BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
March 30, 2005
Commissioners' 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
2. PUBLIC HEARING
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 05-3-30-1/In the Matter of Adopting the FY2004-2005 Supplemental Budget 2 Making, Reducing and Transferring Appropriations.
Dave Garnick, Senior Budget Analyst, indicated that this makes adjustments for things that were unanticipated and carries out direction by the Board.
Commissioner Morrison opened the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak, she closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-3-30-1.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Lynn Bauers, Eugene, stated she had been involved with the herbicide mapping project.††† She said they are going to spray in April.† She added most of the spraying is upwind from the urban areas.† She was concerned about this as a health hazard.† She said she doesnít know how to proceed with this.† She thought the only practical solution would be to pray for a miracle.
Dwyer indicated the spraying comes under the domain of the Department of Forestry and the Oregon Forest Practices Act.† He said they need to express concerns to the legislators because it is enacted by the Department of Forestry.† He suggested that they deal with that directly.
Amy Pincus Merwin, Deadwood, distributed a chronology of spraying in Deadwood, Oregon.
Linda Robertson, Eugene, commented that spraying now would leave a greater fire danger in the summer.† She said they should suspend spraying during the drought year.† She asked the Board to pray with them on Friday.
Robin Winfree, Eugene, said a group has been formed called the Forest Dwellers, which is a no spray group.† She commented that private landowners have the right to log on their property, but when there is spraying it could be a matter of chemical trespass and could affect everyone.† She asked why everything is done in secret.† She requested a formal hearing for citizens of Lane County to testify about how they have been affected by chemical trespass.
Sorenson wanted to have a hearing to invite the public so information could be accumulated.† He said they had to start with local conversations and information.† He thought that a local community should ask for a period of time to try out an exemption from a pre-emption.
Lisa Arkin, Eugene, spoke on HB 3135 and SB 527 that deals with energy facility siting.† She said the two bills developed out of the Lane County Board of Commissioners in dealing with power plants that were proposed to be sited.† She said the bill addresses the issue of local rule and states that the energy facility siting council has to work with the local jurisdiction in a land use approval for energy facilities.† She added it directs the state agencies to reimburse local jurisdictions for any costs that they assume in the process of evaluating the land use application.† She asked that the Board consider endorsing the house bill.
Dave Van Sykle †Eugene, stated that River Avenue is a street repair.† He asked why the people were being asked to contribute to the assessment or street repair.† He indicated they paid for the street when it was first paved.† He commented that the city is pushing a project that no one wants.
Chuck Meeker, Eugene, stated he owns three pieces of property on River Avenue.† He commented that the city wants to spend $2,269,502 on a road that is less than one mile long.† He said they have a bicycle path that is going behind the wastewater treatment plant and he wanted to see a bike lane on the south side of River Avenue so they could separate the bicycles and motorists.† He said they donít need the road to be three lanes and thought it was a waste of money.† He noted this matter was brought before the Board where there was a vote 4-0 in their favor on this issue.† He added that they went in front of the city council on this issue and received an 8-0 vote.† They told staff it was over engineered and too extravagant.
Ken Gee, Creswell, recalled on November 2, the voters approved Measure 37.† He said on December 1 the Board adopted Ordinance 18-04.† He noted that Lane Code Section 2770(2) reflects the similar position to Multnomah Countyís ordinance.† He distributed copies of eight other countiesí interpretations regarding landsí future transferability, all of which meet the stateís interpretation via a non-conforming use.
Rob Handy, Eugene, reported that David Reed has been hired as transition manager by the City of Eugene as they are going through transitioning responsibilities from the county to the city.† He said the county retains a part of the community planning.† He suggested going back to the final report of the urban services committee.† He noted some issues were trust, voice, equity and collaboration.† He asked where those qualities were being addressed with the River Avenue issue.† He asked where the resident involvement was with the city and the county with problem solving on River Avenue.† He asked what the hurry was for this project if ODOT is doing a study of the interchange of River Avenue in 2008.† He suggested to wait for the results of the study and to put this into David Reedís transition team.
Paul Spain, Eugene, stated he has a commercial building at 409 River Avenue.† He said he was not opposed as a property owner to improving River Avenue.† He said it is needed.† He said the question is the extent of the project that had been proposed and the expense.† He thought it was unfortunate that at the time of the project there wasnít more input from the property owners or the community.† He said they were presented with a project and the expectation that there would be feedback.† He suggested that a bike lane not be on the road but be on the south side of the street.
Gordon Howard, Eugene, said that he is a property owner on River Avenue.† He reviewed the materials that were submitted to the Board by the City of Eugene.† He said the city management is in denial that they misrepresented the city councilís position on the River Avenue project when they appeared before the Board on February 9, 2005.† He commented that on September 13, 2004, the city council voted unanimously 8-0 in opposition of the staff proposal for island annexation on River Avenue.† He said the road improvement (as drawn) is not a good use of limited road improvement funds.† He said there are no demands for sidewalks, it is zoned for commercial and light industrial.† He indicated that city staff had previously discussed terminating the east end of River Avenue that could result in a road to nowhere in 2008.† He commented that it was irresponsible to spend over $2 million for a road that is not needed and not wanted by anyone but city staff.† He asked to revoke the Board order authorizing the formation of a LID that was granted to the City of Eugene on February 9, 2005.
Bill Bogart, Lebanon, discussed the Bittersweet Campground.† He said it is a campsite for motorcyclists.† He noted his organization has 102 participants.† He said they want to put money into the area.† He said they want to get funded so they could make it a bigger and better place for everyone to enjoy.
4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
5. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE †
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee Report. †
Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, reported that the Legislative Committee met on March 10 and in the packet there were a number of bills where they recommended positions.† With regard to HB 2202, he said the recommendation from the Legislative Committee was to bring it to the full Board for discussion and a decision.† He said the bill creates a way for the State Commission on Children and Families to work with state agencies and advisory committees to develop state policies regarding runaway and homeless youth and their families.† He noted the Lane County Commission on Children and Families is supportive of the legislation, but wants to weigh-in on behalf of the Board, not as an advisory committee.
Morrison discussed the current state budget situation (i.e., where the funding would come from) and the SB 555 planning process, which already have things in motion regarding runaway youth.† She didnít know what they were going to do over and above what they had already outlined.† She didnít see anything new.
Green commented that there is no money for this because it is not about money, but a policy and formalizing of what is already informal.† He said it is a way for the state commission to work with local agencies.
Stewart indicated he is on the Lane County Commission on Children and Families and they (the commission) have unanimous support for it.† He reiterated that it was a formalizing process of stating the problem and bringing it to the next level.
Dwyer was not sure this was needed.† He added he didnít see why they needed to formalize something when they created an entity to have a discussion.† †
MOTION: to support HB 2202.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Morrison said she would vote against it.† She said local people who are promoting this have been promoting the same thing since 1989.† She said until they really deal with the issue, they will never get anything done with the runaway homeless youth situation in Lane County, or the state.
Dwyer favored monitoring the bill, but didnít support Bieda spending time lobbying for this.
Bieda indicated he would track and make contact with the legislators to convey the Boardís position.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Morrison dissenting).
Stewart indicated the Roads Advisory Committee asked to put a hold on HB 2164.
Dwyer suggested: moving HB 2164 from support to monitor.
MOTION: to move to support the rest of the agenda.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
With regard to the proposed letter on HB 3301, Bieda said it is a bill (introduced by Representative Debi Farr and the Lane County delegation) that removed some of the barriers and technical and legal conflicts which will occur if they are successful in getting a public safety district on the ballot.† He noted it goes to hearing on Friday afternoon.† He thought there should be some support from the Board. †
Van Vactor indicated there is an argument that existing law prohibits overlapping county service districts.† He noted they already had a Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service district.† He explained the purpose of the legislation is to clarify that it is okay to have overlapping service districts as long as it provides different services.
MOTION: to approve sending the letter.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Bieda said the second letter pertains to HB 3135.
Dwyer indicated that on Friday there is a bill before the house requiring the applicant for an energy facility to receive a land use compliance determination from the local government.† He said the determination would be based on local jurisdictions gathering information on the applicable substantive criteria.† He added there is also a provision that states the council shall compensate a state agency for expenses related to review of the notice of intent or the application for the land use approval.† He said this letter would ask that the house approve this because it establishes criteria.† He thought it was a good bill.
MOTION:†to move that the Board send the letter.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Morrison noted this bill had not gone through the Legislative Committee and they have no analysis on it. †
Green stated he wouldnít support this until it goes through the process.
VOTE: 3-2 (Green, Morrison dissenting). †
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor indicated the Board received a memo from the Sheriffís Office regarding the local law enforcement grant.† He said the federal process now requires that the governing body be given copies of what the proposals are.† He said they are going to give a legal notice of it and the citizens could make public comment.† He added the Board is not the decision maker, but they would be receiving public comment.† He noted the agenda team set up a work session for next Tuesday to do a status report on the Public Safety District.
b. DISCUSSION/Approving a Letter of Support for Designation of a Junction City Enterprise Zone.
Peter Thurston, reported that two weeks ago they received a letter from Mike Layton, City of Junction City, requesting the Countyís support of an enterprise zone designation in conjunction with the City of Harrisburg and Linn County.† He said they are having public hearings.† He said that houses and jobs are being created. †
Layton explained their primary enterprise zone lies south of Junction City on the 99 corridor.† He said they are trying to develop it to be shovel ready.† He added there are a list of properties that will be submitted which indicates where those enterprise zones would lie.† They thought it was a good idea to form a partnership with Harrisburg.
Dwyer asked what the fiscal impact would be on Lane County.† He commented that when they give up their taxes they also give away Lane Countyís taxes.
Van Vactor responded that was correct under the new law.† He said they could direct where the payments in lieu of taxes would go.
Layton said they could do that.† He asked for a letter of endorsement or support from the Board.
Sorenson asked if there was flexibility (if they approved the letter) to negotiate the property tax in lieu of taxes.
Layton suggested putting that stipulation in the letter.
MOTION: to approve the letter with the stipulation of the language with payment in lieu of taxes and for this to go to Finance and Audit.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
9. PUBLIC WORKS
a. REPORT/River Avenue.
Kurt Corey, City of Eugene, explained that street improvement projects have been and will continue to be constructed from a combination of funding, including direct assessments.† He added that River Avenue was no exception† He recalled about five years ago the elected bodies determined that projects would come along that would involve a mix of incorporated and unincorporated properties.† He said the governing bodies got together to determine what would be a reasonable means to deal with those types of projects as they came along.† He added that five years ago after a collaborative process, the Board of Commissioners adopted an order that allowed for city assessment policies to be in effect for city local improvement districts involving county properties.† He said the county assessment policies would be applied to city properties for county projects.† †
Corey noted that the history of River Avenue had been identified in TransPlan for 20 years and was most recently adopted by all the governing bodies with the TransPlan update about four years ago.† He stated the River Avenue project is about three-quarters of a mile and would involve assessments to 50 properties, with ten of them outside the City of Eugene and subject to previous arrangement with the County for assessing those properties.† He indicated the total project cost is about $2.25 million, with $1 million of direct assessments to county properties of $193,000.
With regard to the Eugene City Councilís action on the project to date, Corey said they went to the council last summer after they had visited with the Board of Commissioners, and the Board subsequently elected not to allow city assessment policies for the county properties.† He said that left them in a dilemma because in order to move the project ahead, it came down to the Eugene City Council to offer three alternatives.† He noted one was to abandon the project and apply city resources to cover the assessment for county properties.† He stated they did not go back to the County Road Fund to pay for those assessments.† He added another option was an island annexation that would place all the properties under the jurisdiction of the City of Eugene and then not have the assessment policy issued.† He said staffís recommendation was to move ahead with the island annexation.† He noted the council debated that and voted 8-0 to not move ahead with the island annexation process.† He added they took no action on the alternatives placed on them to abandon the project and would only do that subsequent to a public hearing.
Corey explained the policy issue before the Board is the narrowly defined issue as to whether or not it authorizes the cityís assessment policy for unincorporated properties.† He asked if they determine they donít wish to proceed on that basis, then under what circumstances should the project move ahead.
Stewart asked if the scope of the project might change.
Corey said that regardless of the design, the assessed costs are limited by policy.
Dwyer commented that he wasnít in favor of the project because not all the information was in.† He noted that city standards are more stringent than county standards.† He said they have an agreement that before a city will accept the street from the county it has to be brought up to city standards.† He thought this was premature and didnít think enough people who were going to be impacted were involved.† He thought it was overbuilt and that they had to go back and meet with the neighbors to see what could be done.
Green stated he brought this back to the Board.† He said this issue was not as complex as characterized.† He said it depends on what issue they want to focus on.† He wanted to focus on what the policy is and what consistency they choose to apply.† He said Lane County is not the initiator of the project.† He said they donít have control of the design and are not in charge of annexations.† He added they are being asked to administer and allow the city to utilize their assessment policies.† He indicated what they heard from the people is that they are not against improvement, they had concerns about the design.† He thought that was more in the purview of the City of Eugene.† Lane Countyís issue is more about a local improvement district.† He wanted to focus on the LID as that is what they came to the Board for.† He said it wasnít about the assessments, but the design.† He added it was more appropriate for the Eugene City Council.
Stewart asked that this come back because he thought there was possible misrepresentation.† He agreed with Green that this is a policy issue and the public comment period was for design.† He wanted to make sure the process was still moving forward.† He said he would be present at the city council meeting on April 11 to testify in favor of the design and scope of the project.
Dwyer asked Corey if he gave the city council the option to abandon the project. †
Corey said he gave the city council that option in their agenda item summary.† †
Dwyer asked if it was part of the option that was related to the resolution.
Corey indicated it is what the council deliberates on before they make a decision.† †
Dwyer commented that he is consistently in support of what the people who live in the community and will be impacted want to happen.† He asked about the rush to do this.† He wasnít opposed to doing it, but he wanted to do it frugally, expediently and with input from the community.† He didnít want to do it when there are outstanding studies that might impact the final outcome and then have to do it over again.† He wanted to wait.
Green indicated that the Board had endorsed the guiding document for the project.† He said the dilemma is when they have a document that had been approved and when they go to do the project, they donít go ahead.† He said they either support the policy or they donít.
Morrison recalled the last action they took was to move this forward to the city council and have them work with the issue of the public hearing.
MOTION:† to withhold recommendation until they see the final design standards and what the city council comes up with.
Motion failed for no second.
MOTION:† to send a letter to the city council about their concerns on the scope and the size of the project.
Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
March 9, 2005, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA
March 9, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. County Administration
1) ORDER 05-3-30-2/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Interim Working Group to Assess and Recommend a Structure for a Permanent Inter-Jurisdictional Entity to Oversee the Analysis, Development, Operation, and Maintenance of Tourism Facilities and Infrastructure in Lane County.
C. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 05-3-30-3/In the Matter of A Refund to Farmers Union, Inc. in the Amount of $15,626.84.
2) ORDER 05-3-30-4/In the Matter of A Refund to Game Tech International, Inc. in the Amount of $15,645.11.
D. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 05-3-30-5/In the Matter of Approving Grant Application to the U.S. Department of Justice for a Drug Court Enhancement Grant in the Amount of $200,000 for the Period October 1, 2005 Through September 30, 2007.
2) ORDER 05-3-30-6/In the Matter of Participation in Funding Activities of the Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission.
E. Management Services
1) ORDER 05-3-30-7/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Michael L. and Colleen P. Ohran (Map† 18-12-02-30-01202, Adjacent to 88187 Highway 101, Florence).
F. Public Works
1) ORDER 05-3-30-8/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Morse Bros., Inc., in the Amount of $782,054.50 for A.C. Overlays - Leaburg Dam Road, London Road & South 6th Street, Contract No. 04/05-06.
2) ORDER 05-3-30-9/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Wildish Building Material, dba Wildish Sand & Gravel Co., in the Amount of $244,814 for Pre-coated Oil Rock Production Ė Various Stockpile Sites, Contract No. 04/05-08.
3) ORDER 05-3-30-10/In the Matter of Constructing Improvements to North Game Farm Road (County Road Number 1043) Between Mile Post 0.41 and Mile Post 1.69 and Setting Lien Values Against Adjacent Properties.
4) ORDER 05-3-30-11/In the Matter of Awarding Tourism Special Projects Grants for 2005, Releasing Funds From the Special Revenue and Services Fund, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign Contracts.
5) ORDER 05-3-30-12/In the Matter of the Alteration of a Portion of Delta Highway (County Road No. 1354) Located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian.
6) ORDER 05-3-30-13/In the Matter of Relinquishing County-Owned Road Fund Property to the City of Eugene Pursuant to ORS 271.330.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
11. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-3-30-14/In the Matter of Matter of Amending Chapter 60 of Lane Manual to Revise Certain Health and Human Services Fees (LM 60.840) Effective April 1, 2005.
Morrison indicated that this had gone before Finance and Audit and they reviewed the different fee changes that were recommended.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-3-30-14.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
b. ORDER 05-3-30-15/In the Matter of Establishing Three Full Time (3.0 FTE) Mental Health Associate Positions Effective May 1, 2005 and Appropriating an Additional $71,960 in Revenue and Expenditures for FY 2004-2005 in Fund 286 Department of Health and Human Services. †
Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, noted they are trying to get four Lane County residents down from the state hospital.† He said this group is more medically fragile than other groups.† He said they are combining physical health issues with mental health issues.† He added it is a special project with the state.
Dwyer asked what happens during the next budget cycle if they decide not to fund the grants.
Rockstroh indicated it is different with specialized residential.† He added when they allocate funding, the counties are held harmless.† He noted the amount is $30 million per year from a grant.† He said in the past they had no problem with honoring residential services.
Morrison asked what would happen if they didnít do this.
Rockstroh said the patients would stay in the state hospital.
Green supported this.† He thought the most compelling part was that these people had not done well in other places.† He thought the patients could be well served if they could get them back to Lane County.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 05-3-30-15.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
12. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
In re: Labor Negotiations, Per ORS 192.660 (2)(d) for the purpose of deliberations with labor negotiators.
15. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session at† 11:00 a.m.