BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’
November 8, 2006
Following Board of Health
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
Item 7 c) should read Township 16, south range 6 west, instead of Township 16, south 2 west.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cindy Land, Eugene, stated a Business Plan dated September 26 that had been proposed to the Lane County Fair Board had been copywrited by the YMCA and states it is confidential and proprietary.
Dwyer asked if it had been submitted to the Fair Board. He asked if there was any restriction for information that was submitted to a public body that was proprietary.
Van Vactor asked if Land obtained a copy.
Land responded that the YMCA’s proposal for the conversion of the livestock arena says on the front of the proposal that it is proprietary information. She has a copy.
Wilson said the missing fact was the condition under which the Fair Board requested the proposals. She said if the Fair Board requested proposals and promised that certain financial information would be confidential in the request, then a response to the extent it was legally practicable under the public records law, that information could be held confidential She said the Fair Board does not consult with her on those types of issues. She said they should ask the Fair Board for release of the information they received.
Dwyer wanted a copy of the RFP and if there were any restrictions regarding
Land asked if the $1,105,000 for ten years was actually guaranteed revenue or an estimate of profit or loss sharing with the County at 60 percent. She asked if the YMCA qualified for that type of a partnership sharing profit and losses with Lane County including labor practices, employee overtime and other requirements. She asked who would loan the YMCA $600,000 for conversion of the livestock arena.
Diana Robertson, representing Shelter Animal Resource Alliance, Eugene, said their mission is to assist, rescue and advocate for shelter animals. She said the LCARA Task Force was going to be bringing recommendations for approval to research ways to generate additional revenue. She said she was a member of the task force and they did not make the recommendations regarding the cat regulation licensing provisions. She said the program was recommended as a voluntary program. She said there are arguments about cat licensing.
Jill Winans, Eugene, stated she is in opposition of the proposed cat licensing and its resulting regulation of domestic cats as presented by David Suchart and Mike Wellington of LCARA. She challenged the concept of the code change as an efficient means of solving the cat overpopulation problem. She said she is an Executive Director of Willamette Animal Guild and since December 2004 the organization has been working to open a high volume, low cost fixed location spay and neuter clinic to serve all of Lane County. She hoped they could open the clinic next year. She said with their business plan they would be able to alter 6,000 animals per year, 4,000 of which would be cats. She explained that could prevent 16,000 kittens from being born their first year. She was not asking the Board for money; she said it was what Nathan Winograd’s no kill solution is about. She commented it was a program that was practical, cost effective and supported by the community.
Joachim Schulz, Cottage Grove, stated he is a member of the Commission for Children and Families. He urged the Board to approve the ten year plan to end homelessness.
Judy Templeton, Cheshire, was concerned about the status of Templeton Road. She distributed information. She stated the recommendation of Option 2 by Frank Simas was flawed and the Board should readdress some of the information. She said Option 2 doesn’t provide for moving the gate. She said the gate in the family’s opinion should be moved to their north property line and not at a milepost. She added that the distribution of the keys was a problem. She said in the proposal, the County proposes to take jurisdiction of the gate and to maintain the key distribution. She commented that the proposal was flawed in that at a minimum the keys are distributed to the Oregon Department of Forestry, Paul Templeton, the BLM and other affected agencies with two other property owners involved. She indicated there are four Templeton family members that would take all of the keys. She said as property owners, they do not wish to provide a fire escape dedicated by keys to adjacent property owners. She thought Option 2 could be re-worked to move the gate and provide for distribution of keys so that all Templeton family members have a key.
Carolyn Ashton, Eugene, stated she is a faculty member of the Bridge Program of the OSU Extension Service. She said the YMCA has a proposal for a multi-use sports facility that would misplace both 4H and Lane County Fair horse events. She said 4H thinks they are being pushed out and everything is up in the area. She commented they think that animals are no longer welcome or wanted on the fairgrounds as it is too much of a hassle to work with them. She indicated if the YMCA proposal went through it would break up the tradition of having the 4H Youth Fair. She said the second week of the fair would take place at a different location. She wanted the livestock pavilion kept to house animals and for animal use.
Cliff Kelly, President of the 4H Leaders Association, Elmira, added he was at the meeting where the YMCA proposal was initially proposed at the fairgrounds and they received an indication from Bob Zagorin of the Fair Board that there was no competitive process involved. He said the proposal is to give the YMCA a ten year lease on the facility and the Fair Board had yet to secure a ten year lease for an alternate facility. He said the cost of providing an alternate facility is unknown. He said they wanted to schedule their pre-fair but the Fair Board won’t commit to them.
Green asked what the cost was for the 4H Fair at the Fairgrounds.
Kelly stated they paid the Oregon Horse Center $5,000 last year to have the pre-Fair. He indicated that Guaranty R.V. had provided $3,500 in funding since they had to leave the Fairgrounds due to the restriction on animal use. He wanted to come back to the Fairgrounds in the spring but couldn’t get a commitment from the Fair Board.
Richard Wiltsie, Templeton Road, didn’t think the vacation of the road was above board. He said last year the County Engineer came to him and asked about other parcels of land that needed vacating. He wanted to see something moved forward.
John Dodge, Templeton Road, stated no one knows where the road is. He said he had come to the Board previously to keep the road a dead end. He indicated that no one had used the road since 1947. He said some people want special rights for keys. He wanted a key.
Frank Mars, Templeton Road, said he was against the vacating of the road because of public safety. He said they need access for fire danger.
Paul Templeton, Cheshire, previously submitted written testimony. He had problems with the County controlling the keys to the gate. He stated the County would not be maintaining the road and they have no interest in giving out keys. He thought they should take it off the map as being an open road.
Ann Verna, Junction City, said she moved on the road in 1973 and they drove it in the summer to go to the coast. She indicated the road was used until 1986 until the gate was put in. She noted for the past 20 years they have had a key and they never opened the gate. She thought they should have access to the key. She commented that some of the people need access in case of fire.
Joe Verna, Junction City, stated he lived on the road for 35 years. He said the road was maintained by the County in 1896 and it was moved around 1970. He thought the County could be liable for moving the gate and not furnishing any of the residences with a key. He said all of the neighbors support Public Works’ position.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson stated that the voters re-elected Governor Kulingoski and Congressman
DeFazio and rejected the ballot measures. He commented that the election brought changes.
Stewart thanked all the citizens that helped the County try to pass the public safety income tax. He wanted to direct staff to review the results of the election and report back to the Board on the positives and negatives of the measure and give dates and timelines for next year’s elections so they could try this again.
Dwyer commented that the needs are real and they will respond to the citizens.
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 06-11-8-1/In the Matter of Approving the Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness.
Pearl Wolfe, Health and Human Services, requested the Board’s approval for Lane County’s plan to end chronic homelessness. She noted that plans like this have been adopted in over 220 communities throughout the United States. She added that they partner with the Department of Housing and Human Development to bring in $2 million per year in homeless services to Lane County and the funding goes to a variety of agencies, providing 15 different programs to help homeless individuals and families. She explained that the plan focuses on people who are chronically homeless. She said they have outlined goals in the plan to look at housing for people who are chronically homeless.
Dwyer read the order into the record.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-11-8-1.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Green asked the Board to consider $5,000 to meet the amount for Homeless Connect.
Van Vactor indicated it would come out of the contingency fund.
ORDER 06-11-8-10 Transferring $5,000 from the General Fund Operational Contingency to Materials & Services Within General Expense for Project Homeless Connect
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-11-8-10.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
b. BOARD DISCUSSION/Planning Commission Interviews.
Kent Howe, Land Management, asked if the two people whose terms have expired and have reapplied, continue on until the positions are reappointed. He said their terms expired September 30.
Wilson explained that with expired terms, people hold over until the vacancy is filled.
Dwyer asked if there was any objection to allow those who are currently serving to continue serving until they have been reappointed or replaced..
Howe noted they are a commission of nine and it takes five for a quorum. He indicated there are three vacancies. He said that Juanita Kirkham had served two terms from the coast and did not reapply.
Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes indicated Lane Manual states they are to remain in their position until they are replaced.
Howe said the Board needed to identify a subcommittee to interview and make the new appointments. He said there is a discussion about having a joint meeting between the Board and the Lane County Planning Commission.
Stewart wanted to see them move forward in setting up the interviews and making recommendations. He noted people who had applied in August thought they would know something in September when the seat came open. He indicated they were asked to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on November 21 and the agenda team thought they should wait until next year, but in talking with the chair of the Planning Commission, it would be advisable to schedule the meeting for November 21.
Green thought if there was any interviewing the applicants, it should be by the full board versus a subcommittee.
Dwyer said they would schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on November 21, discuss any differences and decide where to proceed from there.
Morrison added they would do interviews as a full board.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 06-11-8-3/In the Matter of Endorsing Lane Transit District’s Pioneer Parkway EmX (Bus Rapid Transit) Project.
Celia Barry, Public Works, explained the Board received a supplement this week with an updated board order. She reported the Springfield City Council unanimously voted to endorse the project concept.
Dwyer asked why this was before the Board of Commissioners.
Barry responded that Lane Transit District has a policy where they want to have jurisdictional support for bus rapid transit for their efforts. She said the board order would endorse the project. She stated there were no monetary funds being requested.
Stefano Viggiano, LTD, reported that there was no legal requirement that Lane County take action on this project. He said they could proceed through funding. He noted for TransPlan, the policy indicated they would not proceed with the corridor unless there was local support. He determined that local support would be demonstrated through the approval by elected officials. He indicated this project goes through some areas that are outside of the City of Springfield and he thought it was appropriate to bring it to the Board of Commissioners. He recalled that this corridor was selected in 2001 as the second Em Ex Corridor. He indicated there has been extensive public process.
Morrison asked if the money was wrapped up in the last session of Congress.
Viggiano responded that their application was submitted last September and would be considered as part of the 2008 appropriation.
Morrison asked if this would be a multi year request.
Viggiano indicated that the money would either come all at once or in two years. He requested the money over two years and the FTA asked them to consider taking it all in the first year. He noted this is a brand new program. He said they are requesting 80 percent funding.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-11-8-3.
Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
b. ORDER 06-11-8-4/In the Matter of Awarding the Annual Trashbuster Awards.
Dwyer read the order into the record.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-11-8-4.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
c. DISCUSSION/Direction to Staff Regarding the Legal Status of Portions of Templeton Road, County Road No. 50, in Sections 2 and 11, Township 16 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian (NBA & PM 10/18/06).
Frank Simas, Public Works, recalled he was before the Board on October 18. He said after the presentation, staff recommendation was for Public Works staff to cease efforts to resolve the status of Templeton Road and for the County Engineer to assume maintenance and responsibility for distribution of the keys to the gate. He indicated at that time the motion was to accept the staff recommendation with the added condition that the gate be moved to the south, to the north line of the Templeton property. He said the motion failed due to a tied vote and the staff recommendation remains the same.
Sorenson asked to have a meeting with everyone involved to see if something could be worked out.
Simas responded that for the past two years he had been working on this. He said they have gotten to a consensus because they have competing interests. He commented that staff recommendation is not perfect for everyone. He said it satisfies some of the concerns of the parties. He noted that staff recommendation would be to have it resolved some time in the future. He said in the future if there was a need for the road to be maintained or improved, it could still be done. He indicated the initial concern was to be able to turn the grader around. He said without acquisition of the original right-of-way, there is only 60 feet of width. He said cars could use the turnaround. He indicated there would be enough room for cars to turn around but not larger vehicles.
Stewart asked if there was an existing turnaround.
Simas indicated the turnaround is to the north of the gate and is close to Mr. Verna’s driveway. Simas said Verna had a concern about the grader turning around in that location.
Stewart indicated a concern brought to the Board was one of the landowners who owns property but cannot physically open the gate.
MOTION: to move staff’s recommendation.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Morrison wanted to make sure they were moving the gate south and the keys were distributed.
Simas indicated that was part of the staff recommendation, but if they wanted to add it to the motion it could be a direction.
Morrison wanted it added in order to eliminate problems.
Sorenson and Green agreed.
Stewart recalled there was concern about all the landowners getting a key.
Dwyer recalled the motion is to accept staff recommendations with Morrison’s amendment that would move the gate south 600 feet from the present location.
MOTION: Morrison’s amendment.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
MOTION: Staff report as amended.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).
d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1226/In the Matter of Adopting Amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan For Properties in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed and Other Portions of Rural Lane County; Adopting Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals Three and Four Where Necessary; Adopting Changes in Zoning Designations to Comply With Such Plan Amendments Where Necessary; and Adopting a Savings and Severability Clause (Control No. 1-21) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: November 29, 2006, 1:30 pm).
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance PA 1226 for November 29, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.
Morrison MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
e. THIRD 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).
Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, recommended the Board should approve this to complete the periodic review for the Metro Plan.
Sorenson asked what the down side would be for not approving this.
Schulz responded the Metro Plan would not be complete.
Green indicated he spoke with the city attorney because there were issues that were not in the County’s interest. Green said the City of Eugene staff performed a lot of the work and if the County wasn’t satisfied with the scope of the work, then Lane County could embark on the work.
Vorhes commented that there would be legal consequences if the Board doesn’t adopt this. He noted that the Periodic Review is ongoing and this was the last piece that had not been completed.
Green suggested that staff come back with a set of recommendations on how they could proceed in Lane County’s interest. He thought this document was largely based upon the City of Eugene.
MOTION: to have staff come back with a set of recommendation on how the Board could proceed with Lane County’s interests.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
Morrison said she had questions she sent to the City of Eugene and she didn’t think she got answers to her questions. She didn’t agree with the PROS Plan. She thought the public needed to be aware of what the impacts to their property will be with the Lane County Goal 5 inventory, the City of Eugene Goal 8 Parks, Recreation and Open Space and the Goal 6 water quality protection. She didn’t think this was where Lane County wanted to be.
Vorhes wanted to make sure the motion contained a fourth reading of the ordinance to provide options that address the Goal 5 periodic review.
Green and Stewart agreed to add it to their motion.
Vorhes indicated they could discuss the PROS Plan and Goal 5 resources that are affected by this ordinance.
MOTION: to approve a Third Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading and Deliberation on December 12, 2006 for Ordinance PA 1234.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 4- 1 (Sorenson dissenting).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes: None.
B. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 06-11-8-6/In the Matter of Approving an Amendment in the Amount of $96,000 for the Period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 with Lane Education Service District Increasing the Total Amount of the Intergovernmental Agreement to $192,000 for Fiscal Period July 1, 2005 Through June 30, 2007 for Prevention Services in Lane County Schools.
C. Public Works
1) ORDER 06-11-8-7/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Fisher Land Co., DBA Oakridge Sand and Gravel, Inc., in the Amount of $342,120.00, for Base Rock Production, West Boundary Road Stockpile Sites, Contract No. 06/07-02.
2) ORDER 06-11-8-8/In the Matter of Prescribing the Use of the Lane County Covered Bridge Float.
3) ORDER 06-11-8-9/In the Matter of Confirming a Temporary Closure of the Coyote Creek Covered Bridge (State Bridge ID 39C409) Located at M.P. 0.1 on Battle Creek Road.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
9. COUNTY COUNSEL
a. REPORT AND DISCUSSION/State-County Contracts, Including Oregon Department of Human Services Contracts.
Trina Laidlaw, Assistant County Counsel, explained this is a status report of the statewide effort to resolve contract language and state agency contracts. She indicated there hadn’t been much statewide progress with other state agencies other than the Oregon Department of Human Services. She noted that Lane County has been working with the Oregon Department of Human Services for the past five years. She indicated they reached a plateau and one of the areas they weren’t able to resolve is when a county follows DHS rules or written direction that might lead to a violation of federal law. She said it has been called the Safe Harbor Provision and was intended to benefit counties and limit risk exposure when DHS causes the County to misexpend funds. She indicated there are millions of dollars at issue. She noted it is an option provision now for counties and the 49th amendment to the DHS financial assistant agreement that is being processed. She asked the Board whether they should agree to the safe harbor in its current form, as the safe harbor provision says if the County violates federal law in making the expenditure, the County does not have to repay DHS, if it relies on a DHS writing except if the writing clearly violated the law. She added if the law was unclear, but later interpreted to be a violation, then DHS agrees to negotiate. She stated the County may have to repay some or all of the expenditures depending on the negotiation.
Laidlaw explained the other part of safe harbor covers the County following a DHS rule. She said if the rule clearly violates federal law and the County relies on it, then a County probably does get a safe harbor and does not have to repay DHS. She noted where the law is unclear at the time of the DHS rule, the most a county gets is DHS agreement to negotiate. She indicated there are other provisions already in the agreement that would require the parties to negotiate their disputes. She commented that the County wasn’t getting much out of the safe harbor provision. She said the question asks what they are losing. She noted there were exceptions with safe harbor when relying on a DHS writing. She added the other exceptions would probably mean a county would be giving up the full extent of its common law defenses and claims that it otherwise would have. She commented that loss is major. She indicated when two parties come to execute a contract, they come with the agreements and provisions they have in the contract and additional common law rights and remedies. She explained what the safe harbor provision does now for DHS is limit the ability to raise common law defenses and rights.
Laidlaw’s recommendation is to ask the DHS to delete the portion relating to the DHS writing and ask to keep the language relating to the DHS rule. She said the portion relating to the rule needs work, but they could get something from it. She added if they don’t agree to the partial deletion, then her recommendation would be to delete this in its entirety and continue to work with DHS to get something more reasonable.
Dwyer asked about a legislative remedy.
Laidlaw indicated that could be an option in the future and there might be other counties that could be involved.
Dwyer asked about a budget note.
Laidlaw responded that could be a possibility when the DHS budget comes before the legislature.
Dwyer thought Laidlaw was going in the right direction.
Sorenson wanted to take this on as a free standing bill.
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Green indicated he put information in the commissioners’ boxes about the NACo prescription card. He wanted Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, to report back to find out what the barriers would be for Lane County. With regard to ACTSO Awards and Day of Caring, he wanted to have Lisa Smith, DYS and Children and Families possibly apply for the awards.
Morrison wanted to see the analysis of the election results by precinct.
Stewart wanted a report back in next year’s election cycle.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660 (2)(e) for the purpose of consulting with property negotiators. Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on litigation.
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer recessed the meeting at 12:05 p.m.