August 10, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Commissionersí Conference Room

Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present. 


Item 9. C. 1) is pulled from the Consent Calendar.  The correct ordinance number for Item 11. a. from Management Services is Ordinance 3-05.






Sorenson announced that on Tuesday September 27 at 7:00 p.m. he would be holding a town hall meeting at the Lane County Fairgrounds on the future of the Lane County Fairgrounds.

Green indicated that he read in The Register-Guard about the continuing story about Morrison and Stewart attending a meeting that was held in Springfield.  He hoped the non-paranoid population would not respect the article, as it was an article that didnít contain anything.  He noted that nothing was proven, no evidence to substantiate any claims that were made by Sorenson about holding any illegal meetings were offered, only his opinion.  He was upset that The Register Guard thought this was newsworthy.  He hoped the campaign of assassinating the character and leadership of Morrison is not condoned by anyone who cares about the real workings of a commissioner.  He asked if he, Morrison, and Stewart were going to violate the spirit of the open meeting laws, why they would go to City of Eugene Council meetings.

Dwyer said it is his belief (and legislative counselís) that in order to violate any type of open meetings law, they would have to deliberate toward a decision.  He noted that a public meeting does not require notice from this Board.  He didnít think there was any violation of any law or ethical aspect of the Open Meeting Law.  He encouraged the Board to go over to the city.




a. Legislative Committee.

Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, reported that the legislature finished their work early Friday morning.  He noted on most policy issues they did fairly well.  He said the issue of public contracting and the egress language continues to appear in IGAís from state agencies. He indicated that bill received opposition from the governorís office and prevented it from getting a hearing.  He indicated the county counsels are meeting this week in a post legislative session conference and will be discussing next steps of pushing back on the IGAís as they come through.

With regard to fiscal and financial issues, Bieda said the $190 million in the budget for the Community Corrections for the next biennium is a continuing service level.  He noted that a companion bill that would have further clarified the funding formula for that did not pass.  He noted that for the first time, the state legislature provided no general fund support for the prosecution of crimes at a local level.  He said they failed to fund any district attorney supplements for counties.  He added that was the same session where they increased the penalties for meth, privacy and sex offender crimes.

Green asked why they didnít fund the district attorneys.

Bieda said one reason was on the senate side, the budget cycle for funding deputy district attorneys was at zero from the beginning.  He added that as part of the negotiations with the Association of Oregon Counties on the video lottery money, there was in play whether or not the counties could participate at the 2.5% rate in the new line games.  He noted in order to get resolution on that issue, there was a sense that because the counties were part of the deal, they would participate starting in the second year of the next biennium (and going into perpetuity), with all games played on video lottery terminals.  He said that it would give them sufficient additional revenue from that source to use for the prosecution of crimes.

Stewart commented that they would have to do the work themselves to solve the problems.

Dwyer commented that prosecutors are officers of the state, not County.  He said the more the County backfills the stateís lack of responsibility, the deeper they could go in the future.

Green requested a debrief with the legislators.

Dwyer concurred but thought it needed to be structured.


a. Announcements



a. DISCUSSION/To Establish Fees to be Charged by the Department of Public Works for the Issuance of Certain Facility Permits.

Frank Simas, Public Works, explained that their department currently issues about 875 facility permits per year.  He said the cost of issuing the permits is about $425,000 per year and of that total, about $275,000 is attributable to permits for utility relocations and installations.  He added those amounted to about 425 permits per year.  He noted that they also issue permits for driveways and road construction, special events and permits for logging or for items that donít fit into any other category.  He said these permits are currently issued at no cost to the applicant.  He indicated the main Board items for consideration in connection with permits are the issue of recovery of costs in issuing the permits, and if the costs that are currently being expended are road fund eligible according to the attorney generalís opinion.  With regard to equity, he noted that a driveway permit is benefiting one property for development.  He added if money is spent for administering the driveway, it meant that it couldnít be used elsewhere in the Countyís system for maintenance.  He noted there is an issue with compliance with permits conditions.  He indicated that under the current system there is no fee for a facility permit.  He said what happens is that they do get some applications that end up not being an issued permit and they would have to incur expenses.

With regard to cost recovery, Simas explained that they went to the Policies and Procedures Committee in 2001 with the proposal to institute a fee system for facility permits.  He noted the direction they received was to recommend to the Board that a system of fees be implemented and that it focus on full cost recovery for the cost of issuing the permits, compliance and administering them.  He indicated that currently Lane Code 15. 210 (3) does allow for the collection of fees as allowed by law but it hadnít been done to date.  With regard to road fund eligibility, he indicated that the attorney general had issued an opinion in 2001 as to what items could be legitimate uses of road fund revenues.  He noted that Lane County Legal Counsel had done an analysis of the opinion and has determined what could and could not be used for the funds.  He said according to Legal Counselís opinion, driveway approach permits and road construction could be legitimate uses because they do approve connectivity to the road system.  He added that utilities are in the roadway and facilitating them would be an eligible use of the funds.  He noted that logging and special events would not be eligible road fund expenditures.

With regard to compliance, Simas explained that when an applicant receives a permit, there are conditions attached to it as to what they need to meet.  He added there is an expiration date when they have to have the work completed.

Dwyer asked why there was nothing for utilities in the proposed fees.

Simas responded that with utilities there is a provision in the ORS that states outside of the cities, the utilities have the right to be in the right-of-way.  He noted that the legislature passed in 2001 another ORS that stated that ODOT could charge for their use of right of way but the counties were not able to charge.

Dwyer recommended that this be something to bring up the next legislative session.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported that each legislative session the County Engineers Association tries to move this forward and they have been unable to receive support from AOC to carry it forward as an AOC priority.  He added that the attorney general said that it is not a legal road fund use to pay for facility permits to be relocated and legal counsel had disagreed.

Simas explained that some of the changes the Polices and Procedures Committee had recommended were incorporated in the TransPlan Update in 2004 and are in place.  He indicated they prepared a proposed schedule of facility permit fees and it is based on actual costs.  He added they recover the cost of issuing the permits and provide equity with driveways.  He said with the implementation of the performance agreements, it would give them a better means of assuring compliance.  He thought over time this would reduce overall costs because they wonít have as many uncompleted permits that people apply for and donít follow up on.

Celia Berry, Public Works, indicated when they updated Lane Code Chapter 15, they changed the code so that people who are replacing a dwelling that is lawfully established do not need to get a facilities permit unless they are changing their driveway.

Dwyer didnít want to charge someone twice when they know it would require a deviation.  He didnít want to use the first fee as an entry fee, when they know what the standards are.  He said they could pay the deviation up front.

Morrison commented that if they approve this, it would initiate additional staff in order to implement.

Chickering indicated that late last year he made a reorganization within his staff and separated the duties that were related to facilities permits.  He noted that driveways are now being handled by road maintenance.  He said they added new staff members.  He explained that the deviation process would entail the normal services provided under the initial application fee.  He said that staff provides deviations that will prepare a report that outlines the specific deviation request and they provide to him whether or not to grant a deviation.

Green asked if these were true costs.

Simas responded that they were based on their best experience.  He said in about a year they would re-evaluate this and come back to the Board for adjustments to reconsider the fees.

Green recommended education for the people who would be requesting this.

Simas explained that the fees are based on their cost accounting system figures for the first eight months under the reorganization that Chickering implemented.  He added they estimated the other four months of the year for the busiest times.

Chickering noted that they have had conversations about this internally and one of the concerns they wanted to be sensitive to was that currently there are no permit fees and they are going to start to implement a significant fee to start up.  He thought that $250 instead of $275 was a small sacrifice to make in the initial year.  He added in the future they were committed to coming back to the Board with more accurate data on what their costs are.

Berry said they have a provision in Lane Code 15 that ties the facility permit process to the building permit process.  She said when they apply for a building permit, they have a pre-application meeting and they have to meet certain requirements before they can apply that help to speed up the process.  She said if they need facility permits, they have to get them.

Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, recalled the Board adopted the code provision that did require a facility permit connection to the land use process. He said the source for the irritation of the building official is the structural specialty code that was adopted by the State of Oregon that is a standardized structural specialty code that leaves little discretion to local governments to modify.  He said that pulling the facility permit driveway construction is specifically exempted from building code review and it makes them uncomfortable.  He thought it might be more of an administrative type of direction than a formal adoption of a code provision or an attempt to amend the building code in a way that might create more friction.

Stewart wanted to save citizens time and money.

Green was supportive of a performance agreement in it.  He thought it would reduce a lot of the non-compliance issues that are generated.

MOTION: to move that the Board give staff direction to establish these fees and do the necessary work to amend the code.   Green wanted a fiscal analysis on the fees.  He didnít think a one-year history was enough.  He wanted to see a two-year financial history.

Morrison noted that was what Option 1 c 1) was, which staff recommended.  She commented that if they are too far out with the fees that they adjust them after a time of analysis.

Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1223/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram for Property in the Glenwood Area, with Concurrent Glenwood Refinement 0Plan Diagram and Text Amendments, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (NBA & PM 6/1/05, 6/20/05 & 7/27/05).

Green asked if anything had changed with this ordinance.

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, responded that nothing had changed.

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1223.



c. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. 2-05/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt Amendments to the Springfield Development Regulations for Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Springfield Urban Growth Area (LC 10.600-15) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (NBA & PM 6/1/05, 6/20/05 & 7/27/05).

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. 2-05.




A. County Counsel 

1) ORDER No. 05-8-10-1/In the Matter of Approving a Settlement with the Heceta Lighthouse Bed & Breakfast.

B. Information Systems

1) ORDER 05-8-10-2/In the Matter of Executing Change Order 0000212834-020 to the Motorola Contract Number 0000212834, for an Area Information Records System (AIRS) Suite of Law Enforcement Data Systems.


C. Public Works

1) ORDER 05-8-10-3/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to _________________________ in the Amount of $____________ for Structure Repair Ė Dorena Covered Bridge (Bridge No. 21-2W-224), Contract No. 05/06-01. (PULLED)

2) ORDER 05-8-10-4/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of County-Owned Real Property Located on the Southeast Side of North 19th and Marcola Road in Springfield, Identified as Tax Lot 17-03-25-13-00500.

3) ORDER 05-8-10-5/In the Matter of Awarding Contracts to Jones & Stokes Associates and EGR & Associates, Inc., for Environmental Consultation Services for FY 05/06 and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contracts, Contract #WM 05-06-01.

4) ORDER 05-8-10-6/In the Matter of Naming Sunny Acres Road, a Private Road Within the Plat of Clear Lake Meadows, Without a Public Hearing (18-12-02-30).

MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar with item 9. C. 1) pulled.


VOTE: 5-0.


a. ORDER 05-8-10-7/In the Matter of Establishing One Full Time (1.0 FTE) Medical Assistant 2 Position for Mental Health Services Effective July 1, 2005 and Appropriating an Additional $59,959 in Revenue and Expenditures for FY 2005-2006 in Fund 286 Department of Health and Human Services.

Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, said instead of using professionals for mental health they would use a paraprofessional classification, as it is cheaper.  He added it gives the professionals more time to bill and shift work around to bill.  He added that it would not cost the general fund any money.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-8-10-7.


VOTE: 5-0.


a. First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing/Ordinance No. 3-05/In the Matter of Authorizing the Transfer of Surplus County Owned Real Property Located at 04605 Falcon Street, Florence to Florence Habitat for Humanity for the Purpose of Providing Affordable Housing (Map No. 18-12-04-13-02600).  (Second Reading and Public Hearing:  8/24/05).

MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3-05 for August 24, 2005.


VOTE: 5-0.

b. DISCUSSION/Compensation Plan Outline.

Greta Utecht, Management Services, recalled that a month ago she discussed non-represented compensation.  She said during that discussion she spoke about the need to do a long-term review of supervisory positionís pay relative to the market.  She said the Board asked her to return with a draft work plan. She indicated the plan was to address some of the more dire situations where they have supervisors who make less than the people they manage.  She said on October 11 she wanted to bring a compensation consultant to meet in a work session.  She indicated that he would only charge Lane County $3,000.

MOTION: to approve Option 1.


VOTE: 5-0.




Stewart reported that he attended a LRAPA meeting and they have a new board member:   William Carpenter.

Morrison announced that she, Green and Dwyer attended the AOC Planning Workshop in  Astoria.

14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.



There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 10:55 a.m.


Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary