Lane County administrator posts video criticizing Lookout’s CleanLane story 

Lane County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky said he was “shocked” at a Lookout Eugene-Springfield story about CleanLane, the county’s planned recycling facility. Mokrohisky criticized both the story and Lookout’s reporting process. 

“I am issuing this statement today to present the information that should have been covered by this investigative reporter who has done good work in the past, but in this case, rushed to publish and missed what should have been evident,” Mokrohisky said in the video statement, released on Vimeo early Tuesday morning. “The impact of this timing also cannot be lost on anyone in the community. A confidential memo was leaked that only the five commissioners and five legal staff members possessed.”

Lookout’s story, published Wednesday, Oct. 21, centered on allegations that former county counsel Rob Bovett made in a complaint. He alleged that he experienced retaliation after raising concerns about a potential $300 million liability he believed the county faced because of the CleanLane project.

The planned recycling facility, if built, would divert at least 80,000 tons of trash from the county’s Short Mountain Landfill, relying upon artificial intelligence and other technologies. 

In a report, Bovett wrote that Mokrohisky directed staff to not disclose to commissioners the estimated net profits that CleanLane would generate for Bulk Handling Systems, also known as BHS, the Eugene-based company that has the contract with the county to run the facility.

Bovett joined the county in February 2025 and reported that finding to commissioners in a June 2026 memorandum, internal records show. Then in July, Bovett filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint, alleging he was mistreated after reporting his concerns about the contract and the county’s liability for CleanLane.

Bovett and Lane County parted ways in August, about a month after he filed the complaint. Commissioners opted to not open an investigation into Bovett’s allegations and gave him a one-year severance agreement that also requires Bovett to not sue the county.

After the video posted Tuesday morning, Lookout Eugene-Springfield heard from Devon Ashbridge, a public information officer for the county, in an email that arrived shortly after noon. Her email included a link to the video.

Through Ashbridge, Mokrohisky requested that Lookout correct two items with the story: 

1. “There is no $300 million liability in the contract. Steve negotiated a two-year cap on liability to protect the interests of the County and it is reflected in the signed contract,” Ashbridge’s email states.
2. “Staff were not directed to withhold liability information from commissioners. Throughout the entire project process, the team at Lane County has kept the commissioners informed through numerous sessions,” the email states. “To secure a two-year cap on liability, we requested specific financial information from BHS. As that information is proprietary and a sensitive part of its business model, the county agreed through negotiations with the company to limit access to that information to only the project team.”

The original story, and this one, come amid a politically charged time in Lane County. Lane County Commissioner Heather Buch is up for reelection against Jake Pelroy, and the two have widely different stances on the CleanLane project. 

Buch has voted in support of CleanLane along with Commissioners Pat Farr and Laurie Trieger. Buch, who was unavailable for comment, has previously said the project will create jobs, modernize systems and keep rates affordable.

Pelroy, a critic of the project, runs a public affairs firm that has handled communications work for Lane County Garbage and Recycling Association, which represents some local trash haulers that are opposed to CleanLane. Pelroy is also president of the association, a volunteer role.

“Lookout Eugene-Springfield stands behind its reporting and our reporting process,” said Dann Miller, Lookout Eugene-Springfield executive editor. “We believe the story is accurate and does not require correction. As we do in our work, we reached out for comment and received only the written statements we published. We will continue to reach out to further explain this story to the community, with the continuing belief that interviews, rather than written email responses, best serve readers’ understanding. For the record, not only did we reach out, but after a conversation with a county official, we agreed to hold publication to give the county time to respond.

“Further, our publishing of this story was not rushed, but subject to the same deliberative process required on sensitive subjects,” Miller said. “It was not timed to influence the election or any other event. Instead, its purpose was to shine a light on an accusation made by a high-ranking public official, one that could cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Our role is not to decide the truth but to surface credible claims by credible people. We’ll continue to do that work, fairly, in the public interest. We take our role as watchdog for residents of Lane County seriously.”

While reporting the story, Lookout spent several days reviewing and authenticating the documents through another source. Lookout reached out Monday, Oct. 19, to county officials, including Mokrohisky, about the issue.

Lookout gave all commissioners and Mokrohisky more than 24 hours to respond. For the original story, Mokrohisky opted to give a statement rather than do an interview. The story was published Wednesday, Oct. 21.

After hearing from both a reader and then Ashbridge about the video, Lookout reached out Tuesday to Mokrohisky and requested an interview with him to clarify the issues and explanations he raised. Instead, the county asked Lookout to submit questions in writing. Lookout declined to do so and reiterated its request for an interview, which still stands. 

Here’s an explanation of Mokrohisky’s stated concerns with context from the original reporting, including what Bovett stated in memos during his time as the county’s top attorney.

The liability issues 

In the video, Mokrohisky said: “There is no $300 million liability in the contract. This was an easy fact to check and well within the reporter’s ability to read the public contract with BHS. I negotiated a two-year cap on liability to protect the interests of the county.”

The original article was drawn from Bovett’s June memorandum and July complaint narrative and the contract with Bulk Handling Systems. In the June memo, Bovett noted that the county continued to face a potential liability of $300 million when taking into consideration the 25-year length of the deal.

Mokrohisky also pointed to a “two-year cap” in the video. Mokrohisky’s statement does not provide a dollar amount, but Bovett’s memo estimates that cap would limit the county’s liability to almost $40 million for the category of liability considered the “fair market value.”

The Lookout story reported that cap. It also quoted Bovett’s concern that the language regarding the two-year damages cap was too ambiguous, and might not pass legal muster as he worked to limit the county’s liability.

The contract was approved in October 2024, before Bovett started working for the county in February 2025. Bovett’s memorandum and subsequent complaint outlined his attempts to amend the contract to shield the county from what he said was a potential $300 million liability.

The original story, based on Bovett’s account, reported that the county’s then-public works director, Dan Hurley, credited Mokrohisky for negotiating the two-year damages cap.

Staffers and ‘liability information’

In his video, Mokrohisky said: “Staff were not directed to withhold liability information from commissioners. Ever. This would not happen.”

Lookout Eugene-Springfield never reported that “liability information” was withheld from county commissioners. 

Lookout did report that financial net profit information from Bulk Handling Systems was not provided to commissioners. Further, Bovett’s memos did connect the net profits to liability, regardless of whether it was the two-year cap or the larger potential $300 million liability over the 25-year life of the agreement that he was concerned about.

Bovett’s memo, which Lookout reported on, stated Hurley told him about a September 2024 meeting in which Mokrohisky directed that the profit estimates not be shared with county commissioners. 

Mokrohisky’s video stated the financial information was proprietary and the county agreed to share those deals only with the project team. Staff, not commissioners, are on the project team.

In a statement to Lookout that was published in the original story, Ashbridge offered a similar explanation: Bulk Handling Systems provided “proprietary information the company did not wish to become public” before the contract was signed in October 2024.

Mokrohisky, asked by Lookout to comment on the withheld profit information for its original story, offered a statement at the time that Lookout published, calling Bovett’s narrative, as described to him, “inaccurate, incomplete and unverified.” 

“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.” 

Bulk Handling Systems’ response

Eugene-based Bulk Handling Systems is contracting with Lane County for the project. The company, which has previously affirmed its commitment to the project, issued a statement Tuesday, soon after the video was released, supporting Mokrohisky and his work on the two-year cap and sharply disputed Bovett’s concerns about a potential $300 million liability. 

“During our negotiating process in 2024, we exchanged methods on how to handle a default by either party,” Steve Miller, the chief executive officer of Bulk Handling Systems, said in the statement. “In the case of a County default, Administrator Mokrohisky was firm in limiting the liability to no more than two years of profit. That is very clear in our agreement, which we confirmed with former Lane County Attorney Rob Bovett during our meetings. The $300 million figure asserted by Attorney Bovett is a fabrication. There is nothing in the agreement to support this figure.”

(Miller is not related to executive editor Dann Miller.) 

As for the shielded financial information, Steve Miller didn’t dispute there was an agreement to restrict it: “This is a common practice to ensure proprietary information, such as a private company’s financial data, is protected from competitors. BHS will continue to lawfully protect its confidential information.”

Miller said Bovett’s interactions led to delays for issues he considered resolved, such as whether the site could be moved from Goshen to Short Mountain Landfill and making changes to the way the county required the agreement to be revised.

“From our perspective, he was disorganized and his actions created unnecessary delays that interfered with moving the project forward,” Miller said of Bovett. 

Bovett could not be reached for comment on those assertions. He previously declined to comment when Lookout asked about the circumstances of his departure.

Bovett’s career spanned more than 30 years in county government in Oregon. He has worked for the Oregon Association of Counties and served as an assistant county counsel in Washington County and district attorney for Lincoln County.

In September 2025, Bovett received a job evaluation from Lane County commissioners that found he “exceeds expectations.”

In his self-evaluation at the time, Bovett noted CleanLane was a challenge, along with other issues, such as changes to diversity, equity and inclusion policies and policy shifts at the federal and state levels.

“As can be expected, there have been what I consider to be normal strains on relationship building due to my being new to Lane County government, but I should also acknowledge that there have been additional strains on relationship building due to extraordinary challenges that have arisen, such as CleanLane, navigating difficult but necessary changes to DEI policies to comply with current law, responding to significant policy shifts at federal and state levels, etc.,” he wrote.

No staff retaliation, administrator says 

In his video, the county administrator raised a third issue.

Mokrohisky said: “There was no staff retaliation before or after the leaked memo was written.” Then, in a reference to Hurley, Mokrohisky said: “Talks about a transition plan for the then director of public works started more than a year ago, and a transition plan was created.”

Lookout’s original story focused on Bovett’s allegations of retaliation, not Hurley. The story did not state that Hurley, the former public works director, alleged or faced retaliation. 

The story did report that since Hurley’s assertion to Bovett about withheld net profit information, the county administrator removed Hurley from his role as public works director and into a role in the county policy director’s office to work through the end of this year. 

Commissioner responses 

The CleanLane project has divided the board. Farr, Trieger and Buch have voted in support of the project. Commissioners Ryan Ceniga and David Loveall have voted against the project.

Lookout reached out to all five commissioners for this story and the original one. Trieger, in a lengthy statement, took issue with how her interactions with Bovett are portrayed in the complaint and Lookout’s article.

Bovett’s complaint detailed alleged conversations in one-on-one meetings he had with Trieger. 

“Regarding any of my conversations with Bovett as detailed in the article, both the memo and the Lookout story presented a fractured, skewed interpretation of our interactions,” Trieger said.

In one instance, Bovett wrote, Trieger told him: “Nobody asked you to do that,” when he spoke about sending the board a memo about “mismanagement” and concerns about risk and liability. 

In another instance, Bovett was concerned Trieger wanted him to include the county equity officer in the list of people who anonymously review him.

Lookout previously asked Trieger about both instances. At the time, Trieger said the county equity officer was one of “about half a dozen” specific names she suggested, which Lookout previously reported.

In a statement, Farr said the documents are confidential and don’t “come close” to telling the full story. He said that other documents — also confidential — would show the full story if one were to view “all the documents surrounding this subject.”

Farr said he believes in safeguarding confidential documents.

“I regard that obligation seriously,” Farr said. “Whoever leaked them does not.”

Commissioners Buch, Ceniga and Loveall could not be reached for comment or declined to comment.