BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

August 27, 2008

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 9/17/2008

 

Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present.  County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

Stewart indicated that Executive Session would be held at 11:00 a.m., time certain. He noted the Board received a resolution proclaiming September 3, 2008 as Good Neighbor Day.

 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Lea Patten, Florence, stated that she lives across the street from Harbor Vista R.V. Park.  She indicated that noxious weeds have been coming onto her property and she is working to get rid of them.  She wanted the County to establish a program where she could send in scotch broom.  She also wanted to see the County recycle the use of glass.

 

John Dotson, Eugene, requested the Board take up the discussion about petitions and move them forward.

 

Wilson indicated they would bring that item back to the Board.

 

Mike Tayloe, Springfield, commented that the County’s budget was not posted on the internet.  He also stated that the Board’s microphones do not work in Harris Hall.

 

Jim Gillette, recalled the last time he came to the Board, Ann McLucas brought up the issue about credibility.  He said he has pages of information he received from County employees that stated how many mobile homes were inspected and how many people were fined.  He indicated that he brought up things where staff had lied to them.  He said the Board never gets onto staff about their credibility.  He said if this is a lie, he would drop the case.  He said he wants to work with the city and the County for a park.  He commented that everything he has done with the County was not for personal gain, but to help people.  He wanted to create a vision he has.  He said he wanted the Board to cooperate with him or there will be a war.  He stated that he will not back down and let people steal money from him.  He wanted the County to prove to him why he is guilty.

 

Sorenson asked about the status of Gillette’s lawsuit.

 

Wilson indicated that Gillette’s attorney was gone in August and there will be a briefing on the remand in September.

 

Ann McLucas, Eugene, stated that yesterday Gillette received a copy of a letter that was sent to his lawyer saying there was no need to negotiate a resolution and the full dollar amount of his fine should be paid.  She commented that it was illogical because the fines imposed for the second case were influenced by the outcome of the first case, where a proper hearing was never held. She noted that Gillette received a huge fine because he was guilty in the past.  She added that Gillette is in compliance now but any perceived violations were made to help people.  He indicated that Gillette is trying to set up a multi- use park and he wants to leave the land in perpetuity for the public and the County is punishing him for doing it.

 

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

A. Approval of Minutes

 

B. Health and Human Services

 

1) ORDER 08-8-27-1/In the Matter of Applying for and Approving US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care Grant in the Amount of $2,327,960.

 

C. Public Works

 

1) ORDER 08-8-27-2/In the Matter of Constructing a Replacement of The West Fork Coyote Creek Bridge on Biggs Road (a Local Access Road).

 

2) ORDER 08-8-27-3/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Owen Equipment, in The Amount of $319,702.00, for The Purchase of One (1), New, Truck Mounted Catch Basin Cleaner, Contract FY08/09 FS-01.

 

D. Management Services

 

1) ORDER 08-8-27-4/In the Matter of Removing the Conditions Contained in a 1998 Deed That Transferred 40 Acres of County Owned Real Property to the Port of Siuslaw; Receiving Consideration of $250,000 for Said Removal and Depositing the Funds in an Industrial Development Revolving Fund Per ORS 275.318 (Map #18-12-22-00-00701, 40 Acres North of County Transfer Station in Florence).

 

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

5. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

 

None.

 

6. COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

a. Legislative Committee.

 

Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, indicated that he prepared two memos as a result of the previous Legislative Committee.  He said they discussed statewide initiatives and the legislative fix for providing an option for dissolution of a County service district.  He reported that staff couldn’t take a position for the ballot measure.  He added the same law does not apply to elected officials.  He was advised that the work they might do to prepare a resolution would be outside the scope of staff ability.

 

Cuyler indicated the Board had discussed the Metro Wastewater Service on different occasions.  He recalled the district had fulfilled its initial purpose, but it is still on the books and the Board has budget issues around it on an annual basis.  He added with the dissolution of the Boundary Commission, it is hard to process annexations into the district.  He recalled the last action was to fix the district’s boundary.  He noted if there is an election related to the service district in the future, they would have a special boundary to maintain.  He indicated another option was to examine the dissolution of the district altogether because it had fulfilled its initial purpose and the item before the Legislative Committee was how to dissolve a service district if it fulfilled its initial purpose without an election.  He said they also discussed taking this particular service district to see if they could change its purpose without an election.

 

Dwyer said they had no reason to keep the district, they didn’t want to spend $60,000 to get rid of it if they could change its purpose.  He said if they could get rid of it without an election, he would.

 

Wilson explained that this statute is at the end of a public participation process.  She stated that they had already conducted a public hearing in order to get to the stage where they could exercise the options under the statute. She thought the procedural protections were already in place.  She added the options for changing the purpose of the district is the same as the option to create a new district.  She noted the district doesn’t have a permanent tax rate.  She indicated they would have to go through dissolution of this district and the creation of a new one.

 

MOTION: to direct the County Administrator to develop draft legislation to allow dissolution of the County service district without an election in the 2009 session.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Stewart hoped they could use the district to serve other purposes but that was not possible.  He thought it was prudent to get rid of it without cost to the citizens.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Stance on Ballot Measures on Elections

 

Dwyer recommended that if any commissioner wanted the Board to take positions as it relates to ballot measures, to formulate the position, bring it to the Board for discussion and then adoption.

 

Green supported Dwyer’s recommendation.

 

Dwyer stated he was an automatic no for anything that amends the Constitution.

 

Stewart asked the Board to inform him what items should be discussed and he will schedule them for the appropriate time.

 

Sorenson said he wanted to start with Ballot Measure 58.

 

 

7. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. RESOLUTION 08-8-27-7/In the Matter of Proclaiming September 3 as Good Neighbor Day.

 

Stewart read the resolution into the record.

 

MOTION: to approve RESOLUTION 08-8-27-7.

 

Dwyer MOVE, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

Spartz announced that today is the day everyone’s cell phone becomes eligible as a target for telemarketers.  He indicated there is a number to call to block cell phones:  888-382-1222.

 

9. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. THIRD READING AND DELIBERATIONS/Ordinance No. PA 1248/In the Matter of Adopting the Cottage Grove 2007 Transportation System Plan as a Refinement Plan of the Cottage Grove Comprehensive Plan for Application Outside the Cottage Grove City Limits and Within the Cottage Grove Urban Growth Boundary and Adopting a Severability Clause (a Refinement Plan of the Cottage Grove Comprehensive Plan). (NBA & PM 7/23/08 & 8/6/08). (Celia Barry & Stephanie Schulz)

 

Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled the Board held a Public Hearing on July 23 and held a follow up Work Session on August 6.  She indicated there were comments and questions from Sorenson and Lauri Segel about the methodology.  She said the record was left open for additional comments and there were none.  She noted a supplement was prepared to address Sorenson’s concerns.  She indicated there was no new information, but documentation from a neutral third party about how the methodology works.  She added that it wasn’t about population but about trips.

 

Fleenor asked if there was any public involvement by LCOG for the TAZ boundary process.

 

Barry indicated that the boundary was established when the 1998 TSP was adopted and they went through a public process to adopt the TSP update.  She believed the boundary was established as part of the analysis to adopt the TSP plan and that information was presented in public hearings at the Planning Commission.  She stated there were no concerns by the citizens.

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1248.

 

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0. (Dwyer out of room).

 

 

b. REPORT/Delta Sand and Gravel.

 

Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled the application of Delta Sand and Gravel was a provision of the Metro Plan amendment procedures that had not been exercised before.  He recalled there were times when jurisdictions adopted different versions that resulted in the differences going to MPC to try to resolve.  He added that those differences resulted in a resolution that went back to elected officials and resulted in an impasse directing the planning director to develop a final decision of denial.

 

Howe reported on February 20, 2008 the Board approved the Metro Plan amendment requested by Delta Sand and Gravel Company.  He added on July 28, the Eugene City Council denied the same proposed requested Metro Plan amendment because the two actions were not identical.  He noted it went to MPC on August 14 and they were unable to resolve the conflict.  He said it triggered the Metro Plan amendment procedures that state within five days the planning director of the home jurisdiction where the application originated shall issue a denial decision.  He indicated on August 19 he sent out the final notice and decision of denial and attached to it the findings of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and the findings for denial by the Eugene City Council.  He noted those are what made up the final decision for denial of the proposed Metro Plan amendment.

 

Green asked if the County would have to defend this action if it goes to appeal.  He asked if they would be defending Howe’s decision or the City of Eugene’s decision.

 

Vorhes noted that Howe’s decision adopted and incorporated the City’s decision as the basis for his denial.  He was clear for counsel for the city that if they sue Lane County, Lane County will do as little as possible, with the City of Eugene doing most of the work, as it was the City of Eugene’s decision.  He would encourage the city to take over the defense of the decision on behalf of Lane County.

 

Dwyer asked since Lane County they approved it, if they could respond on behalf of the applicant.  He said they based their decision on what the record said. 

 

Fleenor thought there could be better ways to handle dispute resolutions.  He was disappointed in the process.  He indicated there was a unanimous vote based upon evidence in the record by Lane County.  He added that it went to the City of Eugene and they were unable to get past the first step. He hoped they could correct the deficiency when they work on the new Metro Plan.

 

Stewart was supportive of Dwyer’s comment about representing the decision the Board of Commissioners made.  He wasn’t in favor of their direction for long range planning, because they had other things they were mandated to do by law.  He was interested in a discussion about the Metro Plan and the things they witnessed about how it was working.  He believed it was broken.  He commented that the Metro Plan was in conflict with different things.  He wanted to do know if it was still legal.  He wanted to know what their options were, if they could get out of the Metro Plan and what the process would be.

 

Green supported what Stewart was requesting.  He considered the Metro Plan as a good document.  He indicated that it had worked over the past 20 years but it needs to be contemporary.  He noted when something goes to MPC for resolution on the conflict, there are rules that don’t allow them to get off of square one.  He was interested on how they would get a resolution body based on the rules and laws applicable at the time.

 

Dwyer said whatever decision they make must reflect the jurisdictional autonomy.  He said the problem with the MPC is that it crosses jurisdictional boundaries and takes away the autonomy from certain bodies.  With regard to the amendment that takes it outside of the UGB, he thought that was the way to get to the answer of jurisdictional autonomy. 

 

Green agreed with obtaining autonomy.  He thought it needed to get to the discussion level.

 

Stewart agreed that there is the desire to makes changes to make MPC work better.

 

  10. HUMAN RESOURCES

 

a. ORDER 08-8-27-5/In the Matter of Adjusting the Compensation of the Sheriff, the Assessor, the Justices of the Peace and the District Attorney

 

Greta Utecht, Human Resources, indicated this item is for compensation for all of the elected officials except for the Board of Commissioners.  She said this is a follow-up to the meeting of the Elected Officials Compensation Board held on July 23.  She added that Lane Manual requires the Board meet a minimum of once every two years prior to July 31st of a general election year.  She said they met and for a variety of reasons, they thought most of the salaries were within range.  She said areas they thought needed to be adjusted were with the Board of Commissioners and the Sheriff.  She noted the statute requires that the Sheriff earn more than the highest paid employee within the Sheriff’s Office. 

 

Utecht indicated when they look at the Under Sheriff’s salary (plus benefits) and compare with the base salary of the Sheriff, there appears to be an adjustment needed to the base for the Sheriff.  She stated the Elected Officials Compensation Board recommended they make an adjustment to $122,000. and that would place the Sheriff for this year about 6.6 percent above the under Sheriff.  She added that the Under Sheriff is due a merit increase in February and at that time the Sheriff will be about one percent above the Under Sheriff.  She noted that was their recommendation.  She added that the recommendation would be that the Board approves any COLA’s that might be granted to other non-representative employees to the elected officials as well. She added as a follow up, they could work with Dave Garnick, Budget and Finance Manager, to work with the Budget Committee next Wednesday over lunch because any adjustment to the Board of Commissioners salaries has to go through the Budget Committee first.  She noted the only additional money this agenda item is asking for is the adjustment to the base salary for the Sheriff.

 

Sorenson didn’t want to consider these salaries separate from the commissioners’ salaries.  He said there shouldn’t be two board orders on compensation.

 

Dwyer agreed.  He commented that it was unpleasant to deal with pay raises for elected officials and that is the reason they have this process in place.  They want to make sure they get a cost of living equal to the rest of the bargaining units.  He didn’t want a raise in pay, but he didn’t want to lose ground.

 

Sorenson objected to having the Elected Officials recommendations heard without them all being heard together.  He thought the overall compensation of all the elected officials should be dealt with every two years.

 

Stewart explained this was just for the Sheriff’s increase because they are in violation of state law that states the Sheriff needs to be paid more than his highest paid employee.

 

Dwyer thought they should have this discussion at the Budget Committee meeting.

 

Stewart indicated this would be pulled for a discussion next week at the Budget Committee.

 

 

b. ORDER 08-8-27-6/In the Matter of Revising the Classification for Lieutenants and the Pay Grades and Applicable Certification Pay for Lieutenants and Sergeants.

 

Utecht explained that this item has nothing to do with elected officials’ salaries.  She said it is adjusting the compensation range for the two groups of employees and resetting how their certification pay is awarded.  She stated that it does not result in any increase.  She indicated for the Sergeants it was for increases that were granted during the contract negotiation period and they now have deputies who are earning as much or more than the Sergeants and they need to have a slight shift in their pay grade.  She said this puts the Lieutenants into manager classification resulting in about 10 cent per hour differential.  She added that this would correct some inequities on the pay scale.

 

MOTION: to approve Option 2 of ORDER 08-8-27-6.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Stewart announced that the next meeting will be September 2 at 10:00 a.m.  He indicated that would allow the Board to attend the Good Neighbor Day at Reed & Cross.

 

Sorenson reported that on August 21, the Surface Transportation Board met and before the formal hearing, staff held a briefing about the combined issue of whether the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad could discontinue a substantial portion of the Coos Bay line between Vaughn and Coos Bay.  He indicated that he and Stewart testified.  He added that all were opposed to the abandonment procedures.

 

 

13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

Per ORS 192.660(2)(a) for the purpose of considering employment, 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.

 

14. OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:05 a.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary