BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
April 5, 2006
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, 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
Item 11. a. is a discussion item order.† Morrison requested that item 6. a. be moved to the Consent Calendar.† She distributed a draft letter to be considered under Commissioner Business regarding the Port of Siuslaw, item 6. b.
Vorhes requested a discussion under Commissioners Business on the settlement of an enforcement action on Torkel Rose.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. ORDER 06-4-5-1/In the Matter of Adopting the FY 2005-2006 Supplemental Budget 2 Making, Reducing, and Transferring Appropriations.
Christine Moody, Budget Analyst, explained that this is the statutory obligation to have a public hearing.† She indicated the Supplemental Budget 2 does not have any funds changing over the ten percent requirement.† She noted it is the Countyís policy to always have a public hearing when they adopt a supplemental budget.† She indicated there were changes to actuals.
Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-4-5-1.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Margaret Trimble, Florence, discussed the Collard Lake Road system.† She said they read through the report.† She said they need to resolve the matter because it has been an ongoing problem.† She noted in February 1976, at a commissioners meeting, the Board of Commissioners agreed to accept Collard Lake Road into the County road system.† They thought this was a binding agreement but it was never acted upon.† She hoped they could come to a solution.† She commented that the roads are in deplorable condition and something needs to be done. She asked how they could get this problem resolved.† She said the staff report recommended the Board consider accepting it into the County road system.† She concurred with the recommendation at the end of her letter.
Walter Prichard, Corvallis, stated he represented the Mid Valley Bicycle Club.† He said they want to have a tandem rally going from Corvallis to Alpine.† He said they would be riding on three miles of Lane County roads.† He asked if he had to get a special activities permit to ride on the road and follow the rules of the road.† He asked if a $350 permit fee was reasonable to use three miles of Lane County roads for two hours.†† He thought there would be about 200 bicycles.† He said the bicycles have paid fees to their club to participate.† He added they would have side wagons that would go along with the bicyclists to take care of emergencies.†† He said they also put signs on the road.
Dwyer asked what the criteria was.
Stewart recalled they discussed the permit processing to justify the charge.† He said he wouldnít mind re-evaluating the permits.
Ollie Snowden, Public Works, indicated the permit is issued by their permit section in order to ensure the ride is done in such a way as to protect the general public, not just the bicycle riders.† He said they are working under the Attorney Generalís opinion that said certain things are not eligible for road fund expenses and this is one of them.† He said the issuance of a permit for this does not benefit the roads system.† He said if they were going to look to waive the fee, there would need to be some money from the general fund that would reimburse the engineering staff.
Dwyer thought Prichard should talk to Parks to inquire about the tourism grant.
Morrison explained if this was an ongoing event, then he could apply for video lottery funds in January next year.† She wanted to revisit the permits to see what kind of tracking was taking place to look at the costs incurred.
David Woods, Eugene, spoke about shutting off the electricity on Saturday at the Wayne Morse Free Speech area.† He said the Wayne Morse Youth Program has been coming down since 1993.† He said their job is to support youth to be politically charged.† He commented the work that the Wayne Morse Youth Program does with youth is important to encourage civic work amongst themselves and peers.† He asked the Board to be more open to the communityís needs on this level.† He asked for the Board to help pay for the electricity.† He added they were told they were not able to have the electricity on Saturday.† He thought they were grandfathered in.
Green asked how they were grandfathered in.
Woods said they have been using the free speech area since 1993.
Green asked by what means and processes he was entitled to this.
Woods responded the time they had used it.
Green asked if there was any action by the Board to say they were grandfathered in.
Woods thought that because they had always used it that they were entitled to still use it.
Iana Mathews Harris, Eugene, stated she is a co-manager for the Wayne Morse Youth Program.† She was confused because they set up amplification and bring all of their equipment and it is their time and energy.† She said they still have to pay for the electricity.† She thought it should be free because they are doing service for youth.† She commented that the youth in this town do not have many positive places to go.† She commented that it was easier for a 15 year old to get a cigarette than it is to speak their piece on a microphone.† She said there are drug problems and things happen when they are not there.† She said when they are there people have a focus. She asked why they couldnít have electricity after 14 years.† She wanted their free speech rights.
David Woods, Jr., Eugene, said he is a co-manager for Wayne Morse Youth Program.† He thought the Board was trying to take away their freedom of speech.† He commented that it would be more annoying if they spoke through a bullhorn.† He didnít know why they took away the electricity.
Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, commented that the sale of the Westmoreland property is to buy more land to go under the basketball arena.† He added the University of Oregon is now holding 85 houses.† He wondered when the University was planning on selling those houses.† He said they were assets of the community.† He noted there were nine trees on Franklin that were to be cut.† He commented that the City of Eugene had been negligent on public hearings and input.
George Victor Stathakis, Eugene, stated he is the co-founder and chair of the Wayne Morse Youth Program.† He said in 1993 they began free speech at the terrace.† He thought Wayne Morse would have been proud to see how these people handle themselves at the free speech terrace.† He said they havenít asked for anything from the County. He noted they had paid hundreds of dollars in electricity and they would be willing to do it again.† He commented that there is no free speech if you canít hear it and they had tried it without microphones and other ways over the past 14 years.
Leah Holland, Eugene, stated she is a weekly participant in the Wayne Morse Free Speech event.† She said she is a junior at South Eugene High School.† She stated there are few outlets for children to speak.† She thought the future was weak for children.
Debbie Jeffries, Eugene, asked that the order for the PROS include the Comprehensive Plan.† She acknowledged in a meeting that city staff were chastised for not allowing Lane County to participate in the plan.† She asked that language be included that would identify that.
Roxie Cuellar, Springfield, said the Homebuilders have been in litigation with the County, the City of Eugene, Springfield and MWMC.† She said they took the case to the Court of Appeals and lost.† She said the result of what the County won is that if there is an SDC component to the project list, it is no longer a land use decision.† She stated that Debbie Jeffries and others in the County are affected by a project list that Eugene is proposing.† She said it is the only project list that they would do.† She indicated that people who might want to appeal a project couldnít do so to LUBA.
Dwyer wanted to bring in Kent Howe, Land Management, and make a park not an outright allowed use.† He said they would still have to come to the County if it relates to land not in their jurisdiction.
Morrison suggested looking at all the agreements and how they interact and relate to each other.† She thought the ramifications of decisions made in the 80ís are appearing and people didnít realize how it would play out.† She said these things should be revisited.
Dwyer wanted to revisit the transition agreement with River Road.
Van Vactor explained that the Board had a list of 14 issues that was conveyed to the other two partners regarding the Metro Plan.
Dwyer wanted to revisit all 190 agreements between Lane County and their incorporated partners.
Dwyer wanted a work session on the agreements.
Green commented that the cities are the logical providers of urban services. He said that they have established good relationships.
Dwyer wanted a list of the agreements and what they affect.
Judy Fleagle, Florence, recalled attending meetings on Collard Lake Road as early as 1983.† She said in 1998, the Board of Commissioners voted to accept responsibility for Collard Lake Road, for resurfacing and upgrading and maintaining it into the future.† She stated it was not to be a one-time fix.† She said the road wasnít enhanced to County standards.† She said since December 1998, Collard Lake Road had been a County road responsibility.† She added the usage had increased over the years and the maintenance on Collard Lake Road had been minimal.† She said that Collard Lake Road needs ongoing maintenance as was voted in at the December 9, 1998 meeting.† She hopes the County recognizes its responsibility for Collard Lake Road and upgrades the maintenance.
Julia Holzman, Eugene, stated she didnít know about the Wayne Morse Free Speech Project until two weeks ago.† She thanked Wayne Morse and her father in getting people to speak out.
Green indicated there were different levels of understanding of what transpired that created the urban transition.† He asked staff to provide the Board with the documents on the urban transition agreement--what it does and its intent--and have each commissioner review it and make a note on what they want to discuss.
Morrison said she had looked through the transition agreement.† Her concern is changes after agreements are made.† She thought there was some overlap on the 190 Agreements and they conflict with each other.† She wanted to revisit them.
Sorenson suggested having presentations from each partner in an information setting with the three jurisdictions and staff people at one time.† He thought it was a good way to minimize staff time and maximize the learning for the elected officials and community at large.
Morrison thought there were legal issues.† She said they get conflicting interpretations from Eugene, Springfield and Lane County.† She wanted to know their legal parameters.† She didnít want to be accused of something that was not fact.
Van Vactor commented that there is no agreement at the SEL level regarding maintaining the transition agreement.† He didnít think there was consensus from the other bodies to have this level of discussion.† He suggested having the Board send a letter to the mayors, as he didnít think it would happen at a staff level.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, indicated there are lists of intergovernmental agreements that could be road projects, or Sheriffís IGAís.† He said the list could be long.† He said if they want to focus on the Boardís interest in a letter to the city, that would be a good starting point.
Dwyer wanted to know the changes if they unilaterally amended a 190 Agreement.† He wanted to know if it was a Metro Plan Amendment or a land use decision.
4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
5. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE†
Sorenson stated he attended an open house at the School Based Health Center at South Eugene High School.† He said they were celebrating 20 years of children and families at the School Based Health Center.† He said the cost of the program is about $1.5 million.† He said the bulk of the money comes from the City of Eugene and federal funds.† He asked what role the County could provide into school-based clinics.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 06-4-5-2/In the Matter of Recognizing Wilbur Ternyik for Outstanding Leadership.† (Consent Calendar)
b. ORDER 06-4-5-3/In the Matter of Providing Continuing Comment on the Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space (ďPROSĒ) Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed PROS Project and Priority Plan.
Morrison recalled in June of last year, she brought to the Boardís attention that the city had embarked on a process and Lane County had not been included in the conversation.† She asked the city to give a presentation.† She said that some of the proposed parks were outside of the urban growth boundary and in Lane Countyís jurisdiction.† She asked how these parcels could be on a list of potential purchases without having a conversation about it.† She said the city gave a presentation and pulled the list.† So they were moving ahead with a park plan without having a specific list of projects.† She noted in December there were issues that arose again and prompted them to send a letter to the City of Eugene wherein they raised questions about what was moving forward and the legal issues and participation of property owners within Lane County boundaries and outside of the city limits and outside of the urban growth boundary.† She said Lane County is not being included and needed to be more aggressive than in the past.† That was what the Board order was for.† She noted in public comment today there was an additional issue regarding the Comprehensive Plan.† She wanted to add that language in the order.
Vorhes said to the extent they want to include mention of the Comprehensive Plan more than it is, they could put down that action is premature without that kind of consultation.† He said the city had adopted the PROS Plan and there are recitals that recognize the Boardís position on that plan and that the city council without regard to the concerns in Lane County went ahead and adopted it.† He said if they want to go ahead and include the Comprehensive Plan with the resolve and order paragraph, they could add it to the second line.† He said they could add the Comprehensive Plan and project and Priority Plan.
Dwyer requested that Kent Howe, Land Management, should give a discussion about amending the code and permitted uses and what they could do to maintain control of the land outside the urban growth boundary.
Green thought in the third whereas, the city was calling it a comp plan and not a refinement to the Metro Plan.† He asked why it wasnít a refinement to the Metro Plan.
Vorhes responded that the cityís PROS Comprehensive Plan was appealed to LUBA.† He said in the resolution they did adopt the finding of goal compliance.† He said they could show why it is in compliance.† He said in response to the Board of Commissionerís letter, they decided not to adopt it as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
Dwyer asked if the Court of appeals case with metro wastewater decision where projects were not included as a land use decision had anything to do with them calling these things projects and not land use decisions.
Vorhes thought it did.† He said they might find a different result in this case because the wastewater matter was a planning action that addressed projects being in context of the Metro Plan but was conducted by the governing bodies and adopted giving the factual separation between those actions.† He said that might not be as beneficial to them.† He indicated the issue had been out there for a number of years and counsel for the various governing bodies are utilizing that precedent to give their bodies advice.† He said ultimately the decision is being reached by the governing bodies that decide how they want to shape and take action.† He said in this case they might find the cityís action on the PROS Comprehensive Plan or the combination of that and the priority and priority list plan does cross the line with whether it is a land use action by the city in taking those actions.† He said they wouldnít know that until the appeals run their course.
Dwyer indicated that the problem is they have no authorization or jurisdiction to figure out what it would cost to develop the property as if they had jurisdiction.† And then they levy those costs against all the people within the city who are going to build for something they donít have jurisdiction over.
Vorhes commented that it might be in the context of the adopting of the project and priority plan or the SDC methodology.† He added those issues might come to the front and create difficulty but it could be possible to plan for things recognizing they would have to go through land use processes to get approval for those projects.
Morrison didnít support the wastewater project.† She thought there were issues that were still a problem with the urban transition agreement and how they were being interpreted.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-4-5-3 with the change of adding the Comprehensive Plan.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Sorenson asked if the vote of the Eugene City Council was unanimous or a split vote.
Vorhes indicated he would go back and look at the minutes.† He said he could put in the second recital that the Eugene City Council took action and put the vote in.
Sorenson commented that people in Eugene voted overwhelming for a bond measure that provides funding for parks recreation and open space and it was supported by the council.† He thought a wide spectrum of people supported the measure and what the city government did was enact what the people wanted.
Green stated when the people voted, he didnít think it was their intent to include County property.
Dwyer commented that if they wanted to use the park bond money that was fine.† He said this is a way to charge citizens who want to build a house for an added cost for something the bond measure was supposed to have covered.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
c. Report back from Policies and Procedures
Green indicated that the Policies and Procedures Committee met yesterday.† He said they discussed the Wayne Morse Plaza and the problems associated with it.† He said they didnít have a discussion about taking the rights of people expressing themselves on the plaza.† He said they focused on the electrical permit the County had been providing. He noted there are a host of problems associated with the downtown area on the weekends.† He said there wasnít any enforcement around the noise.† He said the City of Eugene is responsible for monitoring the noise.† He noted they made the decision not to do that.† He said staff has received numerous complaints from the Eugene Hilton and other surrounding businesses on the noise problems.† He added they were presented with a file of pictures and photographs that had been taken on the plaza.† He stated the conditions were deplorable.† He said there were drug dealing problems, urination, defecation and other problems.† He said their concern is they have no way to enforce it or monitor the level of the activity and the noise on the weekend.† He said it was not directed toward youth.† He noted it was all of the problems.† He said they are recommending no waiver of the permit for the electrical use and no electrical use on the weekend.† He said they could regulate electrical use during regular business hours.
Green stated it was not directed toward the Wayne Morse Youth Program.† He said it is a host of problems associated with Saturday Market and the whole area.† He stated that the City of Eugene had not been cooperative in maintaining a partnership. He indicated that Saturday Market had tried to do what they could and they are looking for direction from the Board in monitoring and in helping the situation.† He added there has been damage to the outside of Harris Hall and the windows have been etched.† He thought it would be best not to provide electricity to anyone.† He said their job is not to provide electricity as much as access to the plaza.
Morrison said they had spent considerable revenue to enhance the front of the courthouse.† She was concerned about maintaining it as long as they could.† She recalled that last summer she was getting phone calls from people with families who were coming down to the Saturday and Farmers Market concerned about activity and questioned whether or not to bring their young children. She noted on a couple of occasions she sat inside to observe what was taking place.† She had conversations with city people.† She said they were not disallowing people a place to speak.† She added if they want amplification, they could rent it. She questioned the illegal activity taking place.
Green recalled that the third recommendation is that Management Services manage the free speech area.† He indicated that David Suchart, Management Services, was given instruction by the County Administrator that the important piece is communication, so they know what to expect and when to expect it.† He said they raised the issue about the noise.† He said the city is the body that should enforce the noise ordinance.† He said the Sheriff responded that they tried to do that on several occasion and it became an almost riot situation by the police presence.† He said the city had turned a deaf ear.
Dwyer requested that the Wayne Morse Youth Group be provided with the pictures, the list of complaints.† They can come back next week in public comment for their evaluation.† He stated it is a public place that has not been treated with dignity.† He said it was disgraceful what they were doing to public resources.
Morrison recalled that last week under Correspondence to the Board the letter was directed to Policies and Procedures.† She said they met yesterday afternoon.† She thought it was more important to have an oral report than try to put something together.† She said there was more that was discussed around other facilities with the Rogers and Carmichael rooms.† She noted there were also problems with people using the Public Service Building.† She said they directed staff to draft some changes to the Lane Manual.† That will be coming back to the Board.
d. Request Letter from Port of Siuslaw
Morrison indicated she received a request from the Port of Siuslaw regarding support on funding they are requesting around the dredging of the Siuslaw River and the river jetty system.† She put a draft letter in the commissionersí mailboxes.† She added the letter would go to Senators Smith and Wyden and Congressman DeFazio.
MOTION: to approve to send the letter.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Stewart suggested making a change to the letter to make it friendlier.
e. Torkel Rose
Marc Kardell, Assistant Legal Counsel, indicated they received an offer from staff of $25,000 to be paid by September 1, 2006.† He said there would be three payments.† He said they were asking the Board to support this.† He noted they are set for trial on April 20 if they donít settle.
Stewart asked how fast the clean up would be.
Kardell said they didnít have the final agreement yet.† He thought it would be on or before September 1.† He said if the Board agrees on this for basic terms, he would put it on the Consent Calendar for next week.
MOTION: to direct staff to prepare a final offer accepting $25,000 with six months to clean it up.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor announced that diversity training would be taking place tomorrow at EWEB.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1231/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning That Land From "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" To "ML/SR" ("Marginal Land with Site Review"), and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 04-6092, Dahlen) (Second Reading and Public Hearing: April 19, 2006, 1:30 p.m.).
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. PA 1231 on August 19, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
b. DISCUSSION/Request to Add Collard Lake Road into the Lane County Road System and Make Repairs to Several Other Roads Adjacent to Collard Lake Road and Take These Roads into the Lane County Road System.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, stated the request was to revisit the roads in the Collard Lake area.† He said they broke the request in three parts:† should they take action to repair some of the side roads that were not repaired in 1998, if the Board had an interest in taking those roads into the system and the paving on Collard Lake Road that was paved at County expense, a one-time expense in 1999.† He noted the board order from 1998 was attached.† He said the action of the Board at that time was to not take Collard Lake Road as a County road, but to spend up to $150,000 as a one-time pavement repair and to provide limited maintenance on a continuing basis while leaving it as a local access road.
Dwyer asked if there were any restrictions on the deeds of these people.
Stinchfield indicated they reviewed the subdivision history and it is 40 years old.† He noted in a couple of cases, the subdivision plats did have language to the effect that the homeowners association would maintain the roads and they would be County roads.† He added there was discussion in the 60ís and 70ís on the fact that they would not be County roads.† He noted that decision was revisited in the late 70ís and early 80ís.† He added there was confusion on whether the side roads were actually County roads.† That led to the discussion about bringing the road into the system.† He said the result was that the roads were not established as County roads.† He indicated in 1983 and 1998 the Board decided to spend County road funds on these as local access roads.
Green asked how they should handle this.
Stinchfield said they looked at the policies in Lane Manual regarding maintenance and acceptance of roads.† He said with the side roads, they were recommending against taking them into the system because Lane Manual language says the subdivision roads primarily providing access to property should be maintained by the homeowners.† He said that logic applies to one-time improvements and taking them into the system.† He noted the issue that arose this time was different, in that if they look at Collard Lake Road, would it be considered a collector road for the neighborhood.† Lane Manual policy said the County may accept collector roads into the County roads system.† He said they need to determine if it is a collector or not, and whether it provides the overall function for the neighborhood and sufficient justification to either minimally maintain it or to take it into the system.† He added those recommendations were consistent with the policies in the manual.
Dwyer wanted to know how they were developed and the expectations at the time people bought them.
Morrison noted on page 3, under analysis, that in the 60ís and 70ís, the subdividers were successful in reducing the standards with an elimination of paving requirements. She noted they paved the main Collard Lake Road in 1983 and 1999.† She added the ancillary roads were paved.† She thought they were paved in the early 70ís.† She noted on page 2, it showed that in 1983 when they expended $35,000 on Collard Lake Road, that it was looked at that time in making a local service district but it didnít meet certain statutory requirements and was rejected.† She asked why it didnít meet the statutory requirements.
Stinchfield said County Counselís office had issues about the structure of the district and it was recommended against moving forward.
Morrison thought they could help them form a local improvement district and bring the roads up to the degree they should be.† She thought those costs should be assessed back to the property owners so they would be brought up to an acceptable level.† They would be assessed in their property taxes.
Van Vactor thought a local improvement district would be a good option. He recalled there was a problem with the right of way in 1998.† He added there was a right to protect a LID.
Sorenson asked what needed to happen to form a LID so the property owners take care of the expense themselves.
Stinchfield said they could initiate it by petition of the owners if they submitted materials, representing 60% of the owners represented.† He added they could bring the petitions to the County and ask for their assistance to get the road down.† He added the other way is for the County to initiate it.
Sorenson suggested that Public Works have a meeting with the local improvement district option to see if there is interest.
Stewart wanted to look at local improvement districts to learn what standards are required on the roads to help address some of the issues.† He wanted to set some policies. He noted that Collard Lake Road is a collector road and has a high amount of use.† He supported moving forward with the recommendation of number three and working with the neighbors to form an LID to help with improvements.
Chickering commented that design standards for County roads are now defined in the new County Transportation System Plan.† He said when they adopted the document it included new design standards significantly reduced from the prior standards.† He added they have standards with the aggregate base and providing for drainage and vegetation.
Morrison said the $150,000 was just for Collard Lake Road itself from Mercer to the end.† She added the other side roads had very poor conditions.
MOTION: to approve staffís recommendations on issue 3.
Morrison indicated that it clears up the language that was in the board order from 1998 regarding the maintenance issue.
Dwyer was against the motion.
VOTE; 2-3 (Green, Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting). MOTION FAILED.
Stinchfield reported that the repairs in 1999 provided a good pavement condition that is on Collard Lake now. He said it wasnít wide enough to meet the collector standards.††† He said if there is no support to bring it into the system, the other issue was clarifying what the Board did in 1998 about what level of maintenance they would provide as an LAR.
Chickeringís distinction between maintenance on a County road and Collard Lake Road was the frequency.† His interpretation of the board order is that they are to protect the 1999 investment in repairing and improving the roads. He added there was a difference between maintaining a County and local road and limiting the maintenance on Collard Lake is the frequency of service and response time of authorities.
Snowden explained if the Board wanted to continue some type of maintenance on Collard Lake Road, their request is to come back to the Board to propose what that means.
Dwyer wanted the definition of limited maintenance.
Snowden indicated their recommendation is either no maintenance or take it into the County system.
With regard to Issue 2 and the local improvement district, Morrison wanted the Board to go forward and have those reviewed with the property owners and have a meeting set up out there.
Dwyer was in agreement.
Morrison wanted to include Collard Lake Road people as well.† She said there was confusion on what limited maintenance means.
Green wanted to see the copy of the subdivision plot from the developer.† He said there was an expectation that this was done 30 years ago and he wanted to know if the expectation is still there today of where development occurred.
Dwyer said they were going to include the people from Collard Lake when they discuss the local improvement district and the definition of limited maintenance.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
January 25, 2006, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 15, 2006, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 15, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
March 22, 2006, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 22, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. County Administration
1) ORDER 06-4-5-4/In the Matter of Appointing and Reappointing Justices Pro Tempore for the Oakridge Justice Court through January 9, 2007.
C. County Counsel
1) ORDER 06-4-5-5/In the Matter of Entering into an Agreement for Payment of Liens on Property Located at Map and Tax Lot No. 18-03-24-00200, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Agreement.
D. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 06-4-5-6/In the Matter of Ratifying the Signature of the County Administrator on a Grant Application to the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration for $100,000 for the Drug Free Communities Support Program.
2) ORDER 06-4-5-7/In the Matter of Approving the Submission an Homeless Treatment Grant Application for FY 2006-2007 Through 20010-2011 in the Amount of $2,000,000 to the Federal Department of Health & Human Services.
E. Public Safety
1) ORDER 06-4-5-8/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Radio Site Lease Agreement Between Douglas County and Lane County.
F. Public Works
1) ORDER 06-4-5-9/In the Matter of Designating $150,000 for Construction of Road Fund Eligible Improvements to Assist the Fern Glen Affordable Housing Project in Veneta.
2) ORDER 06-4-5-10/In the Matter of Appointing John Anderson to the Roads Advisory Committee.
G. Workforce Partnership
1) ORDER 06-4-5-11/In the Matter of Appointing Lane County Business Representatives to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.
2) ORDER 06-4-5-12/In the Matter of Re-Designating the Lane County Board of† Commissioners as the Chief Elected Official for Purpose of Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
3) ORDER 06-4-5-13/In the Matter of Re-Certifying the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors as the Local Workforce Investment Board Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
10. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 06-4-5-14/In the Matter of Appointing a Member to Fill One Vacancy on the Mental Health Advisory Committee/Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee.†
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-4-5-14.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
11. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 06-4-5-15/In the Matter of Providing Direction to Staff for the Disposition of County Owned Real Property Identified as Map No. 17-04-36-41-12500 (Adjacent to 1393 Polk Street, Eugene).
Jeff Turk, Management Services, explained the County purchased property between 13th and 14th on Polk Street, in 1977.† He said the file indicated it was bought for fair purposes.† He said there is still the issue of how the County wants to deal with the property.† He indicated the fairgrounds have been managing the property since it was purchased in 1977.† He added the Fair Board recently took action to declare the property as surplus and it was no longer needed for fair purposes. He said the property is owned by the County and it would take an action by the Commissioners to dispose of it.† He said staff was looking for direction.
Sorenson asked if he recommended selling it.
Turk indicated that the Fair Board does not need the property.† He said it was too small for a neighborhood park. He indicated this was surplus property and there was an offer by the church across the street for the property.† He said since the property was not obtained through tax foreclosure, it could be sold through a private sale without first being offered in an auction.† He stated the church made an offer of $43,000.
Warren Wong, Fairgrounds, indicated additional research needs to go back to figure out where the money came from.† He said there was a move by former Fair Boards and directors to buy property there and this was a piece that was acquired.† He indicated he had not known about this piece of property until last fall when the church approached them about selling the property.† He said they spend $200 a year to mow it and keep it clean.
Turk noted there is a deed that says it was purchased for $19,000 by Lane County, a political subdivision.
Sorenson asked if this was discussed at the Fair Board.
Wong indicated the Fair Board at its February meeting adopted a motion indicating it had no future interest in that piece of property.
MOTION: to move that they sell the property.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Sorenson suggested talking to non-profits they work with in the housing arena.†† He said if they are not interested, or it isnít significant, then sell the property.
Morrison wanted to sell the property and go through the process that would address some of the concerns Sorenson raised.† She wanted to dispose of it.
Stewart wanted to maximize the money they could get and give it to the fairgrounds.
Green supported it.† He said if the Housing Policy Board was interested, they would have taken it.
Turk indicated the Housing Policy Board wasnít aware this property was available.† He noted the Board could direct him to first go through the Housing Policy Board and they could offer it to a non-profit at market value.
Dwyer opposed the motion to sell.† He wanted to know what money was used to buy the property, how it was acquired and if they used money from the Fairgrounds.† He said if it was bought with Lane County money and they want to give it to the fairgrounds, it is a separate item.
Van Vactor added they would find out if the City of Eugene has interest and whether the non-profits would be interested in purchasing it at market value.
Morrison withdrew her motion.
Turk said he would find out where the funds came from to purchase the property.† If the city had interest in acquiring the property he will run it by the Housing Policy Board to see if they are interested in purchasing the property at market value.
Stewart indicated the property was assessed for $43,000.† He asked if it was a legal building lot and if thatís what lots are going for in the City of Eugene.
Turk said he would get Public Works to do an assessment.
12. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Green reported he went to Houston, Texas to visit his family and they are doing well.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
16. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 12:15 p.m.