BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
June 21, 2006
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
† 1.†††††† ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
††††††††††† Stewart asked if they could discuss the income tax under Commissioners Business.
† 2.†††††† PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.†††††††† PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-6-21-1/In the Matter of Adopting the FY 2005-2006 Supplemental Budget #3 Making, Reducing and Transferring Appropriations.
††††††††††† Christine Moody, Budget Analyst, explained this was to adjust expenditures to balance the fund.
††††††††††† Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.
††††††††††† MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-6-21-1.
††††††††††† Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
††††††††††† VOTE: 5-0.
b.†††††††† PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-6-21-2/In the Matter of Adopting the 2006-2007 Lane County Budget, Making Appropriations and Levying Taxes.
††††††††††† Dave Garnick, Budget and Financial Manager, explained this was brought back for technical adjustments.
††††††††††† Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.
††††††††††† Jim Hale, Eugene,† hoped there was money for public relations spending in the new budget.† He thought it would be a big mistake to stop the public relations campaign.† He noted the City of Eugene spends more money on public relations to communicate with people.† He commented that the citizens donít know what the County does.
††††††††††† Dwyer noted there was money to continue public information.
††††††††††† MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-6-21-1.
††††††††††† Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
††††††††††† VOTE: 5-0.
† 3.†††††† PUBLIC COMMENTS
††††††††††† John Dotson, Eugene, stated on May 8 they submitted objections to the Boundary Commissionís proposed annexation of streets in the Santa Clara area.† He said they received a letter on May 22 from Paula Taylor, Boundary Commission, about their objections, but the Boundary Commission never responded to them.† He said in ORS 199.505, he noted the† county commissioners are to receive certification of the fact to the objections filed from the Boundary Commission.† He asked if the Board ever received the certification.
††††††††††† Dwyer said they had not received anything from the Boundary Commission.† He noted that legal counsel told him that the Boundary Commission couldnít certify any signatures because there were no electors that were in the district to be annexed.
††††††††††† Dotson said they had filed a stakeholderís claim that had not been addressed.† He noted that stakeholders have a role of interest in streets and rights of way.† He said those particular aspects of street annexations are affecting judicial coverage of the landholders along the rights of way on the plat properties.† He thought that was what the Boundary Commission should be deliberating.† He asked for support from the County to go to the Boundary Commission to see if they would set a time and date to discuss the matter.
††††††††††† Dwyer asked if they wanted a letter from the commissioners asking that question.
††††††††††† Dotson said they want to get this to the Boundary Commission.† He wanted the Board to ask the Boundary Commission if they had a meeting to certify that the stakeholders are† affected and if they are affected, why they donít have a say in the annexation process.
††††††††††† Jim Seaberry, Eugene, stated in the letter the Board of Commissioners received from him regarding ORS 199.505, that the critical part is the description on the postings referred to for the Boundary Commission Public Hearings.† He said it was that description that has clearly denoted the streets.† He said when Paula Taylor reposted the Spring Creek School after the public hearing was held on that annexation, they reposted it stating that those streets were possible additions for annexation.† He said they took it out of the description and stated it differently on the repostings.† He said there were no hearings as the public hearings had closed.† He said resolving the issue by the Boundary Commission is what remains.† He thought they were agreeing with them.
††††††††††† Dwyer asked if there was any objection over sending the letter to Paula Taylor to clarify their position.
††††††††††† Green asked what the question was, as he wasnít clear.
††††††††††† Seaberry said they were part of a stakeholder group and they wanted to know if the Board of Commissioners should send a letter, if their group would be affected in the annexation process.
††††††††††† Dotson said he and Seaberry were not personally stakeholders.† He said the others live on those streets.
††††††††††† Dwyer said they would send the letter.
††††††††††† Lori Ambo, Elmira, said they have a bridge that needs to be replaced.† She was told they would be helped with the replacement even though it is not a County maintained road. She said they got word that the help would come in the form of a temporary replacement only, heavy enough to hold emergency vehicles.† The entire cost would go back to the residents. She asked if there were County funds to help cover the cost of the replacement.† She said this was deemed an emergency.† She asked why they were only putting in a temporary bridge when the people that live on the other side do logging.† She didnít know if the bridge could hold the weight.
††††††††††† Dwyer indicated the† State Highway Department offered to lend some assistance in view of the emergency.† He asked if the neighbors would pay an assessment for a permanent structure.
††††††††††† Ambo didnít know what the assessments would be.
††††††††††† Morrison wasnít aware about the state providing money.† She said when this was first brought to the Board in May, the state had condemned the bridge and there were options that were outlined that they, or the property owners, could pursue.† She said in order to bring it up to standards for ODOT, the cost was $200,000 to bring it up to a bridge.† She indicated they tried to accommodate by replacing the existing bridge that had been condemned with one similar in nature that is a railroad flatbed car.† She stated they tried to keep the costs down as much as they could.† She noted the cost to† do just the flat car was $80,000.† She indicated there had been some problems with the manufacturer so the product had been delayed.† She said they wonít know the weight capacity of that bridge until it is in place and ODOT certifies it.† She said the bridge that is being put in is longer than the one that was put in the 70ís.
††††††††††† Ambo commented that online it says the County has the ability to put out County funds so it would not be passed back to the residents if it were deemed an emergency.† She thought it was deemed an emergency and asked why the County couldnít come up with the funds for the residents.
††††††††††† Dwyer wanted to bring this back to discuss the matter.
††††††††††† Zachary Vishinoff, Eugene, discussed parks and open space.† He commented that the City of Eugene Parks and Open Spaces department is not accountable to the West University neighborhood.
††††††††††† Sorenson suggested Vishinoff write a letter to Councilor Kelly and ask him about it.
††††††††††† Con Magnuson, stated he has owned an airport since 1969 in Veneta.† He said it is registered with the state.† He indicated that in 1969 it was unzoned at the time.† He added in 1976 there was a zoning change to AGT 5 that allowed airports.††† He said in 1984 it was zoned RR5 that outlawed airports.† He added in 1995 they were going to build new hangars and they decided they werenít zoned right.† He said they made him prove that he had a vested right in the property.† He indicated that Governor Kitzhaber at the time signed an airport bill.† He said Lane County was given $200,000 in 1976 to form a feasibility study for a private airport in Lane County, He noted the bill that was enacted in 1999 should have rezoned the property.
††††††††††† Jim Hale, Eugene, distributed a comparison of taxes. (Copy in file).
†† 4.††††† EMERGENCY BUSINESS
†† 5.††††† COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
†† 6.††††† COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a.†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-3/In the Matter of Ordering the acceptance of the Recommendations of the Benton, Lane, Lincoln, Linn Regional Investment Board Regarding Funding Projects for the FY 2005-2007 Biennium.
††††††††††† Milo Mecham, LCOG, explained that the four county regional investment boards receive money from the state and invest that money in development projects that are designed to increase employment in the four county area.† He noted that, every biennium, they establish criteria and the board had a chance to review and approve them.† He said there are five projects and two of the projects have a direct impact on Lane County.
††††††††††† MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-6-21-3.
††††††††††† Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
††††††††††† VOTE: 5-0.
†† 7.††††† COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
††††††††††† Van Vactor commented that there had been issues surrounding the income tax ordinance.† He noted there is not 13 days between June 28 and July 10, the last day if the Board were to enact the ordinance and the charter amendment.† He said if there were any changes that the Board wanted to make in the income tax ordinance and if they were planning on adopting on June 28, they could discuss them today and have them drafted as alternatives so they would be available on June 28.† He wanted to know if they wanted to include renter relief, to change to $20,000 where the tax kicks in, have it graduated or have a differential rate.† He asked if in the charter language they wanted to tie the first five years of expenditures to the recommendation of the Public Safety Task Force.
††††††††††† Wilson explained if they want to consider changes in the ordinance, it is possible if they gave her direction today.† She said she could get language written to have a reading on those possible changes in the ordinance today.† She said they could possibly adopt this before July 10.† She said if not, then they are foreclosing having a conditional enactment prior to the charter amendment.† She said if they wanted changes, the changes wouldnít be eligible to be enacted on June 28.
††††††††††† Dwyer didnít think they should enact an ordinance because it might delay the implementation.† He said he wouldnít foreclose any option necessary for the continued operation of the government.
††††††††††† Sorenson didnít think the picture was clear enough to determine the appropriate level of revenue they need.† He said the main issue is putting a limitation on the level of income tax.
††††††††††† Dwyer commented that this would be dedicated to solving the problem and preventing future problems.† He said that needs to be clarified.
††††††††††† Stewart recalled that in conversations with Mayor Piercy and Councilor Kelly they were concerned about how they were going to enhance public safety.† He said they have to solve this problem.† He wasnít interested in enacting something without voter approval.† He thinks they are moving in a positive direction and with hard work they could get there. He commented that there was an opportunity to change the way they do business in Lane County.† He wanted to put public safety number one.
††††††††††† Morrison commented that they need to make sure the numbers are right, as she thought that could do more damage than anything else.† She was in support of this.† She stated the public education outreach needs to be ongoing.† She said if they could put something together between now and June 28th so it could be part of the public process, then she supported it.† She wanted to move this forward and have a total package the voters would vote on as part of the charter amendment.
††††††††††† Sorenson thought it was important they keep working on this. He wanted rental relief in the ordinance.† With regard to the graduated income tax,† he thought there would be better buy in from the public if they started the tax either at a higher level or a graduated rate chart starting at zero dollars increasing into the higher rates. He didnít want to put too much in the County charter. He wanted the ordinance and the charter amendment† placed on the ballot together.
††††††††††† Dwyer said if they tie the ordinance and charter amendment together and they are rejected, they will have to make cuts.
††††††††††† Stewart commented that the people voted him in to do a job and he is trying to do the best he can.† He said there was no guarantee when he came into the job the government was going to provide all resources.
††††††††††† Wilson indicated she would draft options and if that is what the Board decides they want, they will need to schedule another meeting on July 28.
†† 8.††††† PUBLIC WORKS
a.†††††††† DISCUSSION/Long-Range Planning Work Projects and Revenues During the Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
††††††††††† Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that Land Management Division conducts long range planning activities based upon available funding sources as expressed by the Board Commissioners.† He noted page 7 (copy in file) was the summary page of the list of projects.† He said those combinations of projects represent a continuing effort to address input from the Planning Commission, citizens and the Board of Commissioners. He indicated they want to be responsive to the Board in setting priorities.† He recalled that last year direction from the Board was to have staff come up with the some of the issues they have around the Metro Plan.† He said they did that, submitted it to the other two cities and the other jurisdictions werenít interested.† He noted that this list didnít include any of those projects on next yearís work program.† With regard to the Metro Plan category, he said it deals with commercial and industrial buildable lands, the application of Delta Sand and Gravel, the two Goal 5 inventories of Eugene and Springfield and with Florence and Coburgís periodic review.
††††††††††† Howe noted the first five items had been before the Economic Development Standing Committee and received their support:† GIS zoning diagram, the website, and the floodplain, community rating system program and the overhaul of Lane Code Chapter 10 and 16.
††††††††††† Dwyer said they spent years trying to develop a policy that defines video lottery dollars for economic development.† He said in order to protect the County, there were legitimate things the County did for economic development. He insisted that half the money be set aside for competitive projects for the County.† He said they are back to the same situation to back fill Land Management.† He said they were going to spend $170,000 that had nothing to do with economic development.† He wasnít in support of the money as it wasnít economic development and it didnít support promoting jobs.
††††††††††† Morrison had difficulty with the work plan.† She didnít want to give $170,000 from video lottery funds to this program.† She commented that in the past eight years she had consistently watched fees grow in Land Management.† She hasnít seen customer satisfaction issues get better.† She asked if the majority of the money raised in the department is from building permit fees.
††††††††††† Jeff Towery, Land Management, said most fees donít come from building fees.†
††††††††††† Morrison asked how many of the nine projects that are listed as mandated are they behind on.
††††††††††† Van Vactor commented that their work plan is low on Ballot Measure 37.† He said they will get contested cases on subdivisions, road access, water and sewer.† He didnít think they were adequately staffed to do it.† He added they are having a hard time keeping up with the current workload.
††††††††††† Dwyer thought Land Management needed to get a work plan that doesnít include the $170,000 but only includes $55,000 that was given to them and bring that back to the Board.
††††††††††† With regard to the nine projects, Green asked how they met the economic development criteria.
††††††††††† Towery said the original application that went to the Legislative Committee was for $155,000 and only $15,000 was to go to Land Management.† He said most were going to other partners.† He said the Legislative Committee had reviewed the application and recommended to the Board about $55,000 in projects and of that six or eight would come to Land Management.† He said the projects are related to implementing the Wildfire Protection Plan.† He indicated that they wonít use any Title III monies, just the long range planning surcharge.† With regard to the Economic Development Planning Committee, he said they submitted nine projects and those projects were recommended by the committee to the Board and those numbers were built into the budget.† He added the five projects that show up at the top of the list were the five projects they identified at the Economic Development Standing Committee as the best fit for the video lottery dollars.† He noted the overhaul of Lane Code Chapters 10 and 16 is the staff management piece.† He said this is the Boardís work plan and the reason they are seeing a lot of projects is because they are just out of periodic review.
††††††††††† Green agreed with Van Vactor regarding the Ballot Measure 37 process being too low.† He thought number 6 on the Metro Plan should be examined.† He said they have to figure out how to get to yes on metro issues, versus regional projects.
††††††††††† Morrison wasnít sure what kind of role Lane County could play because the LCOG board has power over the MPO and MPC.† She commented there were things already in motion that would address why it is on the list.
††††††††††† Dwyer thought the Ballot Measure 37 claims are underfunded but everyone should pay their full share.† He asked what they could devise to make sure they have their cost recovery on the services they provide.
††††††††††† Stewart recalled that the $170,000 was recommended unanimously to go before the Board as a recommendation.† He said there had been money allocated from the Economic Development Standing Committee to date for Land Management for projects.
††††††††††† Dwyer thought the code needed to be written and be part of the program.† He thought Ballot Measure 37 needed to be ramped up, but be paid for it not with economic development funds.
††††††††††† Morrison was in support of this but one of her concerns was in the explanation regarding the jurisdictions incorporating the expertise and interest.† She questioned the expertise and interest of some that were listed.† She was concerned about the impact it would have on private property owners. She agreed with the private airport.† She was in approval of Ballot Measure 37.† She wanted this to come back to the Board and if they were going to spend $500,000 then she wanted to see something more productive than some of the things listed to be completed.
††††††††††† Howe explained these were the projects that he thinks could get done next fiscal year with the revenues and the staff.† He said the unknown is Measure 37 and if it requires additional staff resources, then it would take it away from other projects.† He added they are not doing any metro projects on the list.† He thought they could achieve completion of the projects this fiscal year.† He said they might have to revisit Measure 37.
††††††††††† Green commented that Lane Countyís partners in the metro area arenít concerned with what Lane County is doing.† He thought they followed a process.†
††††††††††† Dwyer said he wanted to amend the code and manual to eliminate the in-house provision of video lottery dollars whereby only the private sector would be able to compete for video lottery dollars and it wonít be a backfill.
††††††††††† Stewart thought the private airport should be a priority project.† He agreed with Ballot Measure 37.† He said with the overhaul of Lane Code Section 10 and 16, he wanted agreement between sections and not different information in each code. †He wanted to use it for housekeeping so it was easier to understand.
††††††††††† Towery explained that they talked to other counties that had recently gone through this same effort.† He said they are talking about a more narrowly focused, housekeeping type of project.† He said instead of just proposing a narrow scope, they would initially establish the larger project and they would come back to determine direction to see how they could keep the scope narrow.†
††††††††††† Stewart thought it would be appropriate to shift funding from Lane Code 10 and 16 and use it for Measure 37.† He liked the e-government piece.
††††††††††† Towery indicated they actually made an application for strategic investment to help fund an e-commerce project and it is going live.† He added they have also funded e-government out of their permit fees because they are trying to make it more effective to pay on the Internet.† He said if the Board wants them to recast their proposal for economic development funds they could do that.† He thought they met the marks the Economic Development Standing Committee set for them.† He said if the Board doesnít think it is satisfactory, then they could make the policy call.† He noted the committee wanted to keep the general allocation stable.
††††††††††† Dwyer suggested that they make another run on this.† He said they need to identify projects that are subject to competitive bidding for video lottery dollars and meet the criteria by which they allocate the money, including the outputs and outcomes. He wanted to make sure that they donít fund multi-year projects.† He said this had to be toned down and if they need other revenue they should come up with ways to recover costs.
††††††††††† Morrison wanted this to come back as soon as possible.
††††††††††† Dwyer wanted this to come back on† July 12.
†† 9.††††† CONSENT CALENDAR
A.††††††† Approval of Minutes:
June 20, 2005, Joint Elected Officials, 7:00 p.m.
October 25, 2005, Legislative Luncheon, 12:00 Noon
October 26, 2005, Regular Meting, 9:00 a.m.
October 26, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 3, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 17, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 31, 2006, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B.†††††††† County Counsel
1)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-4/In the Matter of Approving the Use of Transient Room Tax Funds for Operational Purposes for the Florence Events Center for FY 07.
2)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-5/In the Matter of Approving the Use of Transient Room Tax Funds for Operational Purposes for the Fairgrounds for FY 07.
C.††††††† Health and Human Services
1)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-6/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Emergence in the Amount of $304,949 for Fiscal Year 2006-07 to Support Outpatient Problem Gambling Treatment Services.
2)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-7/In the Matter of Granting Authority to Mountain Retreat Secured Transport, Northwest Regional LCC, Oregon Regional Behavioral Services and Secure Transportation of Oregon to Carry Out Provision ORS 426.233 for Secure Transport Services.
D.††††††† Management Services
1)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-8/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Bran D. Nelson for $10,000 (Map #17-04-32-00-01700, Adjacent to 87941 LaPorte Dr., Eugene).
2)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-9/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Tom Bridges for $3,000 (Map #21-35-16-12-02700, Corner of Sanford and High Leah Drive, Oakridge).
3)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-10/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Public Risk Consultants for Lane County Workers' Compensation Claims Administration.
E.†††††††† Public Works
1)†††††††† ORDER 06-6-21-11/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to West Coast Contractors, Inc. in the Amount of $293,350 for Structure Repair Ė Coyote Creek Covered Bridge (Bridge No. 18-5W-32), Contract No. 05/06-15.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECOND.
VOTE: 4-0 (Green left early).
† 10.†††† CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
† 11.†††† COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Stewart stated he attended a summit on chronic† homelessness in Salem.† He thought it was a well-run summit.† He wanted to see if they could put numbers in on chronic homelessness in Lane County to see if they could have a better way to address the problem.
† 12.†††† EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
† 13.†††† OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 11: 50 a.m.