BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
December 12, 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
TO THE AGENDA
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
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.
the Siuslaw Vikings won the 3A Football Championship. She congratulated the team.
SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660(2)(e) for the purpose of consulting with council on
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.
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.
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.
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.
to approve ORDER 06-12-12-1, recognizing that Alliance Business was not
awarded a grant.
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
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.
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
taking $25,000 from Bring Recycling.
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.
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
4-1 (Dwyer dissenting).
for future applications that go out to the public, that applicants are only
allowed one funding.
Wilson stated she
would bring the wording back on the Lane Manual changes.
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
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.
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.
to approve ORDER 06-12-12-3.
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.
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.
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
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.
there were concerns about the Fairgrounds and the FQHC. She asked what could be done.
they are commenting on the financial statements and the property internal
Sorenson asked how
they knew if they had enough money in the Waste Management fund.
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
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.
to approve ORDER 06-12-12-4.
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)
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.
they are substantively lacking in what they had done. He said it was substantive enough for them to consider it at
the Board level.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1234.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
3-2 (Morrison, Green dissenting).
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.
TO THE BOARD
There being no
further business Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.