BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
January 18, 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
Morrison requested pulling items B. 1) and 2) under the Consent Calendar. There was also a board order amending the Animal Regulation Task Force Report and a letter regarding the MWMC matter under Commissioners Business.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ernest Nisser, Eugene, discussed a matter with the Sheriff’s Office.
Dwyer asked him what he wanted.
Nisser said he is talking to Alex Gardner to see what the District Attorney’s office could do. He didn’t know what the Board could do, but when the case first happened, he asked Sorenson (his commissioner) for help.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. Letter to Metro Wastewater
Stewart stated he read the letter and there was a part he wasn’t comfortable with: where MWMC would obtain the $200,000. He didn’t believe that MWMC has committed to providing the money. He received an e-mail from Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, stating the lobbyists were not comfortable with asking for the money in Washington, D.C., so the region or Coburg would have to come up with the money.
Van Vactor suggested that Lane County talk to its partners to see if the community could raise $200,000.
Morrison was concerned about the timing because she wanted it included on the United Front trip.
Dwyer said they could work on the letter and bring it back to the Board this afternoon.
Dwyer wanted to add the Architect Report on the LCARA facility expansion to the website as an addendum to the LCARA report.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Morrison presented Van Vactor with a trophy for his Pinot Noir wine--an award winner at AOC.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 06-1-18-1/In the Matter of Approving a Project Design Concept and Acquiring Fee or Other Interests in Portions of Certain Real Properties For Improvement of Marcola Road, Phase III, MP 11.49 to 16.08, Based on the Findings in Exhibit B; and Authorizing Staff to Prepare a Right-of-Way Plan Necessary to Construct the Road, Pursue All Necessary Planning Actions, Acquire Right-of-Way and Prepare Plans and Specifications for Improvement of Said Road.
Bill Morgan, Public Works, explained that this is a Phase III project for Marcola Road which is a rural major collector, connecting the Mohawk Valley with the Springfield and Eugene urban area. He noted the first phase was performed in 1993, the second in 2000. The third phase was to honor the commitment to modernize and provide safety improvements for this stretch of road. He recalled there was public input during the first two phases and they narrowed the design concept. He noted the design concept presented today reflects the new design features the Board approved two years ago.
Morgan explained there were two design options going out to the public for the comment period. He said they met with the residents in the Mohawk area and throughout the public process there was majority support for the project. He indicated that they had a Roads Advisory Committee Public Hearing on March 30, 2005 and various residents attended, providing oral and written testimony. He said there were concerns about right of way taking and the proximity to an old railroad bed they wanted to preserve. He said they had a series of discussions with the impacted neighbors and came up with design Option 3. He said it shifts the alignment slightly east to preserve the railroad grade, while maintaining a 55-mile per hour design speed. He said the replacement and widening of the Shotgun Creek Bridge is not recommended at this time because it rates almost 80 out of 100 in structural capacity. He said in order to replace the bridge they would have to spend an extra $800,000. To widen it would be another $200,000. He said what they are presenting in Option 3, is keeping the existing bridge, and do the signing and striping and any other safety improvements at the Shotgun Creek Bridge to alert drivers of the driving conditions.
Morgan said they had a 30-day public testimony and two people provided supplemental information in the Board packet.
Morrison asked if the conditions from the Cittys’ were incorporated in Option 3.
Morgan said that the Cittys don’t own the property yet. He said they were committed to working with any property owner on access, drainage and easement items.
Morrison thought they were moving in the right direction.
Stewart was supportive and hoped they could save the trees.
Dwyer thought saving the trees would be a good part of the design. He supported the project and working with the community and their concerns.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-1-18-1.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
b. ORDER 06-1-18-2/In the Matter of Establishing a Nuisance Abatement Program in the Waste Management Division.
Jeff Bishop, Waste Management, stated this was a proposal for a new program in the Waste Management Division to address nuisance properties and illegal dumping. He said the proposal is to add the program into their base budget for Fiscal Year 06/07. He indicated that the program would be staffed with one FTE. That person would patrol for illegal dump sites, coordinate clean up and work with the Land Management Division to address nuisance property enforcement. He stated this went to Finance and Audit. He said if this were to be approved, it would be for approval of a job classification developed by HR. A separate item would be an amendment to Lane Code that would establish authority to enforce for littering. He noted they could use existing Lane Code Chapter 5. He said staff’s recommendation for funding is to cover it from the Waste Management Enterprise Fund in the Fiscal Year 06/07, with cost tracking to determine whether to direct them to establish a surcharge. He said they are still waiting for the Fin Plan audit results, which will further clarify things. They would report on that with the details.
Bishop indicated that the funding options for future years could either include a per-load surcharge or a per-ton surcharge.
Ollie Snowden, Public Works, explained this would be funded out of tipping fees, but they would establish it as a program in the Waste Management Division so they could track the costs of the program.
Bishop said if they were to come back with the Lane Code amendment, it would authorize enforcement on designated County properties. He added the Chapter 5 language would permit them to work with the property owners to get voluntary compliance.
Morrison was supportive of this.
Stewart supported this. He thought Parks could provide additional eyes and help work toward solving the problem. He believed they needed this.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-1-18-2.
Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Sorenson appreciated the division responding to constituent issues. He said they should get the word out to Lane County’s work force to report any nuisance issues they see.
c. EIGHTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1190/In the Matter of Adopting Amendments to the Junction City Comprehensive Plan to Expand the Urban Growth Boundary to Include the Subject Property (a Portion of Tax Lot 1300 and a Portion of the Juniper Connector) and Redesignate the Portion of the Tax Lot From "Agricultural" Land To "Commercial", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 02-5778; Safeway). (NBA & PM 8/27/03, 9/10/03, 1/14/04, 7/14/04, 1/12/05, 7/13/05 & 9/13/05)
Jerry Kendall, Land Management, stated that staff recommends rolling this to a ninth reading on July 19.
Green asked what the problem was.
Kendall indicated there were three items to clear up since the original second reading and hearing. He said they had a farm management agreement that waived the common law right to object to nearby farm uses. He said that Safeway could actually do that. He noted the last thing was the property line adjustment in which they verbally told him that there were multiple property owners involved to sign off on this.
MOTION: to approve an Eighth Reading and Setting a Ninth Reading and Deliberation for July 19, 2006.
Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
February 23, 2005, Goal Setting, 9:00 a.m.
January 4, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. Children and Families
1) ORDER 06-1-18-3/In the Matter of Approving the Submittal of a Grant to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women in the Amount of $350,000 over Two Years for Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange of Children by and Between Parents in Cases Involving Domestic Violence; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign Grant Documents.
2) ORDER 06-1-18-4/In the Matter of Approving the Submittal of a Grant to the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women in the Amount of $750,000 over Three Years for Education and Technical Assistance to End Violence Against Women with Disabilities; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign Grant Documents.
C. Management Services
1) ORDER 06-1-18-5/In the Matter of Appointing One (1) New Member to the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee.
2) ORDER 06-1-18-6/In the Matter of Revising the Lane County Human Rights Advisory Committee Bylaws.
D. Public Safety
1) ORDER 06-1-18-7/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Easement Agreement Between Giustina Land & Timber Co., Eugene Water & Electric Board and Lane County for Road Access to Mt. Hagan Communication Facility.
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 06-1-18-8/In the Matter of Giving Direction to Public Works Staff With Regard to Responding to Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Involving Hazards or Potential Hazards on Local Access Roads.
B. 1) and 2) Morrison explained with the first item, she was not opposed to applying for either one. Her concern was the end result for the grants they could receive. She noted the second item was just a concept proposal. She said on page 3, what concerned her most was that they had a prior grant from July 2000 to October 2005 and in that grant cycle, there were specific things to be accomplished with children in a domestic violence situation. She said the evaluation activities required by the funder show the positive impact on both the custodial and the visiting parent. She added the evaluation also indicated that awareness of Kid’s First services was low among critical community partners. Her concern was that these community partners had been sitting around the table for 27 years. She asked how they could not know this existed. She noted in applying for a grant, they want letters of support. She added in the new grant application, they would be establishing a consultation committee. She thought these were the same people who sat around the table.
Diana Avery, Children and Families, said when they talk about critical community partners, they need to get more involved in the supervised parenting time and safe exchange in cases involving domestic violence. She said they have to have more substantive conversations with the Department of Human Services Child Welfare.
Morrison indicated they had identified that in prior years and in prior grants as a goal to accomplish. She asked if, in the past five years under this grant, they hadn’t been able to do that.
Avery responded that the old program was putting together funding over the past five years that was supporting the service. She commented that the funding had been grant only and it was difficult to rely on one stream of funding to support the programs.
Morrison noted the grant was $750,000 over three years and the first year was $200,000 for planning. She thought that, out of the three years of the grant, the people that need the service would probably not get it because they are going to be spending the money on planning.
Avery indicated that was the requirement of the funder. She said the needs assessment had been done but they needed to make sure they are looking into the rural areas of the County.
Morrison didn’t oppose applying for the grant. She wanted more money to go to direct services instead of planning.
Sorenson asked about the impact of domestic violence cases not being handled.
Amber Berry, Domestic Violence Committee, stated there is a concern in the community that there are no services for them.
Sorenson asked if there was any money from the grant pending before the Board to establish funding for public safety or legal aid or other organizations that deal with abused women. He asked what statistical information they could provide to the Board to show this was a problem in the community.
Alicia Hays, Children and Families, said they would do the research and e-mail it to the Board and come back to discuss it.
Sorenson asked for the number of restraining orders, number of people on Parole and Probation, number of police reports, assault 4 cases, and comparatives to other communities for urban and rural communities. He wanted to know the number of cases by the Domestic Violence Clinic a year ago to now. He wanted to know if they were meeting their responsibility. He also wanted to know about people with disabilities and how they are responding.
Green explained that the Department of Children and Families doesn’t get any money from the general fund. He was okay with them getting planning dollars. He commented that they do need to go to training conferences and have the data to ensure they are providing services that people actually need. He wanted to have the agenda team schedule a work session so they could get the information out on what the problem is. He wanted to know who the critical community partners are and what instrument was used to do the evaluations.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. WORK SESSION AND DISCUSSION Process for Selling County Owned Real Property.
Jeff Turk, Management Services, recalled when a sale item was brought to the Board that involved multiple offers, the Board wanted a report back on the sale process with private sales and multiple offers for County property. He explained there are two methods in how the County disposes of tax foreclosed properties. He said the first is a Sheriff’s Sale. He noted it is dictated by statute that says when a property has an assessed value of over $5,000 (or is suitable for the placement of a dwelling) it must first be offered at a Sheriff’s Sale. He said the property manager comes to the Board and sets a sale date and the Board would set a minimum bid, terms and conditions and the sale would be held. At that sale the properties could deviate from the terms set by the Board.
With regard to a private sale, Turk said there are two different ways that they occur with County properties. He noted the statute states that once a property has been offered at a Sheriff’s Sale--and doesn’t sell at that sale-- then the County could do a private sale with public notice. Once it has been through an auction, they couldn’t sell it for less than 15% of what the minimum bid was at the Sheriff’s Sale. He explained a private sale is a direct negotiation between a potential buyer and the County. He said the other way a private sale occurs is for properties that have an assessed value of under $5,000 and are unsuitable for placement of a dwelling. He said they tend to be odds and ends and would only have value to an adjoining owner. He indicated that the statutes state that they may publish notice in the paper before they conduct a private sale. He said the County policy had always been to first publish public notice of the private sales before bringing them to the Board. He said he sends out letters to all adjoining owners of a particular property.
Turk indicated that sometimes there are timing issues where he will receive multiple offers on a property. He said it usually occurs after a Sheriff’s Sale. He noted where the timing and the interest are the same, he allows parties to make offers and counter-offers because it is a private sale. He said it sometimes happens when he is negotiating with a party on the property; he forwards the matter to the Board and there is a two-week process from the time he writes a memo until the matter gets to the Board. During that interim, someone might come forward and express an interest in the property. Since he cannot legally accept offers for the County (only the Board could do that), he is obligated to let the Board know he has another offer.
Green thought Turk needed to set a clear expectation of a timeline for the offer and cut it off.
Turk said his recommendation to the Board is that he needs to develop a process that either allows the department director or the property management office to not allow an offer.
MOTION: to approve Option B, authorizing the department director and the property manager officer to set a cut off date for when counter offers will be received when multiple bidders are involved.
Van Vactor said they can’t stop people from showing up at Public Comment on the date the matter is sent to the Board for approval. He added it would be up to the Board to say they wouldn’t accept any offers.
Stewart said if someone comes to the Board on their own, (not through Turk), they would have to tell them no. He wanted to set a date for the last day Turk would accept multiple offers and send it to the Board with his recommendation and not accept something after the fact.
Morrison thought there was overlap with the options. She didn’t think there should be any additional offers accepted after a timeline is set and they shouldn’t take something at the last hour, even if it is more. She said people should have an opportunity to do it within a process and if they miss the deadline, it is the buyer’s fault not the Board’s. She didn’t think one option would cover everything. She thought Turk should move forward with all four options and they would become part of the new policy.
MOTION: to move forward with all four options to become part of the new policy in Lane Manual.
Sorenson asked if Turk had considered raising the $5,000 cut-off to a higher number for administrative fees and saving money.
Turk said the numbers were in the statute. He said they could possibly change that amount the next legislative session. He noted that ODOT has a $5,000 limit too.
Dwyer said he liked the way they sell surplus equipment. He said they use a sealed bid.
Turk indicated that a sealed bid is an option.
Morrison indicated her motion was to direct staff to work on these different options. Then it would go to Policies and Procedures for review on the drafting of the language. She added that after Policies and Procedures makes a decision it would come back to the Board.
Dwyer wanted to know when the different things apply and under what circumstances, so they have consistency in applying the rules in a fair and concise manner.
Turk said when they are dealing with a small property that might only be of value to an adjoining owner, there are land use issues involved. He said there could be illegal partitions.
Dwyer said to draft policies and incorporate all of the concepts and define when they are applicable. Then it will go to Policies and Procedures and and then brought to the Board.
There was no motion.
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Stewart reported that he and Morrison went to Pendleton to attend Strengthening Rural Families. He said they came back with ideas. He said they have a team working on the earned income tax credit.
Green announced he would be out of the office next week to attend a NACo meeting in Chandler, Arizona.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660 (2)(d) for the purpose of deliberations with labor negotiators and per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 10:50 a.m.