BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
August 30, 2006
Commissionersí 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
Sorenson wanted to discuss the Pandemic Illness Meeting on September 21.† Stewart added an item under Commissionerís Business on the Wildish Measure 37 claim.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
David Calderwood, Eugene, discussed Lane Code 7.122.† He said he had no objection to the goals but had a concern on the way it was written.† He asked, if they had an outbreak of disease such as rabies and LCARA canít respond in a timely manner, how it would allow him to rid his rural property of infected feral cats. †
Wilson said she would ask Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel, to review it and come back.
Mike Bradbury, Springfield, reported on a situation regarding Atez, Inc.† He said Atez, Inc. is a contractor hired by the County to abate asbestos at the Lane County Jail.† He provided a summary of Atezís violations (copy of the file).† He said it showed cause for the County to investigate whether this contractor has a satisfactory record of integrity and responsibility when working with asbestos.† He noted on July 9, 2004 the DEQ fined Atez for allowing an uncertified worker to abate asbestos and failure to adequately wet asbestos.† He added on May 5, 1999, the DEQ fined Atez for dry removal of asbestos at the Corvallis Airport.† He indicated that OSHA has issued Atez 14 citations resulting in fines of $3,100.† He said according to ORS 279 (b)(1)(10) the contracting agency has the right to determine whether this contractor is responsible under the grounds of a satisfactory record of integrity and performance.† He asked the Board to take immediate action to launch an inquiry into the responsibility and integrity of Atez Environment, Inc.
Morrison asked about Bradburyís background.
Bradbury responded that he is a representative of the labor union and spent 15 years in the commercial construction industry.
Sorenson asked Bradbury what the Board should do.
Bradbury indicated that there were other firms that had a better record than Atez had. He thought it would be in the Countyís best interest to pursue other firms coming in and doing the work.
Sorenson asked if legal counsel could review this and report back to the Board.
Wilson said the Board would need a report from the people who are managing the construction as to what is going on onsite and their level of satisfaction.† She recommended doing that first in a report by E-mail and then if the Board wanted further legal work they could do it.
Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, said the governor wanted to expand biotech foods in Oregon. He asked if Oregon was going to be a place for genetically altered food businesses.† He didnít think it was a good idea.† He urged the Board to forward their comments to Salem on biotech foods.
Bob Still, Creswell, thought Lane Code and the state code should state what the law is so LCARA will know how to handle it.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
a. RESOLUTION 06-8-30-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming September 6, 2006 as Good Neighbor Day.
Green read the resolution into the record.
MOTION: to approve RESOLUTION 06-8-30-1.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. RECOGNITION/In the Matter of Recognizing Rick LaBlue, PW - Sign Shop, a S.A.V.E. Award of 20 Hours of TM. †
Stewart discussed the award given to Rick LaBlue.
b. REPORT/ CVALCO Semi-Annual Report.
Kari Westlund, CVALCO, reported there was a good return to the County economy from what Lane County invested in the marketing efforts this year. She stated the County invested $1.14 million in marketing in Lane County as a visitor destination and for the returns they were able to measure,† it will bring back $62 million.† She thought the website could add an additional $10 million. †
With regard to convention marketing, Westlund stated they exceeded the goal for the year with 203 issues against a goal of 197.† She added they saw a solid number of room nights and delegates booked.† She noted the biggest booking of the year was the track and field trials for 2008.† She said they still have 30 leads pending and the ability to see additional confirmations.† She said their confirmation rate is 70 percent and shows that they are achieving well and taking some amount of risk in terms of going after bookings.
Westlund said on the tourism marketing side they performed well.† She said they saw their ad responses up.† She said their overall contacts had gone up to 75,000 with growth in the number of visitors that the visitor van is interacting with.† She commented that they were stagnant with walk-in visitors to the downtown information center. †
With regard to the visitorsí guide, Westlund reported that there had been significant improvement.† She said they color coded the map and highlighted each community separately throughout the County.† She said they saw an overall increase in requests up 27.5 percent.
Westlund reported that it was a record year for new memberships and were ahead of their goal.† She indicated that they are now at 545 members.
Westlund discussed the upcoming Olympic Trials that will be held from June 27 to July 6, 2008.
c. Wildish Measure 37 Claim.
Stewart reported that there is a Measure 37 claim filed by the Wildish family.† He said there is interest in the County trying to purchase the property to add it to the Mt. Pisgah property.† He asked the Board to allow him to have conversations with the Wildish family to see if they could set a value on the piece of property.† He believed it was important to try to find out if Wildish was interested in selling and to find a way for the County to partner with other entities to purchase it and add it to their resource base.† He noted there was an effort going on to try to negotiate.
MOTION: to allow Stewart to be the Boardís representative in trying to bring the Wildish property into the public domain and to meet with the entities that might achieve that goal.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Sorenson thought it was a good idea.† He had an interest in making sure the Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah are advocating for the protection of the area and adding it to the County park system. He wanted Chris Orsinger included.
Morrisonís concern was as it moves forward that they wouldnít take the property under eminent domain.† She asked how it would work and who would end up owning the property.
Green agreed to let Stewart represent the Board.† His concern was as it goes forward that their intent is expressly stated as why they are authorizing Stewart to participate to get to a determined value of the property.† He didnít want this to get twisted since all the other interests would be at the table.† He didnít want it characterized as a sweetheart deal.† He wanted to try to preserve the property for future generations.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor reported that there will be a workshop for income tax preparers on September 6.
b. Pandemic Illness
Sorenson reported that Lane County Public Health is sponsoring a meeting on pandemic illness on September 21, 2006 at Lane Community College.† He said Dr. Susan Allen's morning session topic is on what elected officials need to know about pandemic illnesses.† He stated that it would be recommended for the Board to attend. †
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
July 10, 2006, Special Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
August 15, 2006, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
August 15, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 06-8-30-2/In the Matter of a Refund to Various Taxpayers in the Amount of $3,237.90.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 06-8-30-3/In the Matter of Establishing One Full-Time (1.0 FTE) Developmental Disabilities Specialist Position for Lane County Developmental Disabilities Services Effective September 1, 2006.
2) ORDER 06-8-30-4/In the Matter of Appointing Four New Members to the Lane County Health Advisory Committee.
D. Management Services
1) ORDER 06-8-30-5/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Rina Yuriko Francisco for $500 (Map #17-03-20-22-06500, Adjacent to 1910 Myers Rd., Eugene).
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 06-8-30-6/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to Be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 380 (Horn Lane) (20-03-15).
2) ORDER 06-8-30-7/In the Matter of Load Posting the Green Creek Road Bridge at MP 0.23 (a Local Access Road).
MOTION: approve the Consent Calendar.
Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2006 - REGULAR MEETING (Continued)
9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance 8-06/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 7 of Lane Code to Add a Provision Pertaining to Capturing and Killing of a Dog or Cat (LC 7.122) (Second Reading and Public Hearing September 13, 2006, 1:30 p.m.). †
Sorenson noted the written material states the hearing is at 9:00 a.m. and the agenda states it is at 1:30 p.m.† He asked which time was correct.
Wilson said it was up to the Board to choose.† She apologized that they didnít catch the inconsistency.
Morrison requested that the hearing be moved as she and Stewart will be out of town on September 13, 2006.
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance 8-06 for September 20, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in Harris Hall.
Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0. †
10. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/Consideration of Setting a Work Session to Discuss the Division Avenue Bridge.
Dwyer explained that Ollie Snowden, Public Works, came to him about a proposal from McKenzie Willamette Hospital.† He said they wanted to include the Division Avenue Bridge as part of their traffic study so they could mitigate on state transportation.† He said they want to know whether the Board would use that.† Dwyer stated he didnít want the hospital at the Delta Ridge site.
Snowden indicated they have two concurrent processes.† He noted one is the County process (where the Board directed them in May when they adopted the CIP) to look at ways to use the Countyís money for a Beltline related project that could make a significant improvement faster on the Beltline corridor than the† 2013 project.† He said County staff met with ODOT and Eugene staff and came up with three alternatives.† He indicated that ODOT is coming back with their preliminary analysis that said the Division Avenue Bridge is the only one of those three that looked like it could be done in a process that was separate from the Beltline Corridor project and could be built sooner than the ODOT Beltline corridor project.† He said they were going to come back in September and report on the findings.† He said in the meantime, Triad/McKenzie Willamette submitted applications for a zone change Comp Plan amendment and Metro Plan and Refinement Plan amendments to the City, and the City said they donít have enough information in the traffic impact analysis to determine whether Triad is consistent with the Transportation Planning rules.† He said McKenzie Willamette came to them interested in doing another traffic impact analysis.† He said they wanted to model the Division Avenue Bridge as part of the analysis.† He explained that in order to model in the traffic impact analysis, it either has to be in an adopted Comprehensive Plan in a funded manner or they would need a letter from the responsible agency saying it would be reasonably likely that the project would be built in the timeframe of their plan.† He said the Division Avenue Bridge is listed in the Regional Transportation Plan but is not on the constrained list.† He said when the Board adopted the County Transportation System Plan, it also included the Division Avenue Bridge.† †
Snowden explained in order for Triad to be able to look at the project in a traffic impact analysis, they either need an amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan that would go through the Metropolitan Planning Commission or a letter from the Board.† He asked if there was interest in the Board for setting a work session for September 20, as to whether the Board wanted to consider writing that letter.† He said staff is trying to look at ways to leverage County money.† He estimated several years ago the Division Avenue Bridge was about $8 million dollars. He commented that today, it is two to two and a half times that amount.† He said it is not a bridge that is likely to be built solely with County money over the next ten to fifteen years.† He said if McKenzie-Willamette finds that it does provide some immediate relief to the Beltline corridor and ODOT and Eugene accept that, it would open the door for further negotiations between the County, the city and McKenzie-Willamette on possible hospital participation in the construction costs.
Dwyer said they were using the bridge to pass muster.† He said the hospital needs the transportation plan in order to have the hospital built.† He stated the County was being used.
Snowden indicated when the staff reviewed this, they wanted to set up a County process that would be able to dovetail with the hospital process so long as the County was not subsidizing the hospital.† He said it was clear from the Board that they didnít want him to come back with a proposal that subsidized the hospital.† He said they were asking for a work session.
Dwyer wanted to have the transportation analysis based on reality.† He wanted to have a work session but said there would be no guarantees what would come out of it.
Snowden asked what issues the Board wanted more information on. when they come back with the work session.
Dwyer wanted to know how much McKenzie-Willamette was willing to put up.† He wanted to know their bottom line in making the transportation analysis a reality. †
Green agreed to a work session.† He didnít believe in Triadís numbers about the mitigation.† He thought their costs were too low to help mitigate it.† He asked if it wasnít for the hospital, what would Lane County be doing around the Division Avenue Bridge.† He said they have a problem with or without the hospital.† His concern is that whatever they try to do is independent of the hospital and not seen as some quick fix. †
Snowden said giving the increasing cost that ODOT had seen with recent bids for bridge projects, it was safe to say that the County wouldnít be doing anything on its own to build the Division Avenue Bridge in the near future.† He said it would have to be a partnership with somebody.† He noted they could take ODOT money from the WEP or look to the City of Eugene for SDC money to put into the project.† He said they would need more money than what the County has available to build the Division Avenue Bridge.
Green asked if they were the appropriate people to take the lead on this.
Snowden indicated that it is listed in the RTP and the County Transportation System Plan as a County project. †
Green was not interested in taking money from one failed project and placing it into another project.
Morrison said the Beltline Corridor had been on the United Front trip for eight years and they always ask for money.† She said they never get to the solution, but the problem continues to escalate the whole Beltline Delta interchange.† She thought the problem solving piece was the most paramount thing they had.† She wanted direction from ODOT on how they are going to move forward with this.† She wasnít interested in money from something else going to this.† She said that money needs to go back into the state pool into Region 2.† She said in looking at the corridor study, she didnít see how they could push it out that long with all the growth that is taking place.† She said if there is a way to partner to pay for some of this, they need to look at the public/private partnership.
Sorenson asked what the rationale was for having a work session besides the hospital wanting it.† He asked why they don't have a work session on how they are allocating the transportation dollars with the county and state.† He thought the County picked this project because the hospital was asking for it.
Snowden stated the hospital was asking for this and the Board already gave direction in May to look at ways to spend the County money that was taken from the Delta Beltline interchange and to find ways to use it effectively sooner than what ODOT could.†† He said they are now converging because Triad thinks there is potential for the Division Avenue Bridge, but they donít know until they can model it.† He said the model would have to show that it provides some relief.† He said it would be Triadís decision on what they want to do then and if they want to participate.
Dwyer didnít want Triad to use the model unless the money is there from them.† He commented that otherwise it was a shell game.
b. ORDER 06-8-30-8/In the Matter of Appointing Peter Graham, Jan Nelson and John Sundquist to the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee.
Orin Schumacher, Public Works, brought forth the recommendation on the three vacancies on the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee.† He was looking for Board direction on the future and current balance of the Vegetation Advisory Committee.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-8-30-8.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Stewart stated as liaison to the Vegetation Management Committee, they had been focused on† herbicides.† He commented the committee seems to be focused on the herbicide use.† He said there needs to be a way to get the community to focus on how they deal with vegetation people plant in rights-of-way or fences allowed to exist in the right-of-way.† He noted there were other issues that needed to be addressed but the focus continues to be on herbicides.† He was concerned that with the new people being placed on the committee, the balance would be lost.† He said the intent was to keep the committee balanced.† He said when the next vacancies come due that they need to give direction to the Vegetation Management Committee to set a balance to show a wide spectrum of people on the Vegetation Management Committee.
Morrison said she had been on the Vegetation Management Committee.† She commented that the resignation rate by members on the committee was indicative of the problem of not being able to work collectively as a group because of one person.† She commended Karen Bodner for her speaking up at the last meeting about her concerns.† She recalled that there was a recommendation made in 1991 that the Vegetation Management Committee be sunsetted and rolled into the Roads Advisory Committee because what they are looking at is road right-of-way that is part of the Roads Advisory Committee as well.† She said with the current budget problems they have and continue to have with or without Secure Rural Schools, she thought it would be more advantageous to use the money somewhere else than to have committees sit around and not be productive.† She suggested doing survey work with the makeup of the committee and what the goals and responsibilities are. She said it wasnít a one-issue committee and thought there should be more issues they should be dealing with instead of road rights-of-way.† She wanted to bring balance back to the committee.
Green said he would be supportive of this if the Board would also direct the Policies and Procedures Committee to review some of the guidelines and roles of volunteers on committees.† He said some people on committees want to work outside of the scope and charge of the committees.† He thought there should be some guidelines.† He thought it could be framed as expectations of committee members.
Dwyer commented that the direction of policies have to come from the staff level as it is not a committee responsibility.† He said if there are different ways to deal with the problem, then that is a committee issue.† He stated the County has a last resort policy and they need to implement it and not drag their feet.
Sorenson thought they should combine some committees to get a broader perspective on issues.† He commented that if it is true the committee is lopsided, and could be corrected by other appointments.† He thought the Board could coordinate who gets appointed to all committees.
Dwyer was committed to finding a balance.† He didnít want it to be lopsided.† He wanted to find good people who are public spirited and understands the broader duties they have.
Morrison was concerned about the people who are appointed and serving on one committee and then applying for multiple ones after the fact.† She thought they should be getting as broad a group of people as they possibly can and not limit themselves.† She added that it is hard to get people to apply when they have others who have served and resigned before one term.† She said they have to discuss the turnover rate on VMAC.
Schumacher concurred they do have a hard time getting applicants for the committees and the avenues Public Works has used for VMAC positions has been limited to two avenues.† He added if they had Board direction, they could expand that to broaden the areas.
There was consensus to expand the ways for recruiting committee members.
c. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1237/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/Marginal Land", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 05-5985, Ogle) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: September 13, 2006, 1:30 pm).
Green suggested that the public hearing be moved to September 20., 2006. †
Kendall indicated they would have to redo a legal notice and it takes a minimum of five weeks of coordination.
Green suggested having the hearing on September 13 and they could deliberate on September 20, 2006.† †
Dwyer said that Stewart and Morrison could review the tapes.
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1237 for September 13, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.
Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.
d. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1236/In the Matter of Adopting a Conformity Determination Amendment Pursuant to RCP General Plan Policies - Goal Two, Policy 27. a. vii. and Goal Four, Policy 15, Adopting the Plan Designation of Forest (F) and the Zoning Designation of Impacted Forest Land (F2) for 37.5 Acres Located in Section 32, Township 20, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, and identified as Tax Lot 1700 of Lane County Assessor Map 21-02-06, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (File: PA 06-5476 Symbiotic LLC, USACE). (NBA & PM 7/19/06, 8/2/06 & 9/23/06).
Bill Sage, Land Management, reported they reviewed the materials that came in as written testimony after the public hearing.† He said it gave them an opportunity to look at the issues that have been brought up in two LUBA remands that are included in the packet.† He added they reviewed the information that came in from Mr. Steele who raised the issue about ownerships and how to interpret them.† He indicated that the applicant submitted a recommendation to look up the legal lot or a portion thereof when determining what it would be to actually do the analysis.† He said there were discussions at LUBA on whether or not it met the legal lot or parcel.† He stated the County looked at that and they then went back to the policies as they were written in 1984 and they came to the conclusion that the legal description was an unnecessary type of qualifier when they look at the particular way of defining ownerships.† He said the applicant stated in their claim ďportions thereofĒ and the County staff thought what they want to do in looking at Goal 4, Policy 15 characteristics is to look at the land that is being proposed for rezoning.† He said they interpreted ownership as land proposed for rezoning.† He indicated in this case it is 37.5 acres.† He noted it is a portion of a larger holding and a large track.† He stated the County in its introductive policy statement in Goal 4, Policy 15, says they look at and provide for and encourage split zoning.† He said they will look at F1 and F2 and make the determination based on the characteristics and whatever parcel is better suited or more appropriately zoned F1 or F2.† He said that became the basis for the revisions to the findings of fact that was in the original application, Exhibit C. †
Sage indicated that the Board has two decisions.† One is to go back to the merits of the application and to the testimony the Board heard to make a determination on whether F1 or F2 is a more appropriate zone based on the characteristics of Policy 4 or Policy 15.† He noted the second decision is to see if the Board agrees with staff and the original application and the other materials in the record or whether or not the land proposed for rezoning is the proper definition they want to send forward with the application.† He said if the Board agrees, then it is their recommendation to adopt Option 3, an approval of the application for rezoning to F2 that was unzoned before, and to adopt the language in the revised Exhibit C on how the County would look at the F1 characteristic where they are still looking at ďcontiguousĒ as it is defined in Lane Code 16.090 and going further to see if it is generally contiguous and adjacent under the F2 characteristics.
Sorenson noted the letter dated August 9 that Mr. Steele wrote on the bottom of the first page, Attachment A (regarding the criteria under Goal 4, Policy 16), referred to ownerships and requiring inquiries based upon the examination and characteristics of the subject ownership and surrounding ownership.† He said the required analysis hadnít been done and there is recent case law that are LUBA cases.† He indicated that LUBA in both cases held that the Countyís analysis must be based on ownership.† He said that hadnít been done in this case as all that had been looked at was the 37.5 acre portion of the larger parcel.† He asked why the County wasnít looking at the ownership.
Sage indicated they were.† He said with the LUBA decision, the appellant said they should look at ownerships to include the tract and anything that is contiguous should be included in the analysis.† He said the County said they looked at the land that had been foreclosed for rezoning that was the analysis that was made by the applicant and the basis for their request for rezoning and they agreed with them.† He noted the Board already had precedent on doing this in one other case.† He said in this case, because they do provide for split zonings in their F1 and F2 lands, they should be looking at and confine the particular analysis to property that is being proposed for rezoning.† He said when they come to defining what ownership is, as that term is used in this, staff thinks it should be the land being proposed for rezoning.
Vorhes explained that the characterization of the case in the LUBA decision wasnít exactly correct but the pertinent portions of the decision are in the most recent supplement cover memo.† †
MOTION: to adopt Alternative Three of Ordinance No. PA 1236.
Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
Morrison reported there was a letter that came in on Monday from Random Lengths, Jon Anderson, regarding the income tax measure and the concern about the exemption around retirement income.† She spoke with Van Vactor and they have a draft letter to respond to Anderson under Dwyerís signature as chair.† She wanted the Board to review this.
12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Green reminded the Board that the First Annual Volunteer Picnic for Lane County is on† September 19 at 5:30 p.m. at Armitage Park.
Stewart noted that he and Morrison will be in Washington, D.C. from September 11 to 15.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
14. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 11:05 a.m.