BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
February 2, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† Bill Dwyer was excused.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
†† 1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Stewart requested putting the Consent Calendar before Commissionerís Remonstrance.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
David Rodrigues, Springfield, said he has been doing research on why the river re-aligned by the Mathews property.† He said that occurrence could have been predicted in Thurston.† He said there is a science called channel migration zone.† He noted that there are other counties that use them in order to identify areas that are not safe to build in.† He stated that Peace Health should look at the same issue.† He thought there was an opportunity for Lane County to be the first in the State of Oregon to set an example in this area.† He made an interim proposal and distributed the information.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson stated he received a letter from the president of NACo.† He noted it contained information about the Five Star Restoration Program where grants are available for wetlands coastal habitat restoration.† He indicated the deadline for applications is March 1, 2005.† He gave it to the County Administrator.
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 05-2-2-1/In the Matter of Recognizing Captain John Clague for 30 Years of Outstanding Service.
Morrison read the resolution into the record.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-2-2-1.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 05-2-2-2/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 21 of the Lane Manual to Add Provision for the Designation of County Forests, Parks, and Recreational Areas and Disposition of Sale Proceeds (LM 21.435).
Todd Winter, Parks, recalled on September 15, 2004 staff presented to the Board a feasibility report pertaining to County taxed foreclosed properties being designated as parklands and sold with proceeds to be used for Parks purposes.† He added the Board directed staff to create a procedure that would be reviewed by the Lane County Policies and Procedures Committee.† He said on October 5, 2004, the Policies and Procedures Committee voted unanimously to proceed and further directed staff to work with County Counsel and Property Management to present to the Board a final proposal for Lane Manual changes.† He added the Polices and Procedures Committee also further directed staff to compile a letter to the taxing districts to let them know what is taking place.† Winter said they drafted a letter that outlined the process and was clear that the taxing districts wouldnít receive any proceeds from tax-foreclosed properties that were designated as parkland and sold.† He† received two phone calls about the letters.†† He drafted a second letter requesting to make Lane Manual changes and that this item would be going to the Board on February 2.†† He also provided a link to the materials he submitted.† He received no contacts regarding the second letter.
Winter commented that the Property Management Program would remain unchanged.† He said the Parks Division is choosing parcels for consideration by the Board and† they would give consideration to environmental issues, the overall benefit to the County and the financial needs of the affected department.† He said they would move forward at a measured pace that will give them time to evaluate selecting one or two properties from outside of the city limits that are undeveloped properties. He added they were looking at ways of mitigating revenue from the loss of Fern Ridge Lake.
Morrison asked if there were any properties in their inventory that would fit this.
Winter responded there is an 80-acre property in Glenada.
Jeff Turk, Management Services, explained the intention of this is to designate any foreclosed property outside of the city limits as parkland.† He said the law provides that once it is park property, that they could have a public or private sale. He noted the intent of the Board is to put it up for a public sale.† †
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-2.
Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Morrison requested the Facilities Committee be given an update regarding the inventory that was put together three years ago.† She wanted to see where they were with the list.† She asked for the properties to be sorted by zip code.
Sorenson also requested that the list be sent to the Board.
b. ORDER 05-2-2-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the Parks Manager to Close Orchard Point and Perkins Peninsula Parks Located on Fern Ridge Reservoir until Such Time as the Water Level Is Returned to Normal Recreation Pool.
Winter noted with the issues of the integrity of the damn structure at Fern Ridge, the Corps of Engineers will be holding the recreational pool to a maximum of 360 feet, about 13.5 feet below normal.† He noted that during the low water periods the marinas would be sitting on the ground.† He indicated they took data from 2001 where they averaged 44 cars per day at Fern Ridge Reservoir during the draw down.†† He said there were people who still reserved picnic shelters and people who camped. He noted they would save some money by closing the facilities.† He said they need to maintain service levels for the rest of the park system.† He noted with the closure of Orchard Point and Perkins, there have been discussions about still having events.† He said there are still playgrounds and large picnic shelters.† He reported they could accommodate all recreational needs of all of the users except for the boaters.†† He commented that they are not reducing quality, but reducing quantity.† †
Morrison was in support as they had no other choice. She noted the farmers had found a solution in keeping them whole during the rebuild of the damn.† She thought this would take about five years to repair.†† She was pleased with the approach and the United Front package they were putting together.† She thought this was the best solution they could come up with.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-3.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
c. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 05-2-2-4/In the Matter of Amending the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in FY 04-05 By: 1. Moving Funds for Mill Road at Hwy 58 from FY 06-07 to FY 04-05; 2. Adding $40,000 in Additional Funds for Lane Transit District (LTD) Improvements Associated with the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Project; and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute Intergovernmental Agreements Necessary to Implement These Actions.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, reported they are bringing last minute suggestions for changes to the 04/05 County Capital Improvement Program.† He noted this year there are two time sensitive items.† He added these are the last changes they intend to make to the CIP in this current cycle.† He noted the packet originally included a third item, the Highway 126 West passing lane project.† He said they had a meeting with ODOT and they are doing a study for that project and there was no clarity on whether the $2 million figure that was in Bob Pirrieís letter will give them adequate funds to construct the project.†† He noted this was a project that was on their STIP priority list several cycles ago.† He added they are having budget problems.† He asked that the project to be deferred.† He agreed that would be put off into the next STIP cycle and they would have to come to the Board with a new request once they have more information.
Stinchfield explained there is a project on Highway 58 near Mill Road.† He† noted there is a risk involving trucks that needed to be addressed.† He recalled in 2002, ODOT made a request that they fund a realignment with Mill Road to move it away from the bridge.† He said that was included as a CAPP project in the 03/07 CIP in May 2002.† He noted in September 2003 they had public meetings and presented four options:† close Mill road, realign it, put in a right turn acceleration lane (what the public recommended) or wait to see if ODOT could find money for the bridge so it could be widened at a turn lane provided at the current Mill Road location.† He said in December 2003† they received a letter from ODOT stating they were studying the bridge and they asked to see what the study produced.† He said in response in January 2004, the Board reprogrammed the $385,000 that was originally programmed out to Fiscal Year 06/07 and agreed to wait to see what happened.† He said in September the County Engineer wrote a letter stating the County still had the funds available and they are waiting to see what happens.† He noted in December 2004, the bridge staff came to the County asking if those funds were still available.† He thought the $385,000 would cover the incremental cost of providing a wider bridge at the location so the turn lane could be provided on the highway.† He noted in the past month the bridge consultants have been studying the option and have come up with different cost numbers that had created a funding problem.† He said they compared the cost of a two lane bridge, constructing a temporary detour structure around the south side and not widening the bridge that is four lanes wide that would be wide enough to stage construction and avoid a temporary bridge.† He said the incremental cost of that is $1.25 million.† He said their recommendation is to move the $385,000 back into the 04/05 year, carry through on the offer to contribute to the project for the purpose of providing turn lanes and putting it back to the bridge committee to see what they could work out. He noted another option would be to drop the proposal and not fund it.† He added the Board could offer to pay more, but staff did not recommend that due to the funding issues involved with the CIP.
Stinchfield noted the other part of the board order involves a right turn lane component to the Martin Luther King project the Board had funded partially in Springfield in the Gateway area.† He noted there is a letter in the packet requesting $40,000 in road funds to extend a northbound right turn lane at the main entrance into the hospital site to better accommodate bus rapid transit movement.
Ollie Snowden, Public Works, indicated when they have had recent discussions with ODOT, they have mentioned public-private partnership.† He noted an approach on this project might be for ODOT and Gustina, (the owner of the logging yard) to see if they would be able to contribute funds to help make up the deficit.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-4.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
d. ORDER 05-2-2-5/In the Matter of Approving a Project Design Concept for West Boundary Road MP 1.7 to MP 6.4 Based on the Design Concept in Exhibit B and Authorizing Staff to Prepare a Right-of-Way Plan Necessary to Construct the Road, Pursue All Necessary Planning Actions and Prepare Plans and Specifications for Improvement of Said Road. †
Bill Morgan, Public Works, recalled this has been taking place since 2001 where Public Works applied for and received the grant from the Oregon Forest Highway Program for $750,000 that was a 23% matching fund for a large modernization project along the road.† He noted the original cost was $3 million.† He indicated the location of the road is east of Lowell on the north side of Lookout Point Reservoir.† He reported that the purpose for the project is to improve road access for the boat ramp.† He noted the project is 4.7 miles long.† He said it is a rural minor collector and has 130 cars on a slow day. He noted the revised project cost estimate is at $1.2 million.† He added they are still receiving the 23% from the Forest Highway Program.† With regard to right-of-way, he said the cost would be $25,000 as they are scoping back the project and some properties are from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Morgan said they had an open house presenting four different options to respond to.† He noted one option was a full build, 24 feet wide, 30 mile per hour design speed.†† He said the second option was listening to the drivers where they suggested widening.† He said the third option was to look at the existing alignment and pave it.† Option four was the no build option. †
Morgan noted when they had the open house; the Roads Advisory Committee had unanimous support for the project, including the people who live on the road and the Lowell community.† He explained it provides spot improvements in six or seven areas where guardrails will be installed with 11-foot travel lanes.† He noted they would be widening on the hillsides instead of the side of the reservoir.† He added they are keeping the existing alignment.† He reported there was unanimous approval from the Roads Advisory Committee and public support.
Green asked if anyone opposed the project.
Morgan responded there was no opposition.
Sorenson asked if there was any cost benefit analysis for this project.† He asked how this project compared with other projects.† He commented that they never got the ability to compare the projects.
Snowden explained the Board raised the issue last year and asked for more information.† He noted what the Roads Advisory Committee released last week is a more robust analysis of each of the projects that are in the CIP.† He didnít think there was a cost benefit analysis done on this project.† He added when the Board reviews the CIP, they would have to look at a variety of criteria when they decide what the priorities are.† He noted as a general rule, they face the same issues on a smaller scale that ODOT does when they look at priorities statewide.
Stewart supported the project.† He was encouraged to see the project was revised for a lower cost.† He thought because of the Fern Ridge situation, more people would be using recreation in the Lowell area.† He added this improves the safety for the people who live along the road.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-5.
Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.
e. ORDER 05-2-2-6/In the Matter of Revising Intergovernmental Agreements for Distribution of Discretionary Road Revenue from the 2003 Oregon† Transportation Investment Act III to the County's Cities to Reflect a Revised Base Payment and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Agreements
Snowden recalled this was previewed in December.† He noted the legislative general assembly in 2003 passed two bills that are called the Oregon Transportation Investment Act III and in those bills were monies set aside for local government maintenance and preservation.† He said there was $20 million in revenue per year for cities and $30 million per year for counties.† He said Lane County received an estimate from ODOT of $1.4 million from OTIA III.† He indicated that estimate was based on how much new revenue would be coming into the state from the fee increases that were implemented and how much of that money for cities and counties would have to be diverted to debt service to pay for the $300 million bond program that is being used to rehab county bridges.† He stated the new estimates from ODOT are about $1 million per year instead of $1.4 million.† He noted that last year the Board agreed to pass through to the cities Lane Countyís share of the OTIA III money.† They assumed it would be $1.4 million and through discussions with the city managers, they collectively agreed that they would base the formula on the City County Road Partnership that has a unit payment for all cities and the remainder of the money distributed on road miles.† He said the managers agreed to apportion the base payment down and distribute the remaining money on a combination of population and road miles. He said when they wrote the IGA, he assumed they would get $1.4 million and there was no language to adjust the base payment proportionately.† He indicated the base payment with each city was about 16.8% of the total and it was divided by the 12 cities.
Snowden explained because the overall payments are lower, the net effect is it will benefit the small cities at the expense of Eugene and Springfield.† He said when ODOT started to distribute these monies to the cities and counties in the first part of calendar year 2004,† they neglected to back out the debt service.† He said they were paid for the first six or seven months with an overage and ODOT figured out they made a mistake and now they need to pay the debt service on the local government bond and had no money to do it.† He said that ODOT agreed to pay for the local government debt service out of its own budget and in return, they would make it up by distributing no money to the counties for the remainder of calendar year 04 and the first six months of 05. He noted the cities will get only one more small distribution in February and they wonít get any distribution in August.† He suggested that they donít recalculate the figures and change the IGA to a proportionate base payment.
Green asked why they were still giving money to West Fir when they are not using the funds they were given.† He thought they needed to rethink the urban transition discussion and utilize authority to try to develop a greater partnership with the cities. He wanted this to be put on the agenda for a future discussion.
Morrison wasnít opposed to having the conversation about West Fir.† She noted that West Fir did have a road project and they would be moving forward and using the money.† †
Snowden explained they have a three-year agreement with the cities on the City-County Road Partnership that runs into Fiscal 06/07, based on the condition that they didnít want to go past reauthorization.† He said the future doesnít include continuing the City-County Road Partnership past the current Fiscal 06/07 agreement, based on strategic planning priorities.
Sorenson requested Snowden send out a letter to the public works directors of the cities letting them know about the Roads Advisory Committee recommendation.
Green asked how much the cities received from the OTIA III monies. He wanted to see the total amount of funds that came to the County and the cities.† He asked if they could use the money for maintenance.
Snowden explained that the money the County and the cities get passes through ODOT is for operations, maintenance and preservation.† He didnít think there was any restriction to using the money for capital programs.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-6.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
f. ORDER 05-2-2-7/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 60 of the Lane Manual to Revise Fees for Land Management Division Planning, Subsurface Sanitation, and Building Program Activities (LM 60.851, 60.852, and 60.855), Effective July 1, 2005.
Jeff Towery, Land Management, reported they adjusted fees effective July 1, 2004 for planning and subsurface sanitation of 8%. †He noted about 75% of his budget is personal services and 80% of the materials and services budget is made up of overhead.† He indicated there was no additional staffing over the current level and no new initiatives that they were pursuing.† He said they tried to identify some consistency with the Strategic Plan with respect to their E-commerce initiatives and the rapid process improvement they used for building permit review and other processes.† He noted that the Board in the past three years had been consistent in the direction that Land Management be a self-supporting operation.† †
Towery noted their building permit activity is one of the primary drivers that touch all of their programs.† He added their annual numbers trend close to the summer numbers.† He said when they looked at last summer, (compared to the prior three years,) they are up about 18% in terms of volume and the time in the system had decreased about 10% over the same period of time.† He added that the number of backlog permits has decreased.† He said they were comfortable forecasting a moderate growth in building permit volumes of two percent.† He noted the majority of their permit volume and revenue comes from remodeling, additions and accessory building.† He said they will be looking at a 2 Ĺ% increase in building permit fees and 7 Ĺ % increase in planning fees because they are not seeing the same increase in volume for planning. He said they were not presuming an increase in applications. With regard to subsurface sanitation, he said they are no longer receiving revenue from Environment Health for a portion of the sanitarian to do restaurant inspections on the coast.† He added up until last year Environmental Health was paying the equivalent of about a half FTE.† He noted during budget preparation last year for the current fiscal year, Environmental Health said it would be reduced to ľ FTE.† He said they budgeted a ľ FTE as revenue and in June of last year they did not contract with Land Management at all.† He said that frees them up to process their applications quicker than in the past.† He noted it was a net loss of $22,000 of revenue in the current fiscal† year.† He said that was why there is an 11% fee† increase for subsurface sanitation.† He added the fee increase does not apply to temporary hardship mobile homes or annual subscription of notice of application acceptance.† He said it would help to implement e-commerce.† He said the total cost they are forecasting for increases is $260,000.† He said the rate proposal would generate under $170,000.† He said they are seeing growth in their building permit revenue through the expired permits they are pursuing.† He noted the electrical permits (that are not part of the rate increase proposal) are generating enough revenue to help support the building program at a higher level than they had originally forecast.† He said they are looking at reduction in their materials, services and capital budget for the division to get to a balance point.
Towery said their recommendation is a 2Ĺ% increase for building, 7Ĺ% for planning and 11% for sanitation.† He said in comparison to Eugene and Springfield, their mark up for building permits fees put them in the middle between the cities.† He said it would be about a $65 increase on a 2,500 single family dwelling with an attached garage.† He added it didnít include system development charges.† He said the County collects about $400, Springfield would charge about $4,000 and the charge for Eugene is about $4,800.† He noted that 18 of 27 of their fees are either less than are within 10% of the average, based on the proposed increases.
With regard to the Finance and Audit Minutes, Green stated that Tanya Heaton, Public Works, made the comment that as long as personnel costs continue to climb that Public Works has several divisions based on fees and the only way they could maintain service is to increase fees.† He thought she might have said that to maintain the current service level. He noted the other option is to reduce personnel and go to a lower level of service.† He asked what the personnel costs were.† He thought those who benefit pay and those who pay benefit. He asked what performance measure was being used.† He asked if the customers were being served in a timely manner.
Sorenson asked if the propane fees were involved in an increase.
Towery said the propane tank issue is driven by Lane Countyís code and FEMA regulations.† He said there are not separate fee items that identify review for placing a propane tank.† He said they are described as structures in FEMA regulations.† He said it would be parcel and zone specific.
With regard to electric fees, Towery said they wouldnít need a fee increase for the third. year.† He noted the proposal before the Board is for the second year of the program and didnít do any specific outreach on the electrical portion.† He said they provided this information to the Homebuilders Association of Lane County about the same time it went to Finance and Audit.† He said the association wasnít opposed to the fees as it was a cost to doing business.† He said they took a neutral position on it.
Stewart asked if Towery had anything that would improve the process further so they wouldnít have to raise fees.
Towery said they went through another rapid process improvement in mid-December and they are implementing changes.† He said they are able to issue residential accessory and addition permits the same day, if the applications are complete and there is not an impact on the septic system.† He said that 40% of the permits they process donít require a sanitarian to do field visits.† His goal is to get as many of those out the same day as they can.† He added they would able to increase service through E-commerce.† He said they were looking at an interactive voice response system to ease the scheduling of inspections and checking on the status of permits.
MOTION:† to move to approve† ORDER 05-2-2-7.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Morrison said she didnít question some of the issues, but she didnít support the motion.
Green asked how Lane Countyís fees compared with the state.
Towery said they hadnít done a comparison of the building permit fees across the board.† He said they charge the stateís fees for most operations.
Morrison wasnít convinced that the department was doing things right.
Sorenson thought by increasing fees lower than what Springfield and Eugene were charging, they are able to provide better service and lower the backlog that benefit the constituents.† He commented that he didnít like raising fees but thought minor fee increases were better than significant reduction in service.
Stewart believed Towery was working hard to improve the system.† He hoped next year they wouldnít have to ask for increases.
Green said Towery needed to poll the Board to ask them how they would define success.
VOTE: 3-1 (Morrison dissenting).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
January 12, 2005, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
January 12, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. County Administration
1) REPORT/County Administrator's Quarterly Report Regarding USA Patriot Act.
C. County Counsel
1) ORDER 05-2-2-8/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 20 of the Lane Manual to Adopt Rules for Protesting Special Procurements in Public Contracting (LM 20.265).
D. Management Services
1) ORDER 05-2-2-9/In the Matter of Awarding Bid LCP 2004-09 for Requirements Purchases of Industrial Linen Services.
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 05-2-2-10/In the Matter of Accepting and Establishing Crocker Road as a County Road, Being Located in Section 2 and 11, Township 17 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette Meridian (17-04-02 & 11).
2) ORDER 05-2-2-11/In the Matter of Appointing a Five Member Citizen Committee to Evaluate and Recommend Awards for the Lane County Tourism Special Project Grants for the Year 2005.
3) ORDER 05-2-2-12/In the Matter of Approving a Change in Project Scope and Purpose for $240,000 in Capital Project Partnership Funds Allocated in FY 02-03 for the Oakridge Industrial Parkway Turn Lane to Fund the Relocation of Fish Hatchery Road and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute Intergovernmental Agreements with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Oakridge as Necessary to Relocate this Roadway.
MOTION:† to approve the Consent Calendar.
Green MOVED, Faye SECONDED.
9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-2-2-13/In the Matter of Adopting the New Lane County Diversity Action Plan.
Laura Yergan, Management Services, reported the new Lane County Diversity Plan (copy in file) is the culmination of a yearís worth of work by the Diversity Task Force.† She said it contains their recommendations on what they believe to be critical considerations for inclusion in the plan for Lane County to review.† She noted it was in the area around work force, services they provided, the agencies that provide funding and the funding decision. †
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-13.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Green requested that the Lane County Human Rights Commission members receive a copy of the plan.† He was proud of the document as they measured how they were doing.
Awards were given to Alicia Hays and Karen Gaffney for their work as facilitators in the development of the Diversity Action Plan.
b. ORDER 05-2-2-14/In the Matter of Creating the Classification and Salary Range for Human Resource Technician.
Hector Rios, Management Services, explained that they had created a classification for a Human Resource Technician.† He noted it is a re-write of a current position they are using in Human Resources.† He added there is no budgetary impact and it would be a non-represented classification.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-14.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-0. (Green out of room).
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
ORDER 05-2-2-15 Settling the Claims of James and Adele Varco
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-2-2-15.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
ORDER 05-2-2-16 Settling the Claims of Brenda Chastain
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 12:05 p.m.