May 18, 2005

9:00 a.m.

Commissioner’s Conference Room

APPROVED 10/12/05


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.




There is no Emergency Business.  She asked to move item  5. a. as the first item.




Barbara McClain, Mapleton, reported that many people were not notified until years after the state implemented dock registration and the County started requiring land use fees.  She noted there are still some owners who have never received mailed information regarding the dock registration process.  She added that various real estate agents are also unaware of the dock regulations.  She wanted a fair and equitable settlement of the matter.


Diane Saubert, Mapleton, commented that compliance is a nightmare.  She said that each agency thinks their version of the code is the best version.  She stated because the County dock regulations for compliance are beyond most people’s financial means, they will be required to remove the docks.  She asked the Board to grandfather-in existing docks  and set up a new protocol for new ones.


Jim Bozarth, Mapleton,  gave fee and permit cost comparisons of boat docks.


Guy Hanson, Mapleton, said he addressed the Board a couple of weeks ago and gave totals of fees that other coastal counties paid to get their docks.  He said after talking to different county planners, there were changes.  He noted that Coos County was $225 instead of $200, including a zoning compliance order of a one time fee of $100, good for five years and then reduced to $25.  He said that Douglas County went from $200 to $275 that included a technical review.  He noted the Department of State Lands charges $125.


Morrison indicated that two weeks ago they gave staff direction to have a work session with the Board regarding the dock fees.  She said there will be an in-depth report regarding other areas in the state and what their fees and charges are in comparison to Lane County.  She commented that staff would be thorough with that type of information.


Sue Bozarth, Mapleton, stated she represented the Mapleton Dock Committee.  She said that the Mapleton Dock Committee requested a place at the table at the June 1 work session.  She said they want to be part of a fair dock solution.


Morrison commented that it was a public meeting and they could listen to the information that staff will be presenting and it will be online. She said the Board will be asking questions of staff. She added there will be public comment and they would be allowed three minutes to testify.


Dwyer said they needed to adopt rules with that work session where they will accept questions from the dock committee so there could be a real dialogue.  He thought it would serve the public better.


Sorenson suggested that the committee send one or two people to be present at the table when they have had a discussion.


Stewart thought it was appropriate to have interaction with the people who are effected.


Morrison stated that the agenda team would take that matter up.


Jim Gillette, Eugene, didn’t think the Board heard the truth from staff about his fines.   He said he didn’t have money to appeal his fines.  He hoped the Board would review this.  He commented that the only thing he had ever done was to help homeless people and to provide for recreation.  He wanted to meet with the Board to discuss the matter.  He indicated that everything he has stated has been true.  He added if he is caught in a lie that he would walk away and give up.


Bob Doppelt, Eugene, stated he represented Mayor Kitty Piercy’s sustainable development initiative.  He said he worked at the University and was asked to coordinate Mayor Piercy’s initiative.  He said the proposal from the County would be complimentary to the city’s efforts and would not be duplicatory.  He noted that Mayor Piercy would nominate a task force aimed at promoting sustainable business and job development opportunities in Eugene and trying to grow sustainability clusters.  He said they are going to identify ways to help any existing businesses in Eugene adopt sustainability measures and ways to finance those measures and to promote the City of Eugene as the center of excellence in the field.  He commented that having the County be a partner in the effort would be helpful.  He thought adding criteria to economic development RFP’s would be helpful in focusing on those issues. 












a. RESOLUTION 05-5-18-1/In the Matter of Recognizing Latricia Hampton for Outstanding Achievement.


MOTION:  to approve Resolution 05-5-18-1.




VOTE: 5-0.


b. PRESENTATION/Business Retention and Expansion International's Award of Excellence for Outstanding Business Retention and Expansion Program in Recognition of Lane County Government's Support of Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce CONTACT Program.


Dwyer said the Chamber brought the award and gave it to the Economic Development Standing Committee.  He said it is the County’s award for their effort.


c. DISCUSSION/In the Matter of Determining Lane County Policy on Sustainable Business Practices.


Wes Bigelow, Economic Development, explained that the City of Eugene has initiated a process to develop a sustainable long-term strategy.  He noted that two of the items had been approved by the Economic Development Standing Committee as a recommendation to adopt the evaluation criteria for sustainable development and to work with partners in supporting sustainable economic development.  He added there were three other options.  He noted the one on the task force is a long-standing item and it would be the most expensive option the County could undertake as it would involve more staff time.  He indicated the Lane Economic Development Staff recommends that the RFP language approved by the EDSC be approved and that the County explore some way of participating with the city with their process.


Dwyer reported that they had committee recommendations and had discussions about the sustainability.  He said as a committee they thought there were certain sustainable practices that they as a government need to encourage and wanted to include preference points for that category of sustainability.  He asked that they be allowed to put into Lane Manual the recognition that they would have that criteria.  He didn’t want appoint a task force to evaluate sustainable practices and opportunities.  He suggested Commissioner Stewart attend the Mayor’s committee on sustainability.


Peter Thurston, Economic Development Director, stated that he attended the Lane Economic Committee Meeting on Monday and they mixed two related discussions on Region 2050 and the involvement relative to the mayor’s letter and the formation of the sustainability task force. It was his impression out of that discussion that the Lane Economic Committee didn’t want to take  it on at this time.


Dwyer requested that the Board adopt the concept that they will work with all of their partners for sustainable economic development with the Lane Metro Partnership.  He said that way they incorporate the  sustainable business practices rating criteria as part of their economic development RFP and have the Save Committee review whether they want to take this on.  He didn’t want a task force.


MOTION:  to move that they incorporate a sustainable business practice criteria of ten points, ask the Save Committee if they would be willing to take on a new initiative for sustainable economic practices and efficiencies in government business practices and ask the Lane Economic Committee to evaluate the criteria they use to determine whether or not the ten points was valid in the scoring.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Sorenson commented that it is vital to the community that Lane County government be part of the sustainable business development movement. He thought this was moving in the right direction.


Stewart said that he would be involved if invited.  He didn’t think that Lane County was actually invited yet to participate.  He wanted to see the sustainable business practices added on as a bonus. He wanted to do that instead of creating other criteria because they were actually penalizing the other businesses where they don’t have the means to incorporate the business practices.


Green had concern about costs.  He wanted to make sure that they are not committing to any financial implications.  He was not in support of a task force.  He was also concerned about businesses not identified as a sustainable business operation and how to work with them to get there, versus penalizing them for not having it.


Stewart asked to make an amendment to the criteria to make the practice a bonus situation.


Dwyer agreed.  He thought if they had it as part of the criteria and it is part of the RFP when they put together the proposal, it could be emphasized. He thought it should be scored as part of it.


Thurston stated that whether it is called a bonus point, or if it is included in the criteria, the RFP must list it as a criteria, by which points may be given and awards may be made.  He suggested that the ED Standing Committee could refine it and bring it back.


Dwyer suggested putting into the criteria that “it may be scored.”


VOTE: 5-0.


d. ORDER 05-5-18-16/In the Matter of Appointing a Member to Fill a Vacancy on the Public Safety Coordinating Council.


Van Vactor explained that there is a vacancy from a citizen member’s resignation.  He said the sub-committee of the PSCC met and reviewed the applications and have recommended John Clague to fill the position.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-16.




Stewart said he didn’t have a problem with Clague being appointed.  He thought Robert Schroeder’s application was good.  He thought in the future they could add people that might have a different perspective.


VOTE: 5-0.




a. Legislative Committee.






a. Announcements




b. ORDER 05-5-18-2/In the Matter of Making an Employer Contribution Rate Election for the Public Employees Retirement System Rate for 2005 and Estimated for 2007.


Van Vactor indicated their recommendation was for Option 3, to go ahead and incur the full cost of the rate increases at the present time and save the money they have collected in the past in the PERS reserve and use that to offset the anticipated increases in 2007.


MOTION:  to move Option 3 of ORDER 05-5-18-2.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.




a. DISCUSSION/Report by Oregon Department of Transportation on I-5 and Franklin Proposed Interchange.


Tom Boyett, ODOT, explained that ODOT made the decision to proceed with the OTIA III replacement structure, independent of considering ramps at this location and the process of getting it to the environmental documentation for the permanent replacement structure over I-5.  He added that ODOT also committed $2.75 million to pay for environmental impact statement work on a ramp proposal.  He noted that Phase One was completed.  He said it was a stakeholder interview process to get a better understanding at a high level of what the issues are and what support for the project there might be.


Boyett indicated that for Phase Two, they are to have a high level community dialogue with enough environmental design to allow the Board and the two councils to make a decision about whether to go into a plan amendment to look at amending the Federal Regional Transportation Plan to include the project and to identify areas where there are policies that might be amended to support the project and to provide management for this type of investment.  He said for Phase Two and the decision process, it is set up with an initial group of meetings with the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County executive management planning departments at the planning level.


Boyett noted the public piece is based on stakeholder open houses.  He noted that the project management team meets monthly and guides the project.  He noted the group is made up of representatives from both cities and the County.  He said they would visit with the planning commissions and then have several meetings with city and county elected officials.  He noted there are five stakeholder open houses planned that are geographically relevant.  He said there would be one joint meeting with all of the planning commissions and two individual briefings with the elected bodies subsequent to this one.  He said if any of the cities or the County votes this down, then it would be unlikely that the region, as a metro area would move into a plan amendment process because plan amendments require the approval of all three metro partners.  He said the outcome is the decision to move into a plan amendment phase to do more design analysis and drafting policies for interchange projections and where the project is on the priority list.  He added they want to document everything they do.


Boyett indicated they want to try to build the Phase 3 work plan as part of Phase 2 so they could move into a subsequent contract.  He commented that it is unlikely that ramps themselves would physically connect to the bridge because of the vertical distance between Franklin and the bridge.  He thought that the ramps would be their own bridges.


Green had concerns about the financing option. He asked what the final money would be and the financing options about public private partnerships.


Boyett responded that the public private partnership matches elevates a project.  He said that there is legislation that allows ODOT to provide a new mechanism to put together partnership deals  He commented that if they put the right deal together, the money would show up.  He said it is an alternative to the public bidding process and creates freedom with the agency to work with the players who could bring that kind of money to the system.


Green asked how detrimental it would be to the planning process if they skipped the level cost estimate.


Boyett commented that the whole Phase 2 is based on high-level information to make the decision.  He said an estimate is better than no estimate at all.  He noted that there is a new statement in TransPlan that before a project came off the future list and put on the constrained list, it would be rescoped for construction costs so they knew what they were dealing with.  He said they could push to get as refined as possible as to what the cost estimate would be.


Stewart stated it was important that this be studied now.  He wanted to take it to a step where there is a potential design.


Boyett explained that the commitment from ODOT is to design a bridge that if physically possible, will accommodate some future ramp configuration.  He added a pledge had been made in writing by their region manager Jeff Sheik that if it is physically possible, that they would do it.



b. ORDER 05-5-18-3/In the Matter of Releasing a Lien on Real Property Located at 87576 Cedar Flat Road, Springfield, Oregon (Tax Lot Number 17-01-32-30 00600).


Jeff Towery, Land Management, recalled that they talked to the Board about the issue in Executive Session.  He noted the cover memo reflected the agreement that was reached between County Counsel and counsel representing the property owner.  He noted they were splitting the lien that was placed on the property. 


Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel, said they determined that Lane Code doesn’t provide direct authority for them to settle any of the cases in the same manner that County Counsel could settle other cases.  He said even though this is a small amount in terms of the settlement, because settlement authority is unclear, if the Board has direction for them to change the particular section of the manual, they could do that.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-3.


Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Sorenson asked what should be changed.


Kardell pointed out that they didn’t have authority for up to $50,000 as they do in other instances.  He didn’t know if that was considered when they adopted the manual provision. 


Wilson said the authority they don’t have has to do with the interest in real property.  She said if they want to go into a level of detail, it would be best through Policy and Procedures or Finance and Audit.  She added if they want to get more experience with the release of liens on a case-by-case basis, they could.


There was consensus to do it on a case-by-case basis.


c. ORDER 05-5-18-4/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Babb Construction Co., Inc. in the Amount of $7,236,209.39 for Grading, Drainage, Structures, Paving, Illumination and Signals for Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway (Beltline Road-Hayden Bridge Way), Contract No. 04/05-11.


Sonny Chickering, Public Works, reported the bids came in under the engineer’s estimate.  He noted because the total contract amount was more than the County’s contribution, they are relying on the City of Springfield to cover all costs above the $5.24 million that the County had dedicated to the project.  He wanted to have the city council specifically direct Lane County, and they had done so by resolution.  He said they do have the funds to pay for the project.  He said they requested that they go with the concrete pavement option.  He said they were recommending the Board authorize execution of the contract.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-4.


Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.




A. Approval of Minutes:

July 14, 2004, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

July 14, 2004, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

April 19, 2005, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, 5:30 p.m.

April 19, 2005, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, 7:00 p.m.


B. Management Services


1) ORDER 05-5-18-5/In the Matter of Authorizing a Sheriff’s Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property and Delegating Authority to the Property Management Officer to Remove Any Particular Property From Said Sale if Determined to be in the County’s Best Interest.


C. Public Works


1) ORDER 05-5-18-6/In the Matter of Filing a List of FY 05/06 Public Improvement Projects for Lane County with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).


2) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 05-5-18-7/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for the Vacation of a Portion of the Alley in Block 74 in the Plat of Gallagher’s Part of the City of Florence, as Platted and Recorded in Book 30, Pages 12 and 13, Lane County, Oregon Plat Records (18-12-26-42) (Public Hearing 6/29/05).


3) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 05-5-18-8/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for the Proposed Vacation of a Portion of the Unnamed Platted Streets and Alley, in the Plat of Lake View, as Platted and Recorded in Book 10, Page 6, Lane County, Oregon Plat Records  (16-07-19-11) (Public Hearing: 6/29/05).


4) ORDER05-5-18-9/In the Matter of Releasing, Dedicating and Accepting Parcels “A” And “B” of Silver Meadows Subdivision, Parcels of County Owned Real Estate, as Public Road Right of Way, and Expressly Accepting Parcel “A” as a Portion of County Road Number 1446 (Parcel “A” - Silver Meadows Dr.), (Parcel “B” - Banton Ave.) (17-04-12-2).


5) ORDER 05-5-18-10/In the Matter of Renaming Donna Lane, a Private Road, to Tovey Drive, Without a Public Hearing (16-02-34).


D. Commissioners' Business


1) ORDER 05-5-18-11/In the Matter of Making Certain Elections to Receive O&C and National Forest Land Related Payments Pursuant to "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000" - P.L. 106-393.


2) ORDER 05-5-18-12/In the Matter of Making Certain Elections to Receive National Forest Related Payments Pursuant to "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000" - P.L. 106-393.


Sorenson requested a separate discussion on item 9. B.1)


MOTION:  to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar.




VOTE: 5-0.


9. B. 1)


Sorenson asked why this wasn’t designated as park property.


Jeff Turk, Management Services, explained they started the process in September when direction was given to him and the Parks manager to develop a process.  He explained how the property management budget worked and how the monies are disbursed.  He noted the property management budget needs about $150,000 per year and the revenue is acquired through tax foreclosure sales.  He said the Board gave direction to do a measured approach to keep the property management program whole.  He said they went to the policy committee to formalize the policy in Lane Manual and it was forwarded to the full Board. He said they designated the other properties to park lands with the assumption that it was in excess of what his program would need and proceeded to go through and sell it as tax foreclosed property


Sorenson asked what he was doing with the Florence Dunes property.


Turk indicated he was helping the Parks manager when he needs assistance.


Morrison indicted that there was a lack of knowledge and awareness of the direction the Board gave.   She thought they should have a work session again around this specific issue so there is not a question as to what the direction was given to staff on how they were going to move forward and the policies they adopted and put into place.


Green suggested that the Board should review the cover memo and the minutes of the meeting instead of having another work session.


Stewart indicated they transferred the property from tax foreclosed to Parks for the potential of raising funds for the Parks Department.  He said they don’t have a buyer and they hadn’t authorized the sale of the piece of property.  He said they asked for an appraisal and ideas on what they could do with the property.  He commented that the property has not been sold and not been authorized for sale. He wanted to continue the way the Board had directed in the past, that Turk generates his revenue from the foreclosed property.  He wanted those questions answered at a later date before they move the property from the inventory.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-5.


Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.




a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ Ordinance No. 1-05/In the Matter of Creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as an Intergovernmental Entity, Declaring an Emergency and Providing an Immediate Effective Date (Second Reading 6/1/2005)


MOTION:  to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 1-05  for June 1, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.




VOTE: 5-0.


b. ORDER 05-5-18-13/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing Regarding the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission for June 1, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-13.




VOTE: 5-0.




a. ORDER 05-5-18-14/In the Matter of Creating the Classification and Salary Range for Fleet Services Manager.


Cindy Tofflemoyer, Management Services, reported that this is a request to create the classification of Fleet Services Manager for Public Works, as part of their succession planning opportunity. She said they have reviewed the operations and thought that creating a Fleet Services Manager position would best help them with that transition.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-4.


Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.




Morrison indicated they received a packet of information regarding follow-up from the public comment from last week.  She thought it was self-explanatory as to the steps the department met in responding to the concerns that were raised.




a. ORDER 05-5-18-15/In the Matter of Approving the Two-Year Compliance Plan for Title 1-B of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 05-5-18-15.


Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


VOTE 5-0.










15. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation and per ORS 192.660(2)(d) for the purpose of deliberating with labor negotiators.






There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 11:00 a.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary