BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
March 9, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioner 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
Morrison indicated under the Consent Calendar that 10. C. 1) was pulled, 11. c. is not an order and there is an Emergency Business item.† She noted under Commissioners Business they were adding a resolution, item 6. d.
Sorenson requested taking items to the Consent Calendar to speed up the meeting.† He wanted 11. a. and 11. b. to be put onto the Consent Calendar so they could discuss goal setting.
Morrison recalled it was brought to everyoneís attention six years ago that anything to do with classification and/or salaries was to be brought to this board to be discussed, no matter what.
Green didnít want this to be a new practice.† He didnít think these items would take up much time.
Dwyer said they decided not to put this on the Consent Calendar because the public was not privy to the information they have.† He thought these items needed discussion.
There was consensus not to put the items onto the Consent Calendar.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Gordon Howard, Pleasant Hill, stated he is a property owner on River Avenue.† He noted on February 9, 2005 the City of Eugene management represented a case for the River Avenue Road project number 3693.† He indicated property owners like him were not made aware of the meeting until after the fact.† He recalled that 32 of 33 private property owners on River Avenue oppose the project and signed remonstrance forms.†† He noted on August 4, 2004, after hearing public testimony, the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously 4-0 to deny the cityís request for authority to form an LID for River Avenue.† On September 13, 2004 the Eugene City Council took similar action and opposed the staff recommendation of an island annexation on River Avenue to force the project forward. He said the city manager withheld the fact that the Eugene City Council had already voted 8-0 against the River Avenue project from the Board of Commissioners at the February 9, 2005 meeting.† He asked the Board of Commissioners to revoke the board order authorizing the formation of the LID that was signed on February 9, 2005 and send to the City of Eugene a clear message that in order to be good working partners that Lane County needs to be able to trust the city manager to provide full and accurate information and not enter into deceptions as was done at the February 9, 2005 presentation.† †
Morrison asked if the contract was not awarded because the city council voted against the project.
Howard noted that this was before the city council on September 13, 2004 and they voted unanimously to oppose the staff recommendation for an island annexation, closing the project until it was revised.† He thought this was a deliberate act on the part of staff to make the County the bad guys. He said they went back through the Public Works director in the spirit of cooperation because the County needs to work with the city.† He added it was brought back to the Board without knowledge that the city council had already turned down this project and each of the city councilors gave comment about creating ill will and trust.† He said the message from the city council to the staff was very clear.† He indicated that he received no notice that the Board of Commissioners was going to hear this matter again.
Green indicated this project had been in TransPlan for 20 years and if the policy is not to be consistent with their agreement, they should state that up front.† He noted the issue was not so much assessment, as it was about the design.† †
Howard noted there are 10 County property owners on River Avenue.† He said that all 10 people signed remonstrance forms and are in opposition to the project.† †
Stewart stated he voted in favor of the project with the understanding that it would go back in front of the city council and the design could be reassessed and possibly changed to meet the needs of the citizens.
Morrison requested that this item be brought back to the Board with an explanation from the City of Eugene.
Stewart also requested that this come back for the opportunity for the residents to make a motion for reconsideration.
MOTION:† to move to have a motion for reconsideration.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Green thought the motion was inappropriate.† He commented they had flip-flopped twice and this would make it the third time.† He didnít think this was an appropriate action by the Board, as it was an effort to derail the project.
Dwyer thought in light of the city council action, Lane County was following their direction.
Stewart said it was represented by the City of Eugene that the council was in favor of the project.† He added if they are not going to listen to the citizenís input on the design, he had concerns.
VOTE: 3-2 (Sorenson, Green dissenting).
Morrison wanted the city staff to explain their bringing this to the Board of Commissioners when they donít have the authority from their city council to do that.† She added she wanted to know about the design work that would be done, if there would be any type of reconsideration or if they are going to build what they proposed.
John Brown, Eugene, said in past actions, he has taken it upon himself to step forward when the rivers have been polluted by misuse of the riparian areas.† He noted there is more debris in the river now than there was in December and January.† His intent is not to cause any property owner any expense.† He said he would come with money and resources to clean it up.† He commented it was safe to clean the places up.† He asked the Board to continue with staff to get it resolved.† He said if they canít get it resolved because of the financial burden to the property owner, he would get the money if the Board could waive the dump fees.
Dwyer said until they have the resources to do it, he would be willing to waive the dump fees to get rid of the garbage.† He said they need a long-term solution.
Stewart indicated that he, Green and Jane Burgess, Land Management, and the landowner had met at the site.† He said they were able to get the Sheriff to make available marine patrol in the area.† He said the landowner had hired a private firm for patrolling.† He asked Waste Management if there was a possibility of getting work crews out there.† He said he also asked the McKenzie River Watershed Council if there was a possibility of working together in getting a grant for clean up in the riparian zone.† He indicated the Watershed Council turned him down on the offer.† He thought they needed to get this cleaned up.† †
Brown said he would raise money to work on this but he asked for help for a long-term solution.
Morrison said they have to make sure that it stays cleaned up.† †
Tyson Keever, Eugene, said he works for Sequential Biofuels.† He requested the Board approve the concept of authorizing $50,000 from the County to clean up the project located at 86714 McVay Highway. He noted this alternative would allow Sequential to occupy the property as soon as agreements are finalized in the event the EPA grant is not allowed.† He noted this approval is a back up plan for the EPA grant and there is a chance the cleanup would not need any of the Countyís money.† He added with the Countyís approval of a $50,000 contribution, the project would be pushed out a few months.† He said they were ready to go pending this approval that would lead to finalizing clean up and leasing agreements.† He noted this property had been off the tax rolls for Lane County for over 10 years and they would be creating an additional eight new jobs by the end of the year.† He added it would be Oregonís first biofuel station.
Art Pope, Executive Director Northwest Youth Corp, Eugene, expressed his appreciation for the Boardís RAC Title III funding approved last year in the amount of $56,000.† He reported with the money from last year they served 158 kids in the program and completed projects in the Lane County area.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
a. ORDER 05-3-9-22/In the Matter of Authorizing the Removal of an Affordable Housing Deed Restriction from Property Conveyed to St. Vincent De Paul by the County Identified as Map No. 18-02-02-21-04500 (816 S. 72nd Street, Springfield)
Jeff Turk, Management Services, reported that he received a call last Friday that Nanette Garrett had purchased a home from St. Vincent De Paul on property the County had donated to St. Vincent De Paul in 1997 to be used for affordable housing.† He said Ms. Garrett had a situation where she was getting married and was going to move into another home.† She was going to sell the property and when she went to close on Friday, they had overlooked the deed restriction that the County had put in when it transferred the property to St. Vincent De Paul that said it was to use the property for affordable housing purposes for a minimum of ten years.† He added that St. Vincent De Paul had similar restrictions when they deeded a house.† He said she wanted to sell the property and needed the County to remove the restriction of use.† She worked with St. Vincent De Paul to try to find another qualified buyer with respect to affordable housing. He recommended that if the County is going to remove the restriction, that they pro rate the value of the property over the ten-year restriction. He noted at the time the property was donated to St. Vincent De Paul, it had an assessed value of $25,000.
Dwyer said she sold the property and in escrow† St. Vincent De Paul told her they didnít want it back.† She sold the house on that basis. He said this issue is time sensitive.† He said she had improved the house. †
MOTION:† to move to allow Garrett to remove the CCR based on making the County whole with the $5,000 that is pro rated for ORDER 05-3-9-22.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Stewart supported this.† He said Garrett tried hard to find another low income owner with St. Vincent De Paul. He thought this was a good solution.
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE †
a. ORDER 05-3-9-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming the Week of March 6, 2005 as Problem Gambling Awareness Week in Lane County.† †
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-3-9-1.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. REPORT/Extension Service Quarterly Report.
Charlotte Riersgard, OSU Extension Service, gave a report on the status of events taking place.†(Copy in file.)
Sorenson asked about the status of the Extension Service budget.
Van Vactor said the Board had prioritized programs and he wasnít sure about the Extension Serviceís budget.
Riersgard said the Extension Service sent in their budget.
Sorenson asked if Riersgard could e-mail the budget update to the Board.
b. ORDER 05-3-9-2/In the Matter of Ordering the Acceptance of the Recommendations of the Benton, Lane, Lincoln, Linn Regional Investment Board Regarding Funding Projects for the FY 2003-2005 Biennium.
Milo Mecham, LCOG, reported that this is a part of the process the Board of Commissioners created when they joined with the three other counties in creating the Regional Investment Board.† He said under the standards that were adopted for this biennium, the RIB money will be invested in private businesses to help them get started or to expand their product lines.† He added that over the biennium, the BL3 money had gone to numerous projects under the standards the BL3 established and the Board approved.† He added that the money is leveraged at a rate of $5 of outside money for every $1 dollar of regional investment money and that one job is created for every $3,000 of RIB board money that is invested.
Mecham noted the projects before the Board for approval met almost all of the standards except for the support from Molecular Probes that didnít meet the leverage requirement.
Dwyer asked what the Oregon benchmark was for hourly wages.
Mecham indicated that it varies by County.
Dwyer asked why they should approve this.
Morrison noted the projects were not all in Lane County.† She said when they reviewed it again with the RIB, some of the projects are different than Lane Countyís.† She said the projects are lower than what a lot of the jobs are already paying, but they want the jobs.
Dwyer commented that when they are utilizing public monies to foster their goals, they would be going against the principle. †He asked if they were really spending their money wisely to help people.
Morrison recalled the Board did approve the criteria that were set up.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-3-9-2.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Dwyer requested that as part of the criteria to weigh things to see if they meet the Oregon benchmarks
Mecham said he would bring this to the BL3 board and if the legislature refunds the Regional Investment Program next year, there would be another opportunity to have new criteria created and he will urge them to include consideration of this in that activity.
c. ORDER 05-3-9-3/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan Advisory Committee.
Stewart explained they held eight interviews for the Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan Advisory Committee.† He noted they had three applicants for position one, a resident of a mobile home in an unincorporated area.† Their recommendation to the Board was to approve Allan Kolb for the position.† He noted for position number two, (a homeowner in the unincorporated area) they had five applicants and their recommendation was Joan Armstead.† He added that they had to set term limits.† He noted that Springfield awarded three-year terms.
Dwyer recommended coinciding with what Springfield does.
Wilson recommended that they stagger the terms.† †
Morrison indicated Kolb would have a two-year term and Armstead a three-year term from today.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-3-9-3.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
d. ORDER 05-3-9-23 Prevention of Teen Suicide.
Morrison noted the Board received an e-mail about a fundraising activity taking place tomorrow evening at Thurston High School to raise funds for a group of students to go to Scotland to perform the play ďSleepwalk.Ē† She said she and Dwyer met in agenda setting and decided to come to the Board with a resolution that could be read tomorrow evening.
Morrison read the resolution into the record.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-3-9-23.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Legislative Committee Report. †
Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, reported there were two items that were sent from the Legislative Committee of Lane County.† With regard to the Secure Rural Schools legislation, he said there is information in the Board packet about a proposal for Lane County to take some of the lapse in the CAO budget and apply it to an outreach fund that could be used by the lobbyists in Washington, D.C.† He indicated that it would be to pay for travel expenses and communications with county and school officials from other parts of the country who receive money under this act but receive far less than the northwest and their ability to travel to Washington, D.C. to advocate for re-authorization with their delegation is limited.† He noted as they go through the re-authorization, that Oregonís role is to be low profile, high intensity and to provide support. He added the other 40 states receiving money from this act receive far less than Oregon.
Morrison thought it would help their delegation to send people from other areas.† †
Van Vactor said this would be brought back on the Consent Calendar.
Morrison distributed a draft letter.† She noted that tomorrow in Washington, D.C. the Budget Committee would be meeting to discuss Senate Bill 267 regarding a budget†† She said it is a draft letter to the people who serve on the committee as to Lane Countyís support.
MOTION:† to move to send a letter.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Bieda indicated there was a hearing in the Oregon legislation about dealing with statewide freight routes and a bill by Morrisette to exclude a section of Highway 126 east of Springfield to McKenzie Bridge from freight route designation.† He noted there was testimony from the Truckers Association that they would not object to excluding that section of Highway 126 from the freight route because their preferred route is Highway 58.† He added a second bill that was proposed by the Oregon Truckers would automatically make any state highway currently on the federal highway system become a designated freight route unless Provision 3 of that statute was requested by a local governmental entity.† He said Senator Prosanski had given direction to committee staff to merge the two bills, eliminate the conflicts, and take care of the exception for the one stretch of Highway 126 to see if they would have a bill that could combine the two to move out of committee.
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
9. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/Compliance Program-Expired Permits.
Jeff Towery, Land Management, recalled last year they started a pilot project using an extra help employee to pursue expired building permits.† He said in June of last year, the Board authorized an additional Land Management technician in the compliance program to continue the work they had been piloting with the extra help position.† He said they continued the extra help position until August, when they went through the recruiting process and filled a vacant Land Management tech position in September.† He added they have been continuing to pursue expired permits as a part of their work.† He said they provide several opportunities for notice of expired permits with each building permit packet, a notice on the permit itself with a special handout that goes into the permit packet for the applicant and each month they generate letters to permit holders.† He said they generate about 70 of those notices a month.† He noted that starting in February (because they took over the electrical program) they are generating more letters for electrical permits.
Towery explained that a strict application of the building code would result in a new permit being issued at full cost for any expired permits that are more than one year old.† He said they had been allowing the customer to reinstate permits for 50% of the cost.† He added they also provide credit for the work that had been done on the expired permits.† He noted there are two types of permits they deal with: history and expired permits.† He said any permits issued before 1998 are called history permits and they donít have the same level of detail in their permit tracking system. They only have general references.† He added everything post 1998 is called current permits.† He said they donít seek out the history permits.† He said since January they had reinstated 330 expired permits, with the average cost to the applicant being $330.† He noted they have over 6,000 expired permits in the system and 2,500 of them had been issued since 1998.† He said they donít pursue reinstatement for mechanical, wood stove, agricultural buildings or temporary hardship mobile homes.† He added they also donít pursue reinstatement if the only thing that is holding up the final for a building permit is a final electrical inspection because they took over the electrical program and donít have any access to those records.
Towery indicated that of the 330 permits reinstated, they only got to the second formal step of their compliance process.† He added there are areas where there are challenges related to history permits.† He identified options for consideration.
Green supported board direction to clean up the permits.† He said the past system wasnít good.† He asked how they could correct the problem if they donít have the paper work.
Towery indicated for current permits they have all of the inspection records related to a particular permit entered into their system.† He added on anything that is less than two years old, they still have the packet information and anything older they have the digital record of the inspection.† He noted that particular issue is identified under Option D.† He said an option they suggest is that if there is a final inspection missing and they could be signed off in a single inspection trip, and then a charge would be a $54 re-inspection fee.† He added if some corrective work needs to occur, then they would be dealing with reinstatement of the permit and that could be a way they could deal with people missing only the final inspection.
Stewart was in favor of Option D, with the $54.00 fee for the inspection.
Dwyer recommended charging a recording fee for final inspections.† He said when someone does a title search, they know the inspection was recorded.
Morrison noted people get final inspections, occupy the residences and until the property is sold, it is not on the tax records. She commented it is a loss of revenue to Lane County for not having it put on the tax roll as quickly as possible.† She commented that the citizens who had done the work themselves tended not to get final inspection.† She noted some of those permits had restrictions with sunset clauses and they werenít tracking them† She wanted fairness issues.
Wilson commented the potential issues she saw with recording was whether the final inspection had adequate identifiers on it that would meet the legal description requirements for recording in Deeds and Records.† She asked who would pay the recorded fee.
Dwyer thought the person taking out the permit should pay for the recording.
Morrison asked if the permits before 1998 should be treated differently than the current permits or to give direction that everyone is treated equally.
Towery responded it would depend on the options the Board would want him to pursue.† With regard to limiting the fee for the final inspections, it could be perceived as an equity issue for some people.† With regard to equity issues, he would be less concerned about that type of an approach instead of an arbitrary standard.† He thought some of the options they laid out were reasonable course corrections.† He thought the equity issue would become stickier if they would deal with a permit based on how much paper work they want to send to the board or an arbitrary standard.† He requested a consistent standard to apply.† †
Green wanted to make sure they document enough on the Countyís end so they could prove their case.† He wanted to make sure there is a paper trail.
Dwyer wanted research done on the recording fees.† He also wanted the $54 fee upon passing, not upon any subsequent problem they locate, and if they have to have additional work done, there would be a process for that.
Green supported Option D for the final permit with the $54 fee.† He wanted the director to be as consistent as possible.
Towery said they donít find that missing a final only is the trigger for their current permits.† He commented that complaints they have received asked why the owners werenít told sooner. He reiterated the Board was fine with them implementing the final inspection for a re-inspection fee only, so long as it passes and if it doesnít pass, they are back with reinstating the permit or new permit issue.† He added the Board wants him to explore the concept of recording final inspections and then report back.† He said he would continue to run the program as it had been.
Green wanted to see how Land Management could be competitive with the City of Eugene, as they had increased their land use fees.
Dwyer said they need to modify their transition agreement to allow them to assume that building within the urban growth boundary and outside of the cities will go to the County instead of the city.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
May 5, 2004, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
June 16, 2004, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA
November 22, 2004, Public Hearing, 6:30 p.m.
February 1, 2005, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
February 2, 2005, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
February 2, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
February 9, 2005, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
February 15, 2005, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
B. Children and Families
1) ORDER AND RESOLUTION 05-3-9-4/In the Matter of Appointing Amy Isler Gibson to the Lane County Commission on Children and Families.
2) ORDER 05-3-9-5/In the Matter of Applying to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women for a Twenty-Four Month Grant For Up to $350,000 to Fund Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange of Children Exposed to Domestic Violence.
C. County Counsel
1) ORDER 05-3-9-6/In the Matter of Approving Participation at the Court of Appeals in Seeking Judicial Review of the LUBA Decision in Emmons, et al v. Lane County (LUBA No. 2004-111).
D. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 05-3-9-7/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign Contract and Contract Amendments with St. Vincent De Paul of Lane County for $144,150 to Provide Energy Assistance Eligibility Screening Services to Low Income Households in Lane County.
E. Management Services
1) ORDER 05-3-9-8/In the Matter of Adopting the Revised Lane County Diversity Action Plan.
F. Public Safety
1) ORDER 05-3-9-9/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Intergovernmental Agreement Between Eugene Water and Electric Board and Lane County to Establish a Public Microwave Radio Network.
G. Public Works
1) ORDER 05-3-9-10/In the Matter of Releasing, Dedicating and Accepting† Parcel "A", Second Addition to Raleighwood Park, Book 33, Page 2, a Parcel of County Owned Real Estate, As a County Road. (17-03-22-12) (Raleighwood Avenue) (Co.Rd.No. 1667).
2) ORDER 05-3-9-11/In the Matter of Establishing a Public Road Within Richardson Park Campground (Phase 2), a Leased Corps of Engineers Park, as a County Road, Being Located in Section 5, Township 17 South, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian.
3) ORDER 05-3-9-12/In the Matter of Establishing a Public Road Within Perkins Peninsula Park, a Leased Corps of Engineers Park, as a County Road, Being Located in Sections 27, 28, 33 and 34, Township 17 South, Range 5 West of the Willamette Meridian.
4) ORDER 05-3-9-13/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 1196 (Brown Road) (19-01-06).
5) ORDER 05-3-9-14/In the Matter of Designating $225,000 for Construction of Road Fund Eligible Improvements to Assist the Turtle Creek Affordable Housing Project in Eugene.
6) ORDER 05-3-9-15/In the Matter of Imposing a Temporary Weight Restriction on the Shoreview Drive Wayside (Dorena) Covered Bridge at M.P.†0.06.
MOTION:† to move to approve the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
11. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-3-9-16/In the Matter of Creating a Classification and Salary Range for Program Services Coordinator 2.
Cindy Tofflemoyer, said this is a request to create a new classification for a Program Services Coordinator 2. She said this builds a career ladder in the AFSCME classification of program services coordinator.† She added it gives them flexibility in staffing for the departments and their ability to assign programs into one of the classifications. †
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-3-9-16.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
b. ORDER 05-3-9-17/In the Matter of Adjusting the Salary Ranges and Adopting the Compensation Package for Mental Health Medical Officer, Psychiatrist, Community Health Center Medical Officer, Public Health Officer, and Physician Classifications.
Jan Wilbur, Management Services, said they need to look at the budgetary realities and become as competitive as they can in the marketplace.† She said they are being challenged to look at ways to broaden the compensation with career incentive and career enhancements.†† She added they also need to add bilingual pay.† She said they have a request for the classification and compensation to be reviewed. She added they have five physician classifications and the two most recently presented were in October 2003 for the FQHC.† She said they met with the physicians and they understood that they are not looking for compensation equal to what they made in the private sector.
MOTION:† to move to approve ORDER 05-3-9-17.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
c. ORDER 05-3-9-18/In the Matter of Providing Direction to Staff for Agreements with the Department of Environmental Quality and Sequential Biofuels Concerning the Environmental Cleanup, Lease and Sale of Tax Foreclosed Property Located at 86714 McVay Highway, Eugene
Jeff Turk, Management Services, recalled in November 2004, the Board approved applying for an EPA clean up grant for the subject property.† He added the County received it in September 2004 through tax foreclosure.† He noted it was a former gas station located on McVay Highway.† He said when they came to the Board to ask for permission to apply for the grant, the County and the DEQ had been approached by Sequential Biofuels, which markets and distributes biodiesel, and is interested in the property for its operation.† He said they came with a proposal to contribute $50,000 to the clean up of the property, going toward the Countyís matching grant.† He said the Board agreed to the concept.† He noted at the time they applied for the grant, an agreement would be worked out between the DEQ , Sequential Biofuels and the County to clean up the property and have Sequential Biofuels on the property to do their operations.† He indicated the EPA grant will not be known if it is awarded until May.† The County will know at that time if it will have the funds.† He said Sequential wants to get on the property as soon as possible.† He said the DEQ didnít want to sign any agreements that would absolve Sequential until they know they could clean up the property.† He said they needed $50,000 and he didnít have money for the commitment. He stated the money would be appropriate use monies from the tax foreclosure funds. He added at this time his budget didnít have the excess funds to go ahead with the project.† He stated the DEQ said they would be willing to work with the County if they do it over a couple of budget cycles because the clean up would take a couple of years to complete.
Mike Wolf, Sequential Biofuels, discussed a backup plan that would allow them to get on the property sooner under a leased purchase agreement.† He didnít anticipate that any County money would be needed into the project until after they know the results of the EPA approval.† He indicated there wouldnít be a need for reimbursement.
Turk asked if the County was willing to commit $50,000 at this point in time.† He said it would only be used if the EPA grant does not get awarded.† He added if the EPA grant is not awarded in May, the money would be combined with DEQ money and the money Sequential is putting up to proceed with the clean up of the property.† He said he doesnít have the money in his budget, but could commit funds in the future.
Stewart was in support of the project.† He thought it was important to get the site cleaned up.
Sorenson thought this was a good opportunity for the community to put a stamp on the issue of using biofuels.
Turk said he got consensus to go ahead with the project if the EPA agreement does not materialize.
12. COUNTY COUNSEL
a. ORDER 05-3-9-19/In the Matter of Scheduling a Hearing on the Appeal of the Sheriff's Recommendation on the Liquor License Application of Steve Nelson (Kona Cafe). †
Wilson explained that the Sheriff recommended denial of an OLCC permit and Steve Nelson appealed.† She indicated that Jeff Towery, Land Management, will be the hearing officer to conduct the appeal under the existing manual.† She added the next agenda item changes the process.
Sorenson suggested that the Board hold the hearing.
Wilson said they could amend the order.† She said the Board needs to set the time and date of the hearing.† She said they have to give 10 days notice for the hearing.
Sorenson thought if there was going to be an appeal of the Sheriffís decision that it should be heard by the Board of Commissioners.
Wilson reiterated that there had only been one previous appeal in the past five years.† She said at that time, the Board designated Jeff Towery to hear the previous appeal.
Dwyer didnít mind designating Towery as the hearingís official.† He wanted Towery to make a recommendation to the Board.† He didnít want to change the manual.
Morrison said they would allow Towery to hear the appeal and make a† recommendation to this Board.† She said they will either accept or reject the action.
Wilson indicated the decision of the County is only a recommendation to the OLCC.† She added the OLCC has absolute decision-making.
MOTION:† to move to approve† ORDER 05-3-9-19.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Sorenson said he wanted to change the order where it says ďIt is hereby ordered that a hearing on the appeal is set for 2:00 p.m. on March 21,† it is further ordered that Jeff Towery shall hear and recommend to the Board of Commissioners.† He said the Board of Commissioners has authority to act on behalf of Lane County.Ē
b. ORDER 05-3-9-20/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 16 of Lane Manual to Revise Procedures for Application of County Recommendation to OLCC for Liquor License (LM 16.100-16.130). †
Green suggested rolling this item until after the hearing and there is a recommendation.† He also wanted this to go to Policies and Procedures.
Sorenson noted there is a $25 fee and it barely covers the cost when there is no significant record of revenue.† He said if the applicantís record is extensive where there is an appeal, then the fees donít cover the cost.† He asked if they were to make† change in the Lane Manual, if they could raise the fee.
Green said it was limited by statute.
Sorenson was concerned because this would cost Lane County more than $25 to process.† He wanted to roll this matter for discussion following their decision.† He wanted to send this to Policies and Procedures to change the manual to get more money for hearing the appeals.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.