BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
June 14, 2005
(Commissionerís Conference Room)
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† Commissioner Dwyer was present via telephone. †County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Morrison noted there would be Correspondence to the Board from Centro Latino Americano.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Julie Underwood, Mapleton, discussed her recent experiences in trying to register her old dock.† She called for Lane County approval because her two applications were ignored for over a month. She received a call saying that everything was in order and it could be signed off.† She added the next day she was told there would be a fee of $1,126 and they would need to answer the environment code forms for compliance.† She said her fee check was cashed December 8 and the Lane County code requirements were answered in late December and in January.† She said there were more agencies involved.† She said they didnít hear from Lane County until her husband e-mailed the Department of Land Management Director in late April.† She said on June 8 she was in the Land Management office and was told that they would sign off and they would return the $1,126 fee.† She noted to date no forms or check have arrived.
Terry Saubert, Mapleton, reported he has a request from the Mapleton Dock Committee.† He said they want all existing docks on the Siuslaw River to be grandfathered as of December 30, 2005.† He said it gives time for appropriate notification to dock owners, to effect cataloguing of existing docks and a moratorium on any new docks on the Siuslaw River until a task force has been formed to determine a fair and equitable fee and application for dock owners.† He asked that all dock repairs and maintenance of pilings, ramps and landings be considered a public safety issue as is stated in the Lane County Strategic Plan, Section B 3.† He said the repairs should be available with a piling replacement or removal permit within the state owned waterways, under ORS 141.089.0400, with no added permits required from Lane County.† He said they wanted Lane County Planning to not require any regulations greater than the state requires for docks, ramps, pilings and landings as stated in ORS 215.215.† He said the County should not place conditions upon continuation or alteration of the use described under this subsection when necessary to comply with state and local health or safety requirements or to maintain the existing structures in good repair.† He stated when the dock structure is sold or inherited, the current dock registration and permits should be included within the title of property and the dock registration shall be recorded as a part of the deed.† He suggested that the Board make a motion today on the above request.
Barbara McClane, Mapleton, stated in 1998 the DSL implemented the dock registration process.† She said that Peter Castelli at DSL told her in a letter that mailings were sent out to the coastal lakes over the years, but the private dock owners on the Siuslaw River did not receive notification until March 2005.† She added that real estate agents were also unaware of the registration and permit process.† She was told by recent homebuyers that they were not notified about any rules or fees required to maintain dock ownership.† She noted there are people on the river currently who still have not been notified of the dock registration process.
Jim Bozarth, Mapleton, suggested a new matrix for future dock registration.† He thought a new application should go to DSL, covering all state and federal agencies for docks, ramps and pilings. He stated that DSL should have one or more contractors registered or licensed to drive pilings for the Corps of Engineers requirements.† He said that the application should be signed and returned to the dock owner within 30 days.† He added the applicant fills out County registration forms and necessary permits.† He said that docks and ramps could be designated for the river zone only and it should eliminate the riparian modification permit.† He noted since the river zone is zoned exclusively by the state, there should be no special County permit required in the river zone.† He said a resources capability determination would be required, but it would be in the form of a questionnaire with references for research instead of how it is today.† He said for safety reasons, maintenance (including pilings replacement) should be handled under state guidelines with no County permit required.† He added if a dock is lost in the floods, the state rule should also apply.† He thought a new dock could be replaced with no permits required.† He indicated when a property with a dock is sold, the dock goes with the lot as a registered dock, and no new registration would be required.† He said that Lane County would have 30 days to complete the registration process, with a registration fee of $48.40,† a resources capability review of $100,† and a fee to the DSL $125 for five years.† He added at the end the registered marine contractor would complete work.
Sue Bozarth, Mapleton, thanked the Board for offering their group a chance to participate in the work session.† She noted that the Mapleton Community Dock Committee was formed shortly after the first dock meeting in March.† She said at the second meeting they decided to educate everyone on all the true facts.† She said that Lane County has found a way to expedite the process and the Mapleton Community has been drawn closer together.† She stated the mandate from the community is to grandfather all the existing docks.
Jean Phelps, spoke regarding the Health and Human Services Contract.†† She said they have been providing alcohol and drug recovery work for families into the system of child protective services.†† She reported that they have been doing it since November without any money.† She said there is a problem between the language and the contract between the state and the county.† She said they have to provide the service and it has been costing them money.
Zachary Vishanoff, Eugene, commented that the University of Oregon had kept low-income housing east of Hayward Field.† His concern is violation of the National Environmental Policies Act that requires a historic review before houses are sold.† He added they have removed trees and it was done without any student involvement.† He didnít think the students or staff would appreciate all of the low income housing being removed.† He hoped the Board would have the County buy the homes when they are moved away.† He said it is now done privately.† He thought there were 60 or 70 more homes that could help low-income families.
Jim Welsh, Elmira, stated he represented the Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors.† He said they have come into the issue late.† He said the packet information showed there are 150 docks identified on the Siuslaw River and 46 have responded.† He added that 21 have completed the registration process and 20 are lawful docks.† He thought it was a problem and he needed answers.† He said that realtors want to see things go smoothly for the owners and for prospective buyers.† They are concerned about any land use issues and the transferability of docks as private property on leased or permitted lands.† He said they realize that the County is faced with being agents of the state, as the DSL is requiring it.† He noted the dock owners on the Siuslaw didnít hear anything about this until March.
Green asked whose responsibility it was to perform due diligence on the properties.
Welsh indicated it is the requirement of the owner to do due diligence in a situation like this.† He noted that the real estate agents are required to have disclosure on issues.† He asked how an owner is supposed to know about a dock if they were never given the information from a previous owner.† He said they have a problem with information being passed down to the new owners.† He wanted to see this problem resolved.† He said that Coos County is a good county to compare with.† He thought they should grandfather to a current date and then prospectively go forward with new requirements and new fees.
Sorenson asked what the drawback would be to grandfathering docks.
Welsh didnít think there was a drawback.† He said there is a necessity for the County to recover some costs.
Dwyer said they needed to take away the exemption, to charge all the docks an annual fee because they are leasing their land.† He said they should use the process to inventory the docks that would help fund the Division of State Lands.
3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
a. Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation;
b. Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.† To take place at 11:30 a.m.
5. PUBLIC WORKS
a. REPORT/Oregon Department of State Lands Dock Registration on the Siuslaw River.
Jeff Towery, Land Management, reported that the Department of State Lands requires registration of docks and Lane County has required building and planning permits for docks since 1980 and those regulations have remain unchanged.† He noted in 1998 the State Land Board adopted Administrative Rules that allowed for registration of privately owned non-commercial docks and required authorization from the Division of State Lands.† He stated that dock registration is not a Lane County requirement.† He indicated the department requires proof that the structures are consistent with all local, state, and federal laws and local comprehensive plans.† He added that initially dock registrations included an affidavit for the owners to sign.† He said that affidavit put the burden on the applicant.† He noted after 1998 local planning agencies started to push for reforming that rule because people were being issued registrations when their structures were not in compliance.† He indicated that the Department of State Lands now requires that cities or counties sign off on those applications and that requirement went into place in 2003.† He explained there were ways that owners could get verification of local land use approval in Lane County.† He said one is that the owner could show that the dock existed prior to July 24, 1980.† He said a Land Use Compatibility Statement is the way they process those.† He said the fee is $48.40.† He added they utilize aerial photos from 1982 to make the determination.† He noted that most of the docks on the Siuslaw fall into that category.† He said if an owner couldnít demonstrate that the dock existed prior to the regulation date, (and because this section of the river is in a conservation estuary) a land use application has to be submitted.† He noted at the minimum the owners need to address their requirements in Lane Code through a special use permit.† He noted the standard fee for a special use permit is $1,126.
Towery reported that the DSL developed an inventory in 1998 that identified 150 structures on the Siuslaw and 130 of those were in Lane Countyís jurisdiction and the balance were inside the City of Florence.† He said they have processed 71 applications for docks, resulting in 41 docks being registered but most are still in the process of going through the stateís process.† He said they have identified 73 applications for a Land Use Compatibility Statement and seven of those required a special use permit.† He said a majority of the docks that appear to need special use permits have not made application.† He said they identified that of the 140 properties on the Siuslaw, 27 of those owners have properties in the forest zone and five are commercial.
With regard to fees, Towery said they surveyed coastal counties and comparable counties and of the coast counties, three have fees that they think are substantially less:† Coos, Lincoln and Douglas County.† He added for comparable counties, only Linn and Benton Counties have fees that are substantially lower than Lane County.† He noted that the City of Florence has increased its fees.
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained one of the components of the Rural Comprehensive Plan is the Coastal Resources Management Plan that was adopted in 1980.†† He said that has the provisions for a conservation estuary zone and the significant natural shorelands combining zones.† He indicated those are the zones that are triggering the issues they are discussing.† He explained the purpose of the conservation estuary zone is to assure the continued biological productivity of the estuaries.† He noted the other requirements would be riparian and floodplain.† He said the riparian is only triggered if the boardwalk or gangplank down to the dock would extend more than ten feet above the ordinary high water.† He added there is an exemption within the coastal shorelands zone that allows structures within the initial ten feet that overrides the riparian provision.† He said if they extend it more than ten feet, it triggers the riparian provision.† With regard to the floodplain, he noted it is not triggered unless fill or removal is involved and the pilings are exempt from the floodplain regulations.† He said the main issue is the resource capability determination that is required to address the conservation estuary zone.†† He noted that no county had done a blanket waiver of site-specific circumstances that will vary from dock to dock.† He said they have had discussions about the possibility about the resource capability determination being done for a stretch of the estuary.† He noted that individual dock owners who are in the conservation estuary zone who are not able to show their dock existed prior to 1982 need to go through the process in order to comply with the Coastal Resources Management Plan of Lane County.
Kevin Moynahan, Department of State Lands, explained that when Oregon became a state in 1859 under the Equal Footing Doctrine, Oregon was given the same rights of ownership with the title and navigable waterways that were already in the union at the time.† He noted from 1959 to the current date, the State of Oregon has claimed ownership on all submerged or submersible lands under title and navigable waterways.† He indicated for the title areas up to the ordinary high tide mark on the rivers, the State of Oregon claim ownership.† He added that any structure that is placed on state owned property and is submerged or submersible, under state law, requires an authorization.† ORS 274.040 deals with authorizations in the form of leases on state owned waterways for commercial operations, commercial arenas, non-commercial arenas, marine industrial type uses all require leases on the statutes.† He noted under ORS 274.043 (enacted by the legislature in 1998) there was a separate provision made for docks, boathouses, and other similar type of structures on state owned waterways whereby there was a registration for a non-commercial privately owned dock or boathouse structure under 2,500 square feet.† He added there was in the statute before 1998 an exemption for structures that were 200 square feet or less, but any dock or boathouse under that statute before 1998 required a lease.† He said one of the driving forces for the legislature in 1998 was to make it an easier process for smaller docks and boathouse owners to get a registration.† He noted there is no longer an exemption for structures under 200 square feet.
Moynahan explained that the registration program was set up in 1998 and all the money collected goes to the common school fund.† He said since 1998, DSL has tried to address all of the commercial uses on state owned waterways (including lakes) in Lane County.† He added the second priority was to address the registrations of docks and boathouses that they knew existed on the waterways.† He noted an inventory was done in 1998 trying to identify all structures existing on those waterways.† He noted they are trying to have all the structures that were not authorized come into legal authorization through a commercial lease or private dock or boathouse registration.
Morrison asked if Lane County had anything regarding creating an environment for them to go out and inventory the properties.
Moynahan said the structures existed but there was no push from their department to bring people into compliance.† He added the County had worked with them since that time.† He noted by law that any action they take as a department is deemed to be a land use action and has to be in compliance with local comprehensive planning.† He indicted that any dock registration that they issue has to have a sign off from the County Planning Department that it is in compliance with the County Comprehensive Plan.
Diane Saubert, Mapleton, recalled the DSL adopted the registration process in 1998 and November 23, 1998 and lake owners and the Siuslaw River residents were first contacted for commercial and leased dock owners.† She said that nothing took place between the time the County knew about this and January 3, 2005, when DSL offered to assist the County in grandfathering the private docks on the Siuslaw River.† She noted the Countyís representatives at that meeting rejected this offer.† She added that on March 7, the County began notifying private dock owners of the registration requirements.† She noted that currently there are still some owners that have not been notified.† She asked how Lane Countyís mission, vision and guiding principles in the Strategic Plan justify the timeline.
Saubert discussed the new Lane County land compatibility matrix for the dock registration process.† She said it represented one of the complicated steps in the dock registration process.† She added that a dock owner must also meet the requirements of the Port of Siuslaw, the DSL, the Army Corps of Engineers and ODF & W.† She asked how they were supposed to understand the unclear complicated matrix for a dock less than 1,000 square feet.
Saubert commented that other counties could complete this process with two or three permits.† She asked why Lane County needed five.† She also complained about the turn around time for the permits.† She asked how to reconcile the fees for a less than 1,000 square foot platform on a state owned waterway.† She asked the Board to meet the request of the Mapleton Dock Committee.
Green commented that the State of Oregon doesnít share the same visions as Lane County and their timeline is different than Lane County.† He added that the state gives them requirements in a short timeline that doesnít allow them to accomplish their mission in the manner in which they want to do it. He asked why the state didnít grandfather the remaining docks.
Moynahan responded that they are required by the statute to pass any land use document that they issue through the County planning process.† He noted that they donít have the authority to grandfather them.† He said they have to be approved by the local planning department.
Green commented that it was difficult to put the Board in a position to do the stateís work, but they require Lane County to do the work.† He said they are getting requests from the property owners to grandfather them to compliance, which means Lane County loses the fees.† He asked if the state was in a position to help them recover their fees if they grandfathered the docks.
Moynahan said his perspective is that they are doing the same thing with every county and every local planning agency that has jurisdiction on state owned waterways.† He added they are not requiring them to do their job, they are asking them to also comply with their responsibilities under statewide land use planning goals as they are implemented at the local level.† He said that DSL has an obligation to bring non-compliant structures into compliance with state law.† He added the only way they could do that is to bring it through the local planning department.
Green stated they are acting as a partner in trying to comply with the requirements, but there is some resistance because they are trying to fulfill state law.† He thought the people were not upset with Lane County but with the state.
Moynahan said they are directed by state law to give it to the local planning department.† He said some jurisdictions didnít want the state to take the responsibility of local planning decisions away.† He said they have tried to work in partnership with Lane County to try to resolve these problems.
Dwyer asked if there was anything that prohibited them from grandfathering the existing docks and have the protection be prospective.
Moynahan responded that there had been some experience in Clatsop County with their agency where they had hunting shacks that were considered to be non-conforming uses by their county.† He added Clatsop County determined to ďgrandfather inĒ those structures from a county planning perspective.† He noted they set a deadline of January 1, 2006 for the owners to come to their agency to get the appropriate authorization.† He indicated they had an ordinance in Clatsop County that involves "grandfathering in" certain structures.
Dwyer stated that was the approach he wanted the state to take.† He thought they were creating unnecessary work.† He said that grandfathering was a simple process and he wanted to develop an ordinance that recognizes that those docks existed at that time, grandfather them in and have the ordinance be prospective so the people will be protected and the people prospectively who come into it and understand what is associated with the docks.† With regard to the bigger picture, and the maximum capacity of the docks, he didnít think that would be useful because many docks exist and they are not used.
Moynahan responded from a regulatory perspective from DSL, whether a dock is used or not, its mere existence requires an authorization.
Saubert didnít think the County needed to spend the money to do another study.† She said if they were "grandfathered in," the County would get $48.40 for processing it and signing off. She agreed there should be a plan for the future.
Sorenson thought Lane County should consider initiating a change in the land use plan to grandfather the docks.† He noted that suggestion was made to Jeff Towery, Land Management in January.
Stewart indicated that he met with the dock owners and in the meeting they discussed fees.† He was in favor of finding a way to grandfather the docks.† He believed they need to assess what is there today and make sure that information is correct.† He wanted to get the correct information and grandfather them from this date forward.† He added for the future they need to come up with a plan to coordinate with all the agencies.† He wanted to do a survey of the estuaries so they know the affects of the docks today and whether they could submit a future dock.
Chris Castelli, DSL, agreed that he wanted to see an inventory update.
Saubert commented that the people on the river could give the best answers and they wanted to help with it.
Green suggested the dock group work with the state to give them the information about the docks and if they find the information useful and it complies with their request, to bring it back to the Board.
Moynahan said that DSL had worked closely with citizens on the river and they had given them a lot of the information to resolve the problems. He thanked the dock owners for working with them.† He also thanked the County planning staff for all of their hard work.
MOTION:† to direct staff to come back with a grandfathering of the docks that exist, and arrive at a cost to upgrade their records to know what exists and report back to the Board.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Sorenson† asked if Lane County had the authority to pursue this.
Wilson said it was possible to write an amendment to the existing ordinance.† She didnít know if that would comply with the land use goals.† She said they have the land use scheme that applies.† She said if they are attempting to modify the land use regulations, then it is a land use action.
Dwyer wanted to take up the stateís proposal to grandfather the docks in the least intrusive way and by ordinance.† He said the citizens have prescribed rights.† He wanted to make the process understandable and the cost associated with placing or modifying docks beyond ordinary maintenance had to be part of it.
Green asked if it was reasonable to determine what the costs would be in grandfathering the current docks and if they could establish a grandfathering fee.
Wilson indicated that there are many issues if they do a grandfathering.† She said if they were to do a grandfathering, an individual dock owner would have to come in and apply for the land use compatibility statement.† She noted that a lot of the dock owners were already doing that.† She thought grandfathering would put in place, that instead of having to prove that the dock was in existence in 1980, they would have to prove their dock was in existence as of today.
Stewart thought it was appropriate to charge people to get their dock grandfathered.† He wanted to know what the cost would be to go out and survey what exists.† He added they needed to have a discussion on how to treat future docks.† He said they needed the direction to come back with a proposal.
Morrison asked if the motion was for Lane Countyís staff to do survey work on the river.
Stewart wanted a plan on how they were going to grandfather the docks to make sure in the future that there is documentation that backs up their decision.
Morrison reiterated that the motion is that they are directing staff to research what it would take to grandfather in the docks that are currently existing on the Siuslaw River in Lane Countyís portion, the cost involved to do this, upgrading of records and clarification regarding authority to waive state land use goals or exempt land use goals.† She wanted to add the impacts regarding dredging and the studies they have been asked to participate in with the Port of Siuslaw, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Howe thought the Board wanted a batch processing.† He noted part of their policies in the Coastal Resource Management Plan is to be a resource capability determination that determines whether the cumulative impact of the estuary are significant and that be done with pooled agency resources so it could be pointed to by individual dock owners and they don't end up having to do it on their own.† He thought this process could move forward to get people through the process as opposed to talking about waiving the regulations.
Dwyer stated the dredging aspect had nothing to do with the motion.
Saubert said that they need a motion stating that all docks on the river, as of a certain day, could be grandfathered.
Dwyer commented that when he voted yes on the motion, he didnít vote to include all of the dredging and extras things that Morrison wanted to find out.† He supported Scenario A and he also supported Kent Howeís concept about dealing with capacity.
Stewart reiterated it was clear that they directed staff to pursue grandfathering existing docks and to look into what it would take to do that and bring it back to the board.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee.
Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, reported that the legislature is still in session.† He indicated that there is an issue about the Parole and Probation officers as it relates to the statutory definition of peace officer.† He noted that HB 3379 has come out of the house over the objections of AOC,† because it expands the authority more broadly than they think is necessary.† He said the sponsors of the bill and the house agree that it has some problems and needs to be fixed.† He said they agreed to have amendments proposed in the senate.† He noted the bill is now in the senate but is not scheduled for a hearing yet.† He indicated that the letter gives the Board of Commissioners an attempt to call attention to the bill for Lane Countyís senators and to go on record that they expect some of the problems with the bill could be remedied on the senate side, otherwise it should be opposed.
MOTION:† to move to send a letter.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Green indicated that it was AOCís position that they should oppose it in its current form.† He said, based on his experience, one of the underlying issues is the status of those officers that upon retirement would have a different benefit level.
Sorenson asked what the benefit was for being a peace officer.
Bieda responded the issues that were raised were that in the event of making an arrest of one of their people under supervision, if that person resists arrest or someone else in the proximity interferes with arrest, that in too many cases their interference is not treated with the same severity by the district attorney in the prosecution process as it would be treated if they were full-fledged peace officers.† He said the focus is to make sure if someone interferes with a Parole and Probation officer in the course of doing their duties, that that offense is just as egregious under the eyes of the law as if that person was a full peace officer.† He noted that AOC and the Community Corrections Directors and the Sheriff Association had no problem adjusting statute for those issues.† It was when it extends beyond that if a Parole and Probation officer encounters a crime being committed by someone other than who they are supervising, that they should have the right to make an arrest.† He said the Community Corrections Directors didnít want them doing that, and said they should be focused on providing supervision and treatment for the people under their supervision.
Morrison noted that HB 3493 needed to go to Lane Countyís clerk because it shows Lane County would lose revenue.† She said they needed to follow-up on that and possibly have a position at another date.
Bieda reported the pushback from counties and the area agencies on aging are the two entities that have proposed HB 3303.† He noted that it was filed by Representative Ackerman and prescribes in statute provisions in contracts between the state and the counties that would alleviate some of the issues they have had with the intergovernmental agreements coming from the state to the counties and the area agencies on aging.† He noted there was a potential negotiated process involving representatives from AOC and representatives from the 13 counties that sent a letter supporting HB 3303 to the governor last week. He added it was limited to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Morrison asked about an update on the Ways and Means Committee.
Bieda said funding of the Community Corrections is at a level that they could get to a continuous service level and no need to consider opting out of the program.† He said it included participation in video lottery proceeds.†† He said the deal that was being proposed would preserve countiesí participation in all of the revenue from the terminals, not just the old video poker games. He reported on the downside were proposals to defund some elements of community development.
7. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-6-14-2/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Human Services in the Amount of $397,368 to Fund an Alcohol & Drug Outreach Workers Program.
Rob Rockstroh, Health & Human Services, stated that this board order is no longer necessary because they had an agreement with the state.
b. ORDER 05-6-14-3/In the Matter of Approving a Community Corrections Plan for the 2005-07 Biennium in the Amount of $18,103,695.
Rockstroh explained this was a status quo budget.† He noted there was a question about $9 million statewide being available.† He said that some additional money came back for more capacity for jail beds in the Sheriffís Office.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-14-2.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Wilson asked if this amount was below the trigger to opt out.
Rockstroh stated that it was.
8. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/ORDER 05-6-14-6 Rites of Passage Summer Programs at Lane Community College.
Morrison stated she received a letter regarding wanting additional funding for the Passage Summer Programs.† She said it was for only $2,500 but she had concerns that they would be receiving these on a continuing basis.
Green stated he had been involved with the Rites of Passage program.† He said it was an amount that fell within their acceptable limits.† He said this program addressed some of Lane Countyís goals and the super goal for youth.† He thought they should establish a process in terms of how and when someone could apply.† With regard to Centro Latino, he noted the request was that Lane County partner with other funders about allocating the unspent contingency fund to be used towards operational costs.† He thought that was problematic.† He thought it should be consistent with whatever they do. He supported the $2,500 for Rites of Passage contingent upon what other agencies and other entities do.† He said clear guidelines need to be established.
MOTION:† to move $2,500 for the Right of Passage.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
With regard to the request for Central Latino, Morrison said that after they vote on the Right of Passage request, they should get a report back from David Garnick on what the amount is and what the other competing requests are.
Dwyer supported the $2,500 and a finite request from Centro Latino.
9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Moved to June 15, 2005
b. DISCUSSION/2005-2006 Lane County Budget, Making Appropriations, and Levying Taxes.
Moved to June 15, 2005.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:† None.
B. County Counsel
1) ORDER 05-6-14-1/In the Matter of Appointing a Lay Member to the Law Library Advisory Committee.
C. County Administration
1) ORDER 05-6-14-5/In the Matter of Approving a Three-Year Intergovernmental Agreement and Contract for Support of Lane Metro Partnership.
MOTION:† to† approve the Consent Calendar.
Green MOVED, Stewart, SECONDED.
11. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-6-14-4/In the Matter of Ratifying the Tentative Agreement Between Lane County and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2831-General Unit.
Frank Forbes, Management Services, reported this is the three-year agreement that had been previously discussed in Executive Session.† He said the union has ratified the agreement and it provides for a two percent equivalent.† He said it would be contributed to the deferred comp program for the first two years and for the third year the County will be picking up the current six percent contribution to the individual account program the employee currently pays into.
Cheryl Dyer, Union Representative, commented this is what bargaining will look like in the future, as it was a good experience.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-6-14-4.
Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Stewart congratulated Todd Winter as the new Cottage Grove City Councilor.
14. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
15. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:45 a.m.