BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
May 24, 2006
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present. Bobby Green, Sr., was present via telephone Acting County Administrator Dave Garnick, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Morrison stated under Correspondence to Board, there was material delivered from CVALCO that she wanted to add. She also wanted to add the work from the Boundary Commission.† Under Commissioners Business, she wanted to discuss elections.
Dwyer stated under Commissioners Business he has a letter from ACTSO requesting funds.† He said they requested $5,000
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Dotson, Eugene, recalled there was a petition before the Boundary Commission regarding street annexation.†† He asked for an update as he had heard nothing.
Morrison stated that County Counsel had been waiting for Paula Taylor from the Boundary Commission to get back with her findings.† They hadnít heard yet.
Dotson said there was a public notice about a piece of property to be included in the street annexation.† He said it had to be reviewed by the Boundary Commission before it could be moved forward.
Sorenson wanted a referral on Lane Countyís position on the existence of the Lane County Boundary Commission sent to the state Legislative Affairs Committee to get a position on the issue before the next legislature.
Jim Seaberry, Santa Clara, stated (on the transfer of the 20 county roads) that Sorenson asked Jim Carlson what authority was used in the request transfer.† Carlson indicated the answer was 373,270.† Seaberry said it is transferring jurisdiction over County roads within cities.† He said jurisdiction may be transferred under the section whenever certain things take place.
Keith Stanton, Florence, discussed the Bernhardt Heights project.† He said for todayís meeting the Board is awarding a contract to build the top half.† He indicated $660,000 is almost double what was originally authorized. He stated the Board was faced with indirectly reauthorizing the project.† He supported numbers two and three, which the neighbors had continued to endorse.† He recalled County staff stated (in the December 2003 meeting) that the project would cost $150,000.† To date staff has spent $200,000 for surveys and studies.† He thought they should look for a less expensive and agreeable alternative or leave the road as it is.† He wanted option two but would accept option three.† He uses the road daily.
Verna Morse, Florence, spoke on Bernhardt Heights Road.† She didnít know why they were putting the road in, as it is over a mile longer than their existing road.† She indicated the existing road is on hard rock and it had been there over 100 years.† She said the road going in will be 100 feet from her bedroom door and has been causing her emotional problems.† She said they canít get any clarification from the fire department, as to being able to come up the new road.† She was concerned about fire.
James McCartney, Florence, stated the work that was done on Bernhardt Heights Road was not well done.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
a. ORDER 06-5-24-10 Applying for a Federal U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant in the Amount of $197,446 for Thirty-Six Months to Purchase In-Car Video Camera Systems for Patrol and Traffic Safety Vehicles (Department of Public Safety).
Jackie Mikalonois, Sheriffís Office, explained that this was one of two grants already provided by the Community Oriented Policing Services to the Sheriffís Department.† She said it is through an appropriations bill from the Department of Justice.† She indicated this grant is for technology and the other is for meth.† She noted they had already been provided the money and in order to get the money they have to go through the application process and get approval from the Board.† She said the grant is for video cameras in cars.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-5-24-10.
Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE†
Stewart reported on a traffic accident near his home that claimed the life of a young mother and her three children.† He commented that life could change in an instant.
5. CHILDREN & FAMILIES
a. REPORT BACK/Domestic Violence.
Alicia Hays, Amber Murray, Diana Avery, Karen Gaffney and Linda Eaton gave a presentation on Domestic Violence. (Copy in file).
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
Morrison recalled that there was a previous discussion on not having C & Eís on Lane Countyís website from Elections as is done at the state level.† She thought the† Boardís direction was to go to Policies and Procedures.† She said it came up again last week and because of the Board policy they adopted regarding their internet website,† they canít do that unless they change the policy. She noted that according to the current Lane Code website language, personal information cannot be posted. She noted on the reporting forms there is personal information and that is what is prohibiting them from listing their information.† She wanted to make sure that it goes to Policies and Procedures and it could go back to the Board.
ORDER 06-5-24-11 Contributing $5,000 from the General Fund Operational Contingency to the Eugene-Springfield NAACP Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological, Scientific, Olympics (ACTSO) Program to Assist in the 2006 ACTSO National Competition.
Dwyer stated he received a letter from ACTSO dated April 28 requesting $5,000 for an award so students can go to Washington, D.C. to compete.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-5-24-11.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
a. Announcements/ORDER 06-5-24-12 Amending Board Order 06-1-18-2 Establishing a Nuisance Abatement Program in the Waste Management Division of the Public Works Department to Allow the Program to Begin Sooner.
Dave Ganick recalled that in January a board order was passed to establish a new program in Waste Management.† He said the direction was to provide one FTE and to include it in the base budget for 06/07.
Dwyer stated that the Board would defer to the administrative ability of the County Administrator to make the decision.
Wilson said the board order was adopted authorizing creation of a new program in July 1.† She said they authorized the posting for the position to be up and running July 1.† She said the policy is to let it start a little earlier.
Dwyer favored starting the policy early.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-5-24-12.
Sorenson MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Garnick reported the County Visa cards will be discontinued within two weeks.† He said they are converting to a procurement card system.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 06-5-24-1/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to JAL Construction, Inc., in the Amount of $658,276.33 for Grading and Drainage, Bernhardt Heights Road (M.P. 0.58 to M.P. 1.25), Contract No. 05/06-13.
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, reported that the Board directed staff to pursue the alignment in an attempt to get this taken care of.† He said they advertised the project for bid and received three bids.† He noted that all three bids were in excess of the engineerís estimates.† He said there have been design issues relating to environmental protection slope stability for the crossing of the stream.† He added there was a rapid increase in the cost of construction materials.† He said the project had been difficult from the beginning.† He stated either staying with the existing alignment or going to a new alignment is expensive.† He would avoid doing either if they could.† He said the existing alignment has slope stability problems.† He commented that the road is narrow and has been difficult to maintain.† He said there had been efforts in the past to put in temporary fixes to isolated parts of the embankment failure.† He said they had worked for some time but they are no longer working.† He noted the length of road affected by unstable movement of the hillside is about 300 feet.† He said one of the alternatives they considered was to cut into the hillside to move the road away from the edge.† He said they would have to cut into the rock hillside and there are unknowns with that.† He believed the geology of the hillside is unstable.†† He noted that with the new alignment the slope is steeper.
Chickering indicated they had to acquire right of way through the new alignment.† He added they have also expended funds on extending the guardrail and improving the drainage.† He said they have plans to chip seal the new alignment from the railroad tracks to its conclusion.† He wanted to move forward with this contract.† He stated that they have staff time and effort that have already gone into the project and they were lost expenses.† His recommendation is to pursue the new alignment based on Board direction.
Dwyer commented that it is a precarious road.† He didnít want to do something the people didnít want.† He wanted Option 2.
Stewart was concerned with the road and the Countyís liability.† He asked if they thought about vacating the road and letting the citizens take care of it.
Chickering said they had that discussion early in the process.† He said there was discussion about turning it into a local access road and removing County road status where it would still be opened to the public but not maintained by the County.† He added there was an option to just vacate the road to the property owners.
Stewart asked about the Countyís liability.
Wilson responded that they bear liability for the design and maintenance.† She explained if they were to vacate the road or reduce it to a public road and there is an accident, the change in status would dramatically affect their liability.† She said Public Works tried to design something that reduces their risk of liability.
Dwyer commented that people who looked for property on the road knew how bad the road was.† He said they accepted the risk by traversing the road.
Morrison wanted to roll this item until the afternoon.† She also wanted to get information from other property owners.††
Sorenson asked about the grade of the road.
Chickering noted the existing portion of the new alignment is† 22 percent.††
Sorenson asked if there was a 16 degree maximum because fire equipment canít get up the road.
Chickering explained that during the special use permit process they had a letter that was submitted by the Siuslaw Valley Fire and Rescue.† He said their desire was for the road to be no steeper than 12 percent.† He indicated† they couldnít state they could not provide service on the 22 percent grade because they have several driveways and access roads in the district that exceed 22 percent.† He said the standard request would be for 12 percent but they couldnít provide that for either alignment.
Sorenson asked if there was a maximum alignment in Lane Code.
Chickering responded that Chapter 15 stated it was 15 percent.
Sorenson asked how it would lower Lane Countyís legal liability if they built a road that violated their own ordinance.
Chickering noted by adoption of a design concept, the Board had granted exceptions to some design standards.
Wilson explained that if they canít build within a design standard, with a reasonable budgetary constraint, that was a policy choice for the Board.
Chickering stated that Mr. Jarmello had told him he is attempting to rent or sell the house that is vacant.† He is having a hard time because of the condition of the existing roadway.† He added that he hadnít talked to any other property owners recently.
(The portion below took place in the afternoon).
Chickering recalled that Morrison asked the Board to roll this to the afternoon.† He attempted to contact the property owners and some had sent in e-mails.
Morrison said there was an e-mail from Debbie and Derek Peterson who are the property owners above the slide.† She said if they cut into the bank it would impact their house.† She said they have worked with the different property owners to come up with an alignment.† She commented that 100 percent of the people are not going to be happy.† She received an e-mail from Richard Gray who was supportive.† She noted Bonneville Power sent an e-mail stating they were supportive but had a concern about security problems.† She thought this was a good solution.
Green asked what this refined alignment does to Lane Countyís risk.
Chickering commented that the new alignment was their best chance to avoid an accident from occurring.† He thought they could do a better job of maintaining the new alignment into the future than they can the old alignment.
Vorhes said the Board has the ability to decide on the ultimate design standards of roads.
MOTION: to move Option One of ORDER 06-5-24-1.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-2† (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
Dwyer thought there could be a cheaper fix and it is taking money from other projects.
b. STATUS REPORT/City of Eugeneís River Avenue Improvement Project.
Chickering reported in February 2005 the City of Eugene approached the County about a project they had proposed for improvement of River Avenue.† He noted it is in the cityís jurisdiction but there are several properties on both sides of the road that are still in the County, they had not been annexed into the city.† He said at that time the city asked for the Boardís permission to assess the County residents along the road for a portion of the improvement costs and the Board passed an order to that effect.† He added after that the Board received public comment from property owners along River Avenue expressing concern about the proposed improvements., and the Board voted to send a letter to Mayor Piercy expressing the Boardís concern about the issues raised by the County residents.† He said as a result, (during the hearing to form a local improvement district) the city council voted to not form the improvement district.† They cancelled the bid award and directed city staff to form a stakeholders group that was more inclusive of people who own property along the road.† He indicated that city staff had completed that process and they have come up with a new design concept.† He noted the new design concept had been approved by the city council and the stakeholders had been notified and there was a public hearing in April of this year.† He indicated there is a bid opening that will take place in a few days and then another hearing to form a local improvement district.† He said the city asked that he update the Board on the status.† He asked County Counsel to review the original order.† They had determined that it still applies.† He stated that there is no further action required by the Board at this point.
c. WORK SESSION/Discussion with the Board of County Commissioners on the Review of Two Action Items in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Implementation of Fire Safety Standards in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) of Rural Lane County.
Jeff Towery, Land Management,† explained this was an issue that had been through the Lane County Planning Commission.† He said it is a project that is related to the implementation of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan that the Board adopted last July.
Bill Sage, Land Management, said the addendum the Board received had diagrams that illustrated the plans.† He said they sent another addendum with a letter from Chad Minter, Fire Defense Board,† supporting one of the two proposals that were reviewed in the public session before the Planning Commission.† He distributed another letter from the two fire districts and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
Sage said initially they were looking at 2 action items out of 21 the Community Wildlife Protection Plan said they should do.† He said those action items endorsed the fact that they should have a review of both Land Management and land use codes by permitting fuel breaks and road standards across the Board for residential use and they should look at the building code to see what they could use to protect lives and property and natural resources.† He noted they always had these standards in the F2 zone† in order to get a dwelling.† He indicated those dwellings are on smaller parcels.† He said they allow 35 of the F2 dwellings per year and they do the inspection to make sure the road had been improved to a particular standard.† They also look at the fuel breaks to make sure those meet the standards.
Sage explained they went out with the original F2 code that had a 30 foot fuel break and a 100 foot secondary fuel break and the public stated they didnít want it instituted for new development.† He added that all the people who testified said they already had their dwellings and didnít think they should have those standards because it would be extended to the existing dwelling in the future.† He indicated they sent a mailing out to 34,000 properties in any of the 13 applicable zones.† He said they got 147 people who responded and 140 of them were adamantly against it and only three were owners of properties that hadnít been developed.† He recalled that three days before the Planning Commission meeting, Chad Minter and Don Patrick got in touch with them and they had looked at what they were proposing in the F2 zone to apply countywide and they revoted.††
Sage wanted Board direction to SB 360, the 30 foot fuel break and the road standards that are essential to have in the rural areas for fire protection.† He said they want to go to a public hearing to make sure they get this information to the public.
Sage explained that last year the Board authorized a grant and 2200 homes were being visited by the Department of Forestry.† He said they have the ability with Title II grant to ask for monies to look at Cottage Grove and Mosby Creek that include Dorena and Culp Creek, which has no fire protection at all.
Dwyer asked how many acres they did with fuel reduction.
Sage indicated they used $48,000, to inspect the 2,200 properties.† He said they have to plan for the funding.† He commented that if they stopped, they would lose one year of an opportunity to work with the property owners to get them where they could do things on their own.
Stewart thought that education was the most important piece and information should be given to them so they could protect themselves.† He said Lane County doesnít have the ability to enforce this.
Dwyer was concerned about the insurance companies policing this and the marketplace.
Sorenson noted that they are going to be getting more rural residents because of Measure 37.† He asked if the increased fire risk could be estimated.
Sage said they canít predict what will happen.† He said they werenít asking for any protections.† He said this was to allow safe passage for emergency vehicles in the event there was a fire and a safe area around the structure of 30 feet so the fire fighters could get in and fight the fire.
Dwyer asked what the bottom line was for people who were outside of F2.
Sage indicated in the addendum there are two processes.† One is to get an inspection process.† He said the inspection process is designed to be built into the building permit process and $150 is all they will require for the inspection of the fuel brakes and the inspection of the road.† He said the primary fuel brake and the initial roads and width and depth will be reviewed when they look at the forms and footings that will be set up before they pour.
Sorenson asked if this went to the Planning Commission.
Sage indicated it went to the Planning Commission and they reviewed the same policy issues:† did they want to have the old standard, or the Coburg standard as the policy issue to bring forward for consideration by the Board?† He said the second issue is whether they wanted it as a mandatory requirement or adopted as a code, more than advisory.† He said on a 4-2 basis they said they like the defensible space and they would make a recommendation and a vote of 6-0 to make it advisory.
MOTION: to approve Option 1, the advisory option to direct staff to coordinate with the Oregon State Fire Marshall, Oregon Department of Forestry, Lane† County Fire Defense Board and individual fire districts to promote educational format designed to inform Lane County citizens about voluntary actions and advisory fire safety standards as protection of their property, families and surrounding forest resources.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Morrison commented that there needs to be a sincere effort to be put together in a cohesive coordinated education program and not one that is fragmented.††
Stewart wanted them to consider a public outreach and change the current LC 16.2118 ( c) and look at the possibility of eliminating the 100 foot setback and implementing the 30 foot break, going through a public process.
VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
d. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1231/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning of That Land From "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" To "ML/SRĒ (ďMarginal Land with Site Review"), and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 04-6092, Dahlen) (NBA & PM 4/5/06 & 4/19/06). (Jerry Kendall)
Jerry Kendall, Land Management, recalled the Board conducted the Second Reading and Public Hearing on April 19.† He said they then closed the record, only leaving the record open for written comments.† He noted on May 10 they received documentation from Steve Cornacchia, the applicantís agent, which included additional new evidence from the consulting forester.† That new evidence had been reflected in the revised findings.† He said it looks like this item will go on appeal to LUBA and it would be avoiding a procedural error to reopen the record, allow the new evidence into the record dated May 22, and allow parties to comment on the new evidence, coming back to the Board for a Fourth Reading and Deliberation on July 12.
Stewart asked what the new evidence was.
Kendall responded they turned in evidence that was a stronger argument in terms of not being able to raise ponderosa pine or other species.† He added they also entered into the record in the lease some information from other marginal land cases they are citing as back up information to support their approval.
Stewart didnít think there was new evidence.† He said they addressed the ponderosa pine with more information.† He commented that Mr. Jest wanted to refute the evidence he brought in for Ponderosa Pine.
Vorhes indicated that the time to respond was to allow new evidence to come in. He said the final response period is only for argument.
Kendall suggested reopening the record for the timelines and the Board would allow to enter into the record all the information attached to the latest memo and to let parties comment on that information up to June 14, June 21 for the applicantís final rebuttal, no new evidence and the Board would deliberate on July 12.
Green asked about the submitted information into the record submitted by the legal representative for the applicant.††
Dwyer recalled that Kendall reviewed the material they provided, and on the basis of that review, he construed it could be appealed to LUBA on the basis he stated.
Kendall explained the exhibits attached to Mr. Setchko's letter are new material.††
MOTION: to reopen the record and allow into the record the new information.† The record will be open until June 14 to submit additional information and to June 21 for final rebuttal and deliberation only on July 12.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:† None.
B. County Administration
1) ORDER 06-5-24-2/In the Matter of Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement and Awarding a Contract (Sub-Recipient Agreement) to St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, Inc. for Grant Administration and Management of the Regional Housing Rehabilitation Program (RHRP).
C. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 06-5-24-3/In the Matter of a Refund to Monaco Coach Corporation in the Amount of $501,975.09.
D. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 06-5-24-4/In the Matter of Applying for a Federal U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant in the Amount of $250,000 for Thirty Months to Increase Collaboration Between the Mental Health and Criminal Justice Systems.
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 06-5-24-5/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Wilder Construction Company in the Amount of $1,277,290 for Construction of an Exposed Geomembrane Cover for Phase I/II Closure at the Short Mountain Landfill and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract, Contract† WM 05/06-12.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
Morrison noted there was a letter sent to the Board from CVALCO regarding the convention center issue.† She said the request that came back urged the two metro cities in Lane County to maintain an awareness of this issue, to articulate supportive language in revision documents, and adopt strategies encouraging investment in hospitality infrastructure by private developers and by private public partnerships.† She asked where Lane County was in the process.
Wilson recalled that Bob Zagorin was the convener of the group.† She added there will be a joint Fair Board meeting soon and that could be a topic to be discussed.
Boundary Commission Letter
Morrison indicated there was a letter submitted to the Board dated May 3 that went to the Eugene City Council regarding a series of questions and answers given by the Santa Clara Community Organization stating their position.† She didnít know what the next steps would be.
Dwyer suggested giving it to Bill Van Vactor for a response.
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Sorenson announced that he is working on his visit to St. Wendel.† He noted there will be a World Cup in Germany while he is there.
Stewart stated Peter Leung asked to have the Chinese delegation here on June 7 and work them into a Board meeting.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 11:40 a.m.