BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

December 12, 2006

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 12/12/2007

 

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

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Dave Otman, Eugene, stated he represented the Recreational Vehicle Manufacturing Consortia.  He said the RV Consortia is dedicated to creating a Center of Excellence for RV manufacturing training that would benefit the County, employers, employees and the local communities.  He explained that they are an industry cluster that is part of the stateís strategic initiative for economic development.  He said they are focusing on workforce training.  He stated that three companies competing in the market place are coming together around collaborative efforts for workforce training.

 

Carol Taylor Clay, Country Coach, Junction City, stated they have been excited about the development of the RV Consortium and what it has been able to provide in terms of employee development.  She said it was important to sustain a qualified skilled workforce.

 

Morrison asked if they would be requesting money against next year.

 

Otman said they would need to determine that for the future subject to the guidelines of the grant.  He indicated one of their major goals is sustainability.

 

Dwyer stated their economic development grants were not about sustainability or annual appropriations and are not an entitlement.

 

Frank Tang, Eugene, stated he was protesting his proposal.  He believed their proposal had met the rules for business and workforce development.  He indicated they received a low score based on the previous committee.  He thought they were scored unfairly and there was bias.  He wanted his proposal to be reviewed.

 

Dwyer stated the scoring was subjective.  He added that there are citizens and board members who score the projects independently.  He said they have a protest provision in the manual that allows for an appeal.  He said he wouldnít change his score.

 

Tom Partridge, Port of Siuslaw, stated their request is for the release of a quit claim condition that would revert to Lane County.  He said it is in the same condition as when it was transferred to the Port by the County in February 1998.  He indicated the deadline is one year away.  He said as part of their next five year business plan, they will need to strategize whether they are going to market the property or if it reverts back to the County.  He noted that condition seven was a hinge point in the decision making process.  He said they believed the conditions had been met, that the property has changed and there have been improvements made.

 

3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE  

 

Morrison reported the Siuslaw Vikings won the 3A Football Championship.  She congratulated the team.

 

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

Per ORS 192.660(2)(e) for the purpose of consulting with council on litigation.

 

5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

None.

 

b. ORDER 06-12-12-1/In the Matter of Awarding Contracts for Strategic Investment Projects Selected Through the 2006 Economic Development RFP Initial Proposal Cycle and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign Project Contracts.

 

Mike McKenzie-Bahr, Economic Development, explained this process began in August with the release of the request for proposals where funds were available for projects.  He said they received 14 proposals and one proposal didnít qualify.  He indicated the EDSC spent two meetings reviewing the 13 proposals and came up with seven projects to consider for funding.  He reported the EDSCís recommendations were reviewed by a subcommittee which came up with the same seven projects. He indicated the total amount available for funding is $600,000 with $200,000 in the initial cycle and $400,000 to be put in a reserve.  He noted the total amount of funding recommended by the EDSC is $457,897.   He said if totally funded, it would leave about $143,000 in the strategic reserve fund.   

 

McKenzie-Bahr explained the protest was attached to the agenda packet.  He said they looked at the ability of some of the projects to be able to get other funding and decisions were made and recommendations brought forward based on those.  He indicated they reviewed how the contracts scored and the business history or potential business history.  He added the other project that had no contracts also scored low and did not qualify.

 

Wilson stated the Board could include the protest as part of the board order.

 

Dwyer said the people on the committee didnít score it high and he agreed with the committee.

 

Green asked if the protest was because the start up business wasnít given a chance to compete.  He thought maybe there was a bias for small businesses.

 

McKenzie-Bahr indicated that in the RFP, small emerging businesses are one of the types of business they look at for funding.  He explained that all of the projects are compared against each other.  He said the scorers were looking for bang for the public dollars.  He indicated the projects that have been funded are for emerging and start up businesses and they had gone to agencies assisting small business.  He said in this case, the start up business had no contract or business plan and a weak proposal describing what their business was.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-12-12-1, recognizing that Alliance Business was not awarded a grant.

 

Green didnít think there was enough information to reverse the decision by the committee.

 

Wilson said they will modify the board order.

 

Green thought the reason they were not reversing their decision was that it did not meet the goal and criteria.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

McKenzie-Bahr explained that whatever action the Board takes today, closes the initial process and immediately opens the open cycle process.

 

Dwyer said they didnít have to approve the dollar amounts at this level.

 

Sorenson asked what the recommendation was.

 

McKenzie-Bahr stated he had seen what was coming forward from Lane Metro Partnership on two other projects and he thought it would be good to have $200,000 in reserve for those projects.  He said they would need to pull $50,000  to put in reserve.

 

Dwyer recommended taking $25,000 from Bring Recycling.

 

McKenzie-Bahr recommended taking the other $25,000 from Lane Workforce Partnership if the other three programs could make up the difference.

 

Green withdrew his motion, Morrison withdrew her second.

 

MOTION: to reduce the Workforce Partnership by $25,000; and $25,000 to be taken from Bring Recycling, funding the remaining projects at the level stated in the packet.

 

Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Dwyer dissenting).

 

MOTION: for future applications that go out to the public, that applicants are only allowed one funding.

 

Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

Wilson stated she would bring the wording back on the Lane Manual changes.

 

VOTE: 5-0.   

 

c. ORDER 06-12-12-2/In the Matter of Authorizing an Economic Development Grant from Video Lottery Strategic Operating Contingency in the Amount of $100,000 for Tyree Oil Company and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign Contracts Related to the Project. (PULLED)  

 

d. ORDER 06-12-12-3/In the Matter of Awarding Contracts Totaling $168,000 for 2006-07 Rural Tourism Marketing Program (RTMP) Projects in the Cities of Oakridge, Lowell, Westfir, Coburg, Cottage Grove, Veneta, Creswell, Junction City, Florence, Dunes City, and Services in the McKenzie River Valley.

 

Mike McKenzie-Bahr, Economic Development, reported that this deals with the rural tourism marketing program allocations.  He said money is collected all year and is allocated by a dollar amount to the specific communities.  He said each community presents to them how they want to use their allocation.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-12-12-3.

 

Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

McKenzie-Bahr said this is a flat $168,000 but there was more money collected than the $168,000.  He added according to the manual all the money goes out.  He and Dave Garnick, Budget Manager, will work on the form to see what was collected and to adjust the bottom line.  He added that they will be allocated on the same percentage based on population.  He indicated next year some cities could see a five or ten percent increase.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

6. MANAGEMENT SERVICES

 

a. ORDER 06-12-12-4/In the Matter of Acknowledging Receipt of the Lane County, Oregon Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006, and Setting Forth the Corrective Measures for Deficiencies Contained Therein.

 

Kay Blackburn, Finance Manager, reported that this is to acknowledge receipt of the Oregon Comprehensive Annual Financial Report so they could file it with the state by December 31.

 

Kevin Mullerleile, Moss Adams,  reported that he met with the Finance and Audit Committee and gave the results of the audit.  (Copy in file.)  He said the report shows the audit was good this year.  He commented that it was a clean, unqualified report.  He noted one violation dealt with a special revenue fund.  He indicated that Parks and Open Spaces in Public Works had an over expenditure of $61,000.  He said some minor things came up in the IT review and assessment.  He said there were recommendations that were brought to managementís attention, but they were not that significant.

 

Morrison noted there were concerns about the Fairgrounds and the FQHC.  She asked what could be done.

 

Mullerleile said they are commenting on the financial statements and the property internal controls. 

 

Sorenson asked how they knew if they had enough money in the Waste Management fund.

 

Jim Lanzarotta, Moss Adams, said it was complicated.  He said the best way to determine how healthy they are is to work with management in the solid waste area.  He indicated that they are looking at the projections of the cash requirements they need  to meet the milestones.  He said they have $23 million in reserves but there is commitment for the cash in terms of capital requirements as they open each cell.  He said they currently have sufficient cash flow.

 

Green asked how they could use the document to address some of the publicís concerns about efficiencies.

 

Lanzarotta said Lane County is meeting the appropriate reporting and requirements.  He added the report meets the government finance office award of excellence.  He commented that he had the fewest number of comments he ever had in the review of the CAFR. 

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-12-12-4.

 

Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

b. DISCUSSION/In the Matter of Determining If Deed Conditions Have Been Satisfied to Prevent Reversion to Lane County of Property Deeded to the Port of Siuslaw (Map  18-12-22-00-00700, 40 Acres North of County Transfer Station in Florence)

 

Jeff Turk, Management Services, distributed information on the expenses the Port had made on the property. (Copy in file.)  He said the Port of Siuslaw has requested that the County remove a deed restriction that would cause the 40 acres to revert back to the County if they havenít met the conditions.  He recalled in 1998 the County transferred to the Port without consideration, 40 acres of County owned property for the purpose for the Port to develop for industrial purposes to boost Florenceís economy  He added the 40 acres is adjacent to the transfer station.  He said when the County transferred the property, it was based on representation from the Port that the Port was to develop and use the property for industrial purposes. He said to ensue that was going to occur, the County  included several deed restrictions that the Port needed to meet.  He indicated the property needed to be used for industrial purposes pursuant to ORS. 772.50.  He said the County included a restriction that said if the Port doesnít do this and sells the property or does not use the property for industrial purposes, the County would receive fair market value compensation.  He added if the Port met the conditions to develop the property with infrastructure, then the Port could sell the property without compensating the County.  He said if the Port didnít do the infrastructure, then the property would revert to the County after a period of ten years.

 

Turk indicted to date the improvements included clearing soil compaction, grading and erosion control and they installed storm drains.  He said the cost was about $500,000 and that was what the Port had done in exchange for allowing the property to be used as a  fill site when the Florence Airport project was occurring.    He said the Port had secured frontage along the western property line along Rhododendron Drive for better access. He added they approved a site plan for the streets and partitioned to separate the 40 acres.  He indicated the property was initially zoned marine industrial and they determined it would be better off zoned industrial.  He said it would provide for more uses.  He said at this point the Port didnít see any additional improvements they would need to make to the property.  He said the Port had asked that the reversion condition be removed.  He said if they deem the Port had met the conditions of the deed and satisfied it, then Condition 4 would allow the transfer to them.

 

Van Vactor said if it is reverted, it could be converted to parkland.

 

Green asked if the document made clear the standards they met.

 

Dwyer commented they are substantively lacking in what they had done.  He said it was substantive enough for them to consider it at the Board level.

 

Wilson explained there is a standard stated and it is a Board call whether they believe the standard had been met.  She said Condition 4 says the property could be sold if the property was improved with infrastructure capable of supporting further development.  She said Condition 5 defines what infrastructure is.  She said Condition 7 says the property shall revert if it had not been improved with the infrastructure noted in Condition 4.  She asked the Board if they believe the Port had improved with infrastructure capable of supporting further development.

 

Morrison indicated she had been involved with this since last summer. She questioned that the work that had been done really met the condition that is stipulated in Condition 4 with the additional explanation in Condition 5 as to what infrastructure is.  She said they would be willing to move forward without the cultural exemption. She thought there was still a lot that needed to be done in order to comply with the original conditions that were set in place.  She wanted Conditions 3 and 4 met.

 

Dwyer wanted water, sewage and electric to go to all areas.

 

MOTION: to extend the agreement for five years and for the infrastructure to state that there has to be within the five year period of time on the 40 acres at least 75 percent infrastructure in place from the original list.

 

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Turk stated when they originally prepared the agreement, the intent was that the Port said they would develop the property and install the infrastructure.  He said the Port now might not be able to do that.  He said the original provision was that if the Port sells or leases it out for 99 years to another entity, they would have gotten the money.

 

Stewart wanted to get the property into ownership so it could be paying taxes.  He asked if they extend this, what the probability would be within the next five years that they would see this happen.

 

Turk indicated the Port might not have the resources to be the developer.  He indicated the way the conditions were written is for the Port to be developing the property.  He didnít know if they could complete the project within the next six years.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

7. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. DISCUSSION/Lane County Applications for Surface Transportation Program (STP-U) Funds in the Metro Area for FY 08 and FY 09 and Issues Related to Regional Priorities, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Funding, and Match.

 

Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, reported that this is a work session item.  He said the only action they are requesting is to give approval to submit applications under this program.  He said they wanted to give the Board ODOT policies about local government participation in their projects.  He said Springfield might want to use STP funds that way and it is an opportunity for the Board to review the policy and have a discussion before it goes back to MPC.  He said the application is due by December 20.  He said they have two projects they will prepare applications for.  He noted one is a pavement preservation project on Hayden Bridge Road, Fifth Street to Nineteenth Street.  He said it is estimated between $250,000 to $350,000.  He indicated the other project is the Irving rail safety crossing improvement that is in the Capital Improvement Program for $1.5 million.  He said they have a draft order from ODOT rail about the project.  He believed half the cost would be funded by a federal rail safety grant that would fund improvements to the grade rail crossing at Irving, west of the Northwest Expressway.  He reported there was a fatality at that location. He indicated the improvement would put in double gates that would completely close the crossing on both sides.  He noted a challenge using federal funds is that the National Environmental Policy Act and other things could cause significant increases in project costs which require ODOT to do the bidding.

 

Stinchfield explained the other major part of the project is to connect the roadways to the reconfigured rail crossing.  He said their proposal is to complete the curbs and sidewalks on both sides.  He stated they did the Irving Road project from River Road to Prairie Road as an urban standard project in the past.  He said the Board discussed whether to put in the over crossing of the railroad and Northwest Expressway at that time and decided not to do it. He said they left out the sidewalks and curbs in the area.  He added that time has passed and it didnít appear that they would do the over crossing. He said when ODOT rail approached them and said they wanted to improve the safety of the rail crossing, he said they looked at the work they would have to do to reconnect and their proposal would be to build the curbs and sidewalks now and get the facilities in place.  He added they are updating the long range planning project list and their proposal in that draft will be to put this project in it and move the over crossing to the future list.

 

Stinchfield reported that Attachment 2 is minutes from the OTC from January.  He said there is policy direction from ODOT.  He indicated ODOT as an agency is looking for local participation on their projects.  He stated it has caused concern with local government.  He noted the City of Springfield is considering the use of  STP funds as local match for their projects.  He indicated as stated in the minutes, that the City of Springfield and AOC had supported the policy.  He added that they supported changes in the policy that toned down the wording, making it more flexible and less mandatory about what type of local participation would count toward ODOT projects. He indicated that ODOT said so far the improvements to the Martin Luther King Parkway that the City of Eugene and the County had done are not a match for future phases of I-5 Beltline and Springfield and other local staff thought a good argument could be made under the policy that those types of things should be part of the match discussion.  He said ODOT representatives at MPC will be bringing those issues up.  He indicated ODOT has a MOU with Peace Health that says beyond the $7.5 million they gave to the City of Springfield for road improvements in their annexation agreement, that Peace Health has a MOU with ODOT that states they will contribute another $8 million of Peace Health funds to begin no later than 2012 if local governments match those dollars one for one.

 

b. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1234/In the Matter of Updating the Goal 5 Inventory and Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan; Repealing Ordinance No. PA 1198; Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Amend the Eugene Land Use Regulations and Add a Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone For Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Applying That Zone to Specific Properties; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Metro Plan Periodic Review Task No.7; File No. 06-5195) (NBA & PM 9/13/06, 9/27/06 & 11/8/06).

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, reported the last time he was before the Board they asked questions and had him come back to answer them.  He explained this process started a long time ago and they adopted in their periodic review program in 2002, for the jurisdictional responsibility.  He said instead of the metro area as one effort of the natural resources inventories and protection measures, they separated them into Eugene, the area within the city limits and within the urban growth boundary.   He indicated that Springfield did the same and the County was responsible for the areas outside the urban growth boundary.

 

Howe noted in 2004 the Board adopted the inventory for the metro area.  He indicated the inventory step is completed for the Eugene area, outside the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary for Springfield.  He added in 2004 the Board adopted the Safe Harbor Provision for the Countyís area outside of the urban growth boundary and in 2005 the Board adopted the protection provision for the Springfield area inside their urban growth boundary.

 

Howe said in 2006 the City of Eugene came with their protection provision for the inventory sites that had already been adopted inside Eugeneís urban growth boundary.  He said it is the same inventory site whether it is the Cityís inventory or the Countyís.  He recalled it was the protection measures the Board had concerns with.  He noted on page 2 of the supplement, he did a comparison of the Countyís provisions for safe harbor for what they have outside of the urban growth boundary and Eugeneís proposed revision for their area.  He noted the stream classifications that are over 1,000 cubic feet per second are a Category A stream and those that have 120 setbacks. He explained that Category A & B areas are the ones with the greater setback than what they would have under the Countyís Safe Harbor Provision.  He said the remaining nine percent of the areas outside of the city limits, inside the urban growth boundary have a lesser restriction setback than they would under the safe harbor.

 

Howe said they could go back and do the Safe Harbor Provision and 80% of the properties would end up with a higher setback under the Safe Harbor Protection Provisions than under what Eugene is proposing.  He added that ten percent of the properties that Eugene is proposing along the river are going to have a 75 foot setback.

 

Howe commented that if Lane County were to undertake the effort alone and if they would work under the existing inventory, the cost would be $20,000 for the public hearing process, the code and going through the Planning Commission joint adoption for the code amendment for Eugene and Lane Countyís code.  He added there would also be a joint process with the Board and the Eugene City Council.

 

Howe explained that there are two other efforts that are taking place that the City had embarked on that are confusing the situation.  He said one is the Eugene Parks and Recreation and open space effort.  He said the PROS Plan is acquiring lands for city parks.  He said they are outside the city limits.  He said it is confusing the County.  He commented that it is a separate stand alone periodic review work task.

 

Howe commented that significant development canít occur in the areas outside the city limits until they are annexed.  He added upon annexation they come under the city code.  He said that 80 percent of the lands affected would have a lesser setback from this approach than the safe harbor and they canít develop the property until it is annexed.  He recommended the Board approve this.

 

Vorhes recalled there was debate at LCDC.  He indicated LCDC took action on the earlier action of the Board to adopt an inventory that included a property where LCDC asked it to be  removed.  He noted the ordinance does remove it.

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1234.

 

Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-2 (Morrison, Green dissenting).

 

8. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Green recalled at the AOC Legislative Committee Meeting, that there was a copy of the number of Measure 37 claims that had been filed statewide in comparison to other counties. He said there was a discussion on whether or not to give staff direction to submit a bill to request more than 180 days for working on the applications.

 

Dwyer announced the Board would be getting the turkeys.  He said they have 550 turkeys.  He also got potatoes, carrots, onions, celery and stuffing mix.  He said they received $3,000 from Monaco, $3,000 form Arlie and Company, the stuffing through Franz Bakery and the turkeys bought through Longs Meat Market and vegetables from Organically Grown.

 

Stewart announced that he was elected to the O & C Board of Directors.

 

9. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

10. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

None.

 

11. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary