lane County.”

Bovett did not return messages from Lookout seeking comment. 

‘We request you return the privileged documents’

County spokesperson Devon Ashbridge asked a Lookout reporter to return the documents. Lookout declined, citing the First Amendment.

“Please be advised that Lane County does not consider your possession of these documents to be a waiver of attorney-client privilege,” Ashbridge said in an email. “We are aware these documents were shared without the prior knowledge or consent of the Board. Accordingly, we request you return the privileged documents as soon as possible.”

Ashbridge said Bulk Handling Systems provided “proprietary information the company did not wish to become public” before the contract was signed in October 2024. An agreement was signed to share the information with as few people as possible and not to share it in board meetings, Ashbridge said.

“Your possession of a privileged document, on which you are basing this reporting, that was distributed only to commissioners and select legal representatives confirms the validity of that concern,” Ashbridge said. 

However, the internal records also show Bovett believed the county could attempt to shield the company’s profit information by denying public records requests — but could not guarantee those denials would be sustained upon appeal. 

“For a high-profile matter such as CleanLane, I think it is possible that, on appeal, the District Attorney or a court might order release based on a public interest finding,” Bovett wrote in his June memorandum.

County commissioners voted twice to grant the county administrator authority to sign the CleanLane contract “without further review by commissioners,” in December 2023 and again in August 2024, Ashbridge said.

“Although the final contract did not return to the board, given the earlier delegation of authority, each commissioner received a copy for review 10 days before it was signed,” Ashbridge said. “No commissioner requested a delay in signing, expressed concerns, or asked additional questions during the 10-day review period.”

Questions of liability

After 18 months with Lane County, Bovett, a well-regarded attorney in Oregon government circles with more than three decades of experience, was out the door in August of this year without any public explanation.

His separation agreement with the county gave him $275,318, the equivalent of a year’s salary and benefits, public records show. The separation agreement includes a provision that Bovett would not sue the county, effectively ending his opportunity to file any lawsuit linked to his internal whistleblower complaint.

The agreement also bars Bovett and the county from making disparaging comments about each other in public.

Bovett’s June memorandum traces his efforts to limit the county’s financial liability if the CleanLane project were to fail. His July narrative, written in the waning days of his tenure, outlines the reasons behind his whistleblower complaint. He submitted the whistleblower complaint narrative internally to the county’s special counsel, Kyle Abraham, who worked on the separation agreement commissioners approved.

Memo: Directed to ‘bury’ information 

In the June memo, Bovett recounted what he discovered about the county’s contract — and his concerns about the matter, including:

• Lane County would need to purchase the equipment for the project, estimated to cost more than $100 million when construction is completed. Bulk Handling Systems has spent about half of that, $50 million, on equipment, the memo states.
• The county would need to reimburse the IRS for federal tax credits Bulk Handling Systems received to help pay for equipment, which are estimated at more than $10 million, including interest and penalties.
• Lane County would need to pay Bulk Handling Systems the contract’s “fair market value” if the county defaults, the memo states. That item represents the most significant amount of money because it’s linked to the estimated net profits and potentially could leave the county liable for hundreds of millions of dollars, Bovett wrote. 

Bovett’s June memo says Bulk Handling Systems estimated its net profits at $20 million a year for the project’s estimated 25-year lifespan.

Bovett wrote the profit information was “intentionally kept from the board.” He added: “The potential scope of this liability alone is actually in excess of $300 million.”

Bovett wrote in the July narrative that $20 million a year for 25 years resulted in an amortized total of $326 million, factoring in ongoing costs. 

The June memo details a series of meetings between county staffers and Bulk Handling Systems in September 2024. A month earlier, county commissioners authorized Mokrohisky to sign the contract, which attorneys for the county and Bulk Handling Systems were still negotiating.

According to Bovett’s June memo, the disclosure about profits came in September 2024 as county officials asked Bulk Handling Systems, known also as BHS, for its projected financials. At the time, the county was working out its plans to pay for the project through $35 million in bonds, financing that must be paid back with interest, and solid waste fee increases for haulers. County officials have not yet issued the bonds.

On Sept. 12, 2024, the June memo states, Mokrohisky met with two county staffers: then-Public Works Director Dan Hurley and Waste Management Division Manager Jeff Orlandini.

Bovett, who wasn’t yet working at the county, later spoke with Hurley about that meeting.

“According to Hurley, Mokrohisky indicated that the BHS information related to anticipated BHS net profits from CleanLane would not be shared with the Board,” Bovett’s June memo states.

At the meeting, Hurley printed out a three-page spreadsheet of estimated profits across the project’s 25-year lifespan and shared it with Mokrohisky, the memo states. 

“According to Hurley, Mokrohisky expressed that BHS profits were not really a matter for Lane County to be concerned with, except as necessary to negotiate this aspect of the CleanLane contract,” Bovett’s June memo states.

Mokrohisky signed the contract Oct. 4, 2024, records show. 

Four months later, in February 2025, Bovett started working as Lane County counsel. Commissioners, not the county administrator, directly hire and fire the counsel. 

As Bovett dug into CleanLane, he realized he needed to shore up the county’s liability on the contract, he wrote in the June memo. The possibility of default on the contract became a growing concern as the county failed to secure the land-use approval necessary to build the project.

In June 2026, a couple of months before he left the county, Bovett heard about the estimated profits, he wrote.

“Hurley (the former public works director) confessed to me that he had additional relevant information that he felt compelled to share with me,” Bovett wrote in the June memorandum. 

“Hurley said the information was known to Mokrohisky and Hurley back in September of 2024, prior to approval of the CleanLane contract,” Bovett wrote.

Bovett added: “I was surprised by the amount of BHS anticipated net profits from CleanLane — $20 million per year over a period of 25 years — and even more surprised to hear that information was kept from the Board.”

Since Hurley’s disclosure, the county administrator removed him from his role as public works director and put him in the county policy director’s office to work through the end of this year, when he leaves the county, the memo states. 

Hurley declined to comment when contacted by Lookout.

‘I keep finding more things’

In Hurley’s June 2026 conversation with Bovett, Hurley credited Mokrohisky for negotiating a damages cap that limited liability to two years of profits — almost $40 million — instead of the potential $300 million, the memo states. The contract language has a two-year provision.

But Bovett believed that the cap did not get “properly included” in the CleanLane contract, and was so ambiguous that it might not stand up to judicial scrutiny, records show.

Bovett also heard from Orlandini.

Orlandini said Hurley had been instructed to, in Bovett’s words, “bury certain information from the board.” Hurley was uncomfortable with the situation, the July narrative states.

When Bovett approached Mokrohisky about the matter and showed him documents and proposals, the county administrator “denied having any knowledge or involvement.”

“That was not the answer I was hoping for,” Bovett wrote in his memo. “Just the opposite.”

Bovett remained concerned.

“A reasonable person might conclude that County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky knowingly directed that critical information be withheld from the Board — or at least certain members of the Board,” Bovett wrote in the July whistleblower narrative. “For reasons having to do with the sequence of events and what actually got put into the CleanLane contract, that lie, in-and of-itself, had the potential to expose Lane County to additional excess liability of $290,000,000.”

Bovett’s June memo indicated he was hopeful that conversations about the liability with Bulk Handling Systems could avoid the worst-case liability scenario, though he also stressed that verbal conversations might not hold up in court.

Mokrohisky has been on the job since 2014 and has reached an agreement with the county to leave at the end of 2027. His base salary is $294,049.60, records show. That agreement also gives him a year of salary after he leaves. 

His agreement also states he will not have a job review during the remainder of his county service.

Bovett, in his July whistleblower narrative, said he was concerned that Mokrohisky’s new employment contract provided little to no accountability.

“This is all despite the fact that I keep finding more things that would lead a rational employer to not agree to any of this — especially right now,” Bovett wrote.

Commissioners approved that agreement with Mokrohisky the same day they signed off on Bovett’s separation. 

Still committed to the project 

For its part, Bulk Handling Systems is still committed to the project, a company official said. The company, while based in Eugene, works on projects across the United States and internationally. 

“We signed an agreement,” Steve Miller, the chief executive officer of Bulk Handling Systems, said in a Tuesday, Oct. 20, interview with Lookout. “We’re still absolutely committed to moving forward in a collaborative way with the county. We believe there’s no question that this project is a very positive benefit to the county.”

Miller said the project is a long-term infrastructure asset for the county that will provide benefits for residents for years to come. 

Bovett’s allegations of retaliation 

Bovett’s July narrative outlines his charges that he was retaliated against for flagging the issue about the county’s potential liability.

According to Bovett’s narrative, Commissioner Laurie Trieger discouraged him from sending the board a memo about the risk and liability concerns he found. Bovett’s account described this as “mismanagement leading to unnecessary and excessive risk and potential liability.” 

“Nobody asked you to do that,” Trieger told Bovett in a June 24 meeting, according to his narrative. Bovett took that as evidence that she was not pleased with his plan to send the board a memo, he wrote.

Bovett shared another account involving the county’s “360 review” process. In 360 reviews, county staffers anonymously review other county employees as a way to gain insight into their effectiveness.

On June 30, Trieger told Bovett she wanted him to add the county equity officer to his list of county staffers who anonymously review him. Several days earlier, Human Resources Director Alana Holmes asked him if he wanted to add anyone else, Bovett’s account states.

This raised his suspicions because he had been critical of a retooled diversity, equity and inclusion training that the county equity officer had handled, his narrative states. Further, he seldom works with that person directly and was concerned it was an attempt to add people to the list who would “slam” him, he said.

Bovett prepared for an executive session to let the board decide the 360 review issue, but Trieger didn’t want one, he wrote in the memo.

“She waved that off and said that issue would be addressed another way,” Bovett’s memo said. “It sounded ominous — at least to me.”

In another instance, Bovett recounted pushing back in July when he was pressured to appoint a special counsel to oversee changes to the county administrator’s contract. As the county counsel, Bovett was responsible for appointing special counsels, or outside attorneys, in certain cases, such as a conflict of interest or a need for expertise on a particular subject

Bovett said he elevated the issue to Commissioners Ryan Ceniga, the board chair, and Heather Buch, the vice chair. 

Buch’s response, according to Bovett’s memo: “I’m not sure what is happening with you, Rob. You’ve lost my trust.” 

Bovett’s memo alleges those circumstances with Buch are a violation of Oregon law that forbids the discouragement of whistleblowing. 

“It also constitutes a further compounding of a hostile work environment,” Bovett wrote. 

Buch declined to comment, saying she’s not allowed to talk about matters that occurred in executive session.

Buch, the commissioner who represents the East Lane District, is running for reelection against Jake Pelroy, who is a critic of the CleanLane project.

In a statement, Trieger responded to the 360 review issue Bovett highlighted, but not Bovett’s contention that she discouraged him from writing a memo to the entire board. 

“As a county commissioner I have an obligation to oversee the performance of the board’s two employees; our County Administrator and our head County Counsel,” Trieger said in a statement. “I had some questions concerning Mr. Bovett’s performance, communication style and work priorities that I had hoped to raise with him, in the presence of my colleagues, in the setting of his annual review. Unfortunately, his departure in advance of that date meant we never got the opportunity to discuss the best path forward for productive problem solving.”

Trieger said the 360 review process helps commissioners understand an employee’s professional relationships and effectiveness. 

“I offered about half a dozen specific names, plus several more general suggestions such as asking he find folks from other departments within the county, as well as community partners, to weigh in,” Trieger said. 

‘Totally unprofessional’

In his July narrative, Bovett also detailed how his efforts to negotiate contract amendments for CleanLane to reduce the county’s potential liability have stretched his office to the breaking point.

“To say this has been a drain on my office is a massive understatement,” he wrote. “I have told the county administrator and multiple board members that this matter is eating my office alive. This has been further exacerbated by a repeating pattern of discovering new critical information that was previously withheld from the board or myself.”

In his complaint narrative, Bovett requested a separation agreement to leave Lane County as soon as possible.

“I have worked incredibly hard over the past 18 months — at great personal cost to me and my family by way of exhaustion and an inability to get to other priorities — to save Lane County government from a looming fiscal catastrophe that I discovered before it was too late, and for which the county administrator bears significant responsibility even if you believe all that he says,” Bovett wrote. 

“Yet I get further disrespect, all shared with our bosses and my colleagues,” he added. “That is totally unprofessional and NOT okay. I deserve to be treated better than this.”

A timeline of CleanLane