BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
August 2, 2005
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.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
There will be an Emergency Business item.† †
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
William Immel, West Lake, explained that Tax Lot 201 is located across the street from his house and it is designated federal wetlands making it unsuitable for building.† They have no desire to build on it.† He noted that the land is historically and geographically part of the property they own. He said it went back to Lane County from a previous owner after tax foreclosure in May 1992.† He said the creek and the runoff from his property both drain onto the land before entering Siltcoos Lake.† He said they decided to purchase the land to protect their property values and the lake view.† He said they began negotiations for purchase in good faith with the County in April 2005.† He noted that Evergreen Land Title Company did a preliminary title report on April 13 and sent it to Jeff Turk, Management Services.† He indicated that they made an offer of $4,000 and sent the requested 20% down payment on April 20.† He said that Turk assured them that the sale of small parcels of surplus land is generally approved by the Board in a couple of weeks, but they had been waiting for 15 weeks.†† He said they received a letter from Turk dated May 20 stating that the Board was agreeable to the sale under the proposed terms, however formal action to approve the sale was tabled to designate the property as parkland.† He said that Turk explained if the Board chose to proceed with designating the property as parkland, then it would be four to six weeks until the sale would be completed.† Immel indicated that since that letter was addressed to them, he thought the sale would be to them.† He noted that they initiated the purchase.† He recalled on July 25, they received a phone call from Turk indicating that another party had made a higher offer on the property.† He didnít think that would happen if this process had moved in a timely fashion.† Turk commented that the Board had the right to take the best, if not the highest offer.† Immel asked the Board to complete the sale as they were willing and ready to pay the balance.
Patricia Immel West Lake, indicated that she was told by Jeff Turk that instances had occurred where the Board had rejected a higher offer over a lower one, as the lower one was deemed to be the best offer.† She said there has been a precedent for not taking the highest offer.† She noted they had been in process with this for some time and they have a lot invested in the property in what it holds for their lifestyle.
Dwyer asked why ownership of this property was so relevant.
Immel responded that she thought someone could come in with money and get the designation changed.† She said they were willing to pay taxes on the lot to Lane County to re-attach the property to the existing property they have.† She noted that no one had been paying taxes on the property for over 18 years.† She was also concerned because if someone were to purchase the land and prevent them and their neighbors from having access to the land, they would lose their view.† She wanted to re-establish this as part of the whole property and that is why they decided to investigate the purchase of the property.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
In the Matter of Amending ORDER 05-5-7-12 regarding establishing internal local criteria applicable in the proposed West Eugene Enterprise Zone and adopting a public benefit scoring system.
Kitty Piercy, Mayor of Eugene, explained that this proposal represents a compromise from both the Board of County Commissioners and the Eugene City Council that retains the same geographic parameters they had originally talked about.† She indicated it retains the interim community standards; it has caps and a commitment to work on permanent community standards by January.† She noted the difference was it has tripled the level of the cap.† She said in the original proposal the City Council sent over, it was $30,000 cap per new job for three years.† She added in this proposal, it is $96,000 cap for three years.† She said it also asks the Board of Commissioners to forego the retention requirement for the interim agreement.† She commented that currently they have an Enterprise Zone with no community standards and no cap and she wanted to avoid legal †action and get as close to the original council proposal as possible.† She thought this did it.† †
Piercy indicated that she would have rather gone with what her city council wanted.† She said there are different philosophies in the Enterprise Zones.† She noted they currently have an Enterprise Zone with no community standards and no cap.† She thought this was in the best interest of the community and she believed the other alternative would be a legal pursuit and it was costly.
George Poling, Eugene City Councilor, said he did not take part in the discussions with the proposal.† He didnít think this was the proper fix to the problem.† He was comfortable with it and would support it.† He said if the Board approves this, he will take it to the Eugene City Councilors with his support. He thought it was workable for the timing being.
Morrison commented that they had the 1997 criteria and it was proven that people complied with that and the community came out better.† She thought it was imperative that they keep to the January timeline and be diligent about putting together something that they and the business community could live with.† †
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-5-7-12.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Green supported the motion as it speaks to the effort and commitment of people who †were committed to the whole community.† He commented that this didnít contain †everything he wanted.
Sorenson stated that having this presented to them yesterday and having them vote on it today when it involves a $10 million decision was wrong.† He said before he takes $10 million dollars in services away from the people of Lane County, he wanted more of a process than this meeting.† He asked why this was an emergency business item.† He thought they should figure out how to create jobs in the community.† He commented that Oregon has the lowest corporate tax rate of any other state in the country.† He wanted to have a hearing with someone who knows about this to make a presentation.† He was a ďno voteĒ on the motion
Stewart supported this but he still had concerns.† He asked if legally they could give away more than one third of the tax break.† He wondered what the effect it would have on the existing businesses and their ability to be competitive in todayís market place.† He had concerns about Sorensonís remarks.† He commented that Sorenson had the opportunity to take part in discussions the past week and be informed of what was taking place and he chose not to.† †
Dwyer thought this was an opportunity to move forward.† He said if they were going to †err, he wanted to err on the side of opportunity.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE †
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee
Morrison indicated that Tony Bieda sent out an e-mail regarding SB 3033.† She †††said as of last night, it was on hold.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 05-8-2-1/In the Matter of Approving the Diversity Action Plan Quarterly Accountability and Monitoring Report, July 2005.
Van Vactor recalled that the Board of Commissioners adopted the Diversity Action Plan and at the time it was adopted, there was concern that it would sit on a shelf †and collect dust.† He noted a key part of the plan was the accountability section that would take certain actions and make sure those were followed through.† He commented that when the report was adopted, he thought it was ambitious.† He indicated this report sets the baseline data and is a good first step report.† He said they made significant progress in meeting their goals. He indicated that the report states that each department will identify a set of diversity goals that might be incorporated into the Strategic Plan.† He noted that six of the thirteen County departments have them.† He stated a survey was sent out to try to meet the goal.
Laura Yergan, Management Services, reported that they have had an exit process in place. She noted that every departing employee is given a copy of an exit interview form to fill out.
Dwyer asked if they could require an exit interview as a term of employment at the time of leaving.
Wilson said as a term of employment it raises questions about something that would have to be collectively bargained.† She said that it could raise a concern because there are many reasons why employees leave.† She said they need to pay attention to the circumstances of leaving.† Imposing a requirement in an involuntary leaving would cause more problems.
Van Vactor commented that the Management Team could hear that exit interviews are important to the Board and they could work on it.† He noted there is a document in the packet trying to determine the demographic of the advisory committees.† He said they wanted to try to increase the representation to match the population as a whole.†† †
Green commented in the resolution that was attached there was a typing error.† He wanted supplemental documentation to show what departments were doing with the action plan and what their statements are.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-8-2-1
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
7. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-8-2-2/In the Matter of Updating the Lane County Equal Employment Opportunity Plan for 2005 Ė 2007.
Yergan informed the Board of their new EEO Plan for the period 2005/2007.† She noted the plans are monitored by the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Justice and they apply to organizations that employ more than 50 people or that receive more than $25,000 in federal grant money.† She explained the purpose of the EEO Plan is to ensure full and equal participation of men and women, regardless of race or national origin in the workforce.† She noted a goal would be that any organizationís workforce should mirror the qualified individuals in the recruitment area in which they draw.† She said they gauge it by looking at data and the EEO Plan contains several sets of data broken down by gender, race and eight job categories.† She noted the Lane County plan looks at data of Lane Countyís workforce and what the labor pool is within Lane County with a chart that compares the two.† She added that also in the plan is a set of objectives and strategies developed to help look at areas to focus on for improvement.†
Yergan reported that the data shows overall that Lane County is continuing to increase the diversity of its workforce.†† She indicated there is a goal of officials and administrators for males and females of color, with the exception of males in two or more races.† She thought that they might want to focus on recruitment and around public safety.† She noted that Asian, American Indian and African American males are an area they could also focus on.† She added for females they could focus for all areas of color in public safety.† She noted that looking at the community labor statistics, there is low or no availability of individuals in those categories. She said they needed to focus on where they have little or no availability in their immediate labor pool.† She said the data indicates that they need to expand their recruitment outside of Lane County when looking for officials, administrators and protective service.
b. ORDER 05-8-2-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Marda Cloutier for $20,000 (Map #17-11-30-40-02300, Adjacent to 06697 Mercer View Drive, Florence.
Jeff Turk, Land Management, reported the Immels submitted an offer to the Board in May for $4,000.† He said the property was designated as wetlands.† He noted there was information in the Land Management file that states there is the unlikelihood of being able to develop this property because of septic and wetland issues.† He recalled the matter was presented to the Board on May 11 and there was discussion that took place about the possibility of first designating the property as parklands with the revenue from the sale going to the Parks Department.† He said the matter was tabled and the Board did not take any formal action on the matter at that time.† He said at that point Todd Winter, Parks, was out of the office for a few weeks with health issues and the matter didnít get in front of the Board as whether to designate the lower value sales as parklands.† He said when the Board decided that properties like these should be first designated as parklands, he wrote an agenda item for today to complete the sale to the Immels or bring the matter up again for the Boardís consideration.† He said he wrote that memo on Wednesday, and on Thursday Ms. Cloutier came into his office submitting the $20,000 offer for the property.† He informed her of the† difficulties of developing the property at that time.† She reconsidered.† He gave her the offer back and she came back after discussing the matter with her husband and decided to submit her $20,000 offer, as the Board had not formally excepted or took any formal action on the Immelís previous offer, he was obligated to make the Board aware of the other offer.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-8-2-3† for sale of the property to the Immels.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Dwyer was concerned with the expectations of the Immels.† He said they dealt in good faith with the County.† He said they need to move forward with what the Immels expected.
Stewart supported this.† He said the confusion was made by the Board.
Sorenson thought they should be explaining to the public and figuring out a way internally that when they obtain tax foreclosed property and that property is going to get sold, that they convert it to park property so Lane County government could obtain the benefit.† He said if this property were deemed park property and then sold, Lane County parks would receive $4,000.† He said because it is not going to be park property that Lane County would get nine percent and the rest would go to the other taxing jurisdictions.† He thought it was worth it for the taxpayers to go through the additional step in order to retain the bulk of the money. He thought they were doing the right thing by giving this to the Immels.† He said part of the Boardís process should be clarified. He thought there should be a process to submit bids and have it known to all bidders.
Morrison noted they had the follow-up discussion regarding the $50,000 designation regarding transferring to Parks for future sale.† She thought there were things that could still be done regarding the clean up of how proposals are coming forward to them.† She wanted to clean up the process on how offers are received and how they are disposed of.† She said it needed to be clean because there are statutes around real estate that have to be complied with.
Turk indicated that he discussed these items with Marc Kardell and he will come forward to the Board in a work session for formulation to Lane Manual.
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
9. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
a. ORDER 05-8-2-4/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrative Officer to Execute the Oregon Commission on Children and Families Intergovernmental Agreement in the Amount of $175,658.
Van Vactor said he had refused to sign this regarding the conditions the state put on.† He said what the state is asking Lane County to do is to get paid for one month but to sign a two year commitment even if the state didnít pay any more money.
Trina Laidlaw, Assistant County Counsel, explained there were two options:† one to handwrite on to Exhibit C, the dollar is added to one month of funding.† She noted the problem sentence was the first one where they had to agree that this was the maximum amount they would get under the contract and the contract would be for two years. She said they had already asked for that in an e-mail that was sent.† She said instead of saying through July 31, 2005, the state said this was the maximum amount for the first month, which is the equivalent.† She advised adding an addition: notwithstanding the two-year contract term, the County is only obligated to form the level of service commensurate with the size of the disbursement provided by the agency.† She asked for that to be specifically written into the contract.† She said they also asked for other changes, but the state rejected all of the changes.† She said their explanation was they were only giving one month of funding and it was just a finance agreement.† She said they didnít have to make any changes as the Board could choose which month so they could add funding whenever they thought they could.
Laidlaw indicated they had already used Option 1 and objected to it.† She said the risk is they will not give funding from July 1 to July 31.† She said what was communicated to Alicia Hays, Children and Families, was that there would be a financial impact because they would have to pay their attorneys to review it and correct it. She understood there was another month of funding that they would pay for.† She indicated for Option 2 they could sign the contract as is and they would send a letter that they were relying on the stateís statement in the letter that they donít have to provide services beyond the one month of funding.† She said they have a letter but they refused to put it in a contract.† She added what was difficult with this was that County would have to sign an integration clause that this would be the entire agreement, there would be no other oral or written understanding that goes along with it.† She said they would ask in the letter changes through an amendment process that would correct this.† She commented that the chances of them making changes in the amendment were not good.
Laidlaw another option was to not do anything.
Dwyer stated to do nothing would be his preference.
Green thought another option would be for the state to keep the money.
Dwyer wanted to table this.
Hays said they had enough reserves to pay for the employees.† She said the state would be coming forward in two to three weeks with a two-year contract and it should start retroactively.† She indicated that could be an option as well.
MOTION: to table this matter.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
10. PUBLIC WORKS
a. WORK SESSION/The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan/History and Draft Issues in Need of Examination.
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained the Eugene-Springfield area Metro Plan is a plan that the city is responsible for inside the city limits. †The Countyís jurisdiction is outside the city limits in the urban growth boundary.† He added they have areas outside the urban growth boundary that are within the Metro Plan that are just outside the Countyís jurisdiction.† He noted the overlapping jurisdiction is the edge or fringe area, outside the city limits, inside the urban growth boundary, and in 1986 the County delegated its administrative authority for processing, planning and building permits to the two cities within the urban growth boundary.† He said those were the urban transition agreements.† He said the County retains its role and responsibility in joint policy for the edge or fringe area outside the city limits, inside the urban growth boundary.† He commented that it was the problem of sprawl, construction of interstate freeways, unequal level of services, fragmentation of government and unequal taxation in this region was the cause to develop the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan.
Howe noted some of the advantages of the Metro Plan is that it provides greater certainty and local control was returned to the region.† He said it treats the urban area as one region and it contains general goals and policies.†† He said it allowed each jurisdiction to develop more detailed goals and policies and it allowed each city in Lane County to construct their individual zoning and ordinances within the Metro Plan framework.† He said it established stability that made it possible to serve River Road and Santa Clara with needed sewers, bringing fire protection to Douglas Gardens and South Springfield and developing plans for Glenwood.† He said it had allowed for private development that had been successful in creating housing and economic development during the past 23 years, which had made the Eugene metro area the second largest economic engine in Oregon.† †
Howe noted that the Metro Plan is viewed in its original form as a general plan within which the individual governments could control more local refined planning to suit their local situations.† He added when the Metro Plan was first adopted, the population in the UGB was approximately 184,000 people in 1977.† He said during the past 30 years it has grown about 50,000.† He noted for the first time in a decade they have the opportunity to develop a Metro Plan work program that is locally driven and meets the desire of the Metro Plan partners.† He commented that a challenge is planning for future generations in a meaningful way in providing for stable government and services within the financial constraints of the twenty first century and the aftermath of Measures 5, 47 and 50.† He noted that currently IGA cooperation is needed as hospitals are expanding and relocating to address the growing health needs of the region.† He added that transportation is being designed for the future transportation needs.
Howe provided a draft for the long-range work program. (Copy in file).
Dwyer stated there is conflict between the state goals and local entities.† He said the entities have to reserve a certain amount of land for residential, industrial and land base for growth.† He said they also have conflicts with farm and forest and the soils.† He asked how they preserve agricultural development if it is cheaper to develop on that type of soil and there is a conflict.† He thought everyone should work together.† He said they had the plan because the delivery was so piecemeal.†† He said they have to have a broader discussion collectively.
Van Vactor commented that for the first time in ten years they are no longer on a periodic review.† He said the three planning jurisdictions have complete discretion to decide what they should work on.† He and Howe put together a list (page 7) with 16 different issues.
Green thought the list was a good start.† He agreed that transportation was critical to land use planning and should be a part of it.† He thought the smaller cities should be brought into the discussion.
Stewart wanted to find a better way to work together to discuss issues.
Morrison also thought this was a good start.† She wanted statutory coordination between Lane County and LCOG.† She thought a lot of the problems that had arisen were due to LCOG. She commented that the Metro Plan is over 30 years old and needs to be revisited.† She was not in favor of letting it go.† She noted at the last LCOG meeting, a top issue raised for a discussion item for the next year is the Metro Plan.† She agreed adding transportation.† She asked what the next steps would be.
Howe indicated that the Board of Commissioners could have a joint meeting with the other two elected bodies and provide staff direction on how to proceed.† He said he could also take this to the planning directors and develop something and bring it back to the Board of Commissioners.† He thought this was the opportunity to be in control at the local level on what they want to do in the metro planning efforts for the next several years.
Morrison commented that they needed to have a joint meeting and it would have to be agreed upon by their partners.† She said if they donít agree, then the process would stop.† She said that would give direction to the individual planning staffs as how they were going to move forward.† †
Sorenson wanted to discuss that planning should not be solely regulatory.† He thought they should provide incentives.
Green wanted a compilation of the number of amendments that had been approved by the Board on the City of Eugeneís behalf and Springfieldís behalf to get a historical context within the past five years.† He wanted to see how often Lane County asked for amendments to the plan in compared to their partners and how often they acquiesced.
Howe asked if the Board wanted him to take this back to the Metro Planning Directors that had been developed, have the discussion presented to them so they could take it to their elected officials to see if there was interest in having a collaborative discussion.
Dwyer wanted a list of what the control were and what would be lost. †
11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Green reported he participated in the Relay for Life on Saturday.† He said they raised $543,000, as there was a big turnout.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660 †
Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.
14. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 12:10 p.m.