September 24, 2008
Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor,
Bobby Green, Sr. and Peter Sorenson present. County Administrator Jeff
Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer
were also present.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
AND ORDER 08-9-24-4/In the Matter of Receiving Comments From the Public
Through a Public Hearing about Community Development Needs, Proposed Projects to
Meet These Needs, Lane Countyís Performance of Community Development Block
Grant PO4019 and Setting Project Priorities.
Economic Development, explained that the Public Hearing is to hear input on CDBG
Project PO4019, a Mapleton water system project and how Lane County manages and
implements the project and to receive public comment and suggestions for new
potential CDBG grant projects that serve low and moderate income families.
He said with the CDBG grant there is language they need to get into the
record. He indicated that Lane
County currently has two open CDBG
grants through the State Economic and Community Development Department to
improve the water systems in Mapleton and Blue River.
He said Grant PO4019 for the Mapleton water system is ready to be closed
out by September 30, 2008. He said
the CDBG guidelines require that the Board of Commissioners receive comments
from the public about the CDBG projects that are recently closed or nearing
completion. He said the public may
comment on any aspect of the CDGB program delivery.
reported for CDBG Grant PO4019, Lane County received Oregon Community
Development block grant funds in the amount of $750,000 for improvements to the
Mapleton water system to meet the needs of low and moderate income County
residents. He noted the existing 20
year old water treatment plant had deteriorated and lacked the necessary
automation and control required to ensure safe drinking water at all times.
He added the plant was unable to meet the treatment requirements of the
federal long term treatment rule and had frequent violations.
He indicated that the water filtration project completed this month
included installation of a new membrane for a filtration system and related
equipment to meet state drinking water requirements.
He said the water system improvements will benefit at least 320 local
residents of which at least 60 percent are low or moderate income. He added the
total cost is $750,000 and the total amount of the contract award was for
$745,060. He said the total dollar
amount for non-construction contract was $148,700.
He indicated there were no contracts awarded to Section 3 businesses as
no Section 3 businesses bid on any of the project work.
He added that it did not need to meet CDBG requirements, as it was a
Public Works project.
With regard to the
application process for new grants, McKenzie-Bahr said there are two separate
application processes for CDBG grants, one for Housing and Community Services
Department for housing related projects and for the Oregon Economic and
Community Development Department for all other CDBG projects including Public
Works, community facilities, economic development and technical assistance.
He noted under the CDBG guidelines the Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department will receive applications quarterly for projects. He said
the projects are developed under the guidelines with the OECDD regional team and
staff to help identify the best potential funding sources to meet community
development needs and assist with the application process.
He said the application process includes the following steps: initial contact with state OECDD staff to request review of
the project concept, an OECDD invitation to apply for funding, draft application
prepared and available for public review and comment applications submitted to
OECDD on the timeline. He indicated
this application process will close on December 31 for the current round.
explained that Lane County may have up to three open CDBG projects for Oregon
Economic and Community Development at any one time and housing grants are not
counted as part of the three grants. He
noted that Lane County has two opened grants:
Mapleton Water System Improvement Project and the Blue River Water
Project. He added the Blue River
project is scheduled to be closed out by November 30, 2008 in time to meet their
December 31 new applications.
With regard to
eligible applicants, McKenzie-Bahr said that only CDBG non- entitlement cities
and counties are eligible to apply for grant funding. He said the rule is a federal grant requirement and remains
the same as in past years. He added
that Lane County is the eligible applicant for all projects that serve
unincorporated communities and individuals in unincorporated communities of the
County. He said that Lane County
may cooperate with other eligible city applicants through an intergovernmental
agreement and Lane County does not qualify countywide for CDBG funding according
to OECDDís calculations for identified low and moderate income communities.
He said each project must be approved for the specific population served.
Stewart opened the Public Hearing.
Eugene, Children and Families, talked about what the Commission for Children and
Families have been doing around the comprehensive plan.
She said they focused on increased child care for children zero to three.
LCOG, said she is a consultant to the Commission on Children and Families and
behalf of the communities of Florence and Cottage Grove.
She reported in Florence, the issue is that there is no child care
centers. She indicated that two
have closed in the past three years. She
noted since 2000 they have had several large new employers in the community and
they also note the lack of childcare as retention and recruiting issue for
employees. She reported from a
poverty perspective that 32 percent of the families with children under five in
Florence are in poverty according to the Census 2000 and female single
head of household is 65 percent. She
recalled that last year the Florence area coordinating council formed a work
group that began the Quality Childcare of Florence.
She said the Boys and Girls Club is their umbrella.
She added they are looking for additional technical assistance grants.
She noted in Cottage Grove the Family Relief Nursery is hoping to lead the
effort there for infant care. She
said in 2004 they expanded their facility and they were serving 35 to 60
children and last year they served 166 and are a growing operation.
She noted they had an opportunity to purchase adjacent land to hold for
them to take a house that was foreclosed upon and remodeling it to be an infant
Department of Health and Human Services, Florence, said she is on the Quality
Childcare Florence Committee. She
indicated that they are a Board of 11 people and they make up a range of the
community. She noted that in the past year they have made up great
strides. She said living in
Florence, she finds child care a huge challenge and they have no center in their
town. She indicated that what they
have is limited. She added the home
providers will not take infants and the quality of care is not what it should
be. She said they are losing
doctors and nurses. She wants to be
able to make child care facilities a priority.
She said they could offer Florence a state certified facility that would
serve ages zero to six. She added
that there is a lack of care for infants zero to three.
She said it could be for people who work in the community.
She thought it could be beneficial for the whole community.
She said they plan to be a non-profit and they are currently working with
the school board to get their land.
Green asked if the
Boys and Girls club change their status to non-profit, if it would increase
that they were waiting back with a quote on how much it would be. She stated
that they are giving this a try and if it doesnít work under the umbrella of
the Boys and Girls Club, they are prepared to apply for their own 501C(3) and
operate independently. She thought
it was a help to have the name and trust.
Family Relief Nursery, Cottage Grove, said in Cottage Grove they have been
watching the infant care crisis. She
indicated they are an agency that already serves young children but they are not
child care. She was approached five
years ago about considering options. She
said they have been attempting to get a center that serves infants. She commented that it wasnít cost effective for people to
provide care for infants with the regulations in place. She said they see clients struggle with choices for child
care. She said there were
opportunities to purchase a house and they thought it would be ideal to start an
infant care program. She indicated
they would have to research their 501(c)(3) status because they donít charge
for their services. She explained
that they would be looking at a program but not to make money.
She thought they could have a sliding scale. She said they have the
legitimacy of their organization to stand behind this.
She added they will be working with the school district and other
community partners. She said they hoped to raise money from private foundations
and community block grants.
Economic Development, reported that in 2007 and 2008 the Board of Commissioners
identified the following projects for possible CDBG funding:
Row River water system improvements to solve drinking water problems and
the Child Advocacy Center to replace the center that was sold.
He noted that both projects are listed in the attached order.
He noted the application for Row River is almost ready to be submitted
for December. He added that the
Child Advocacy Center still has more work.
He noted that both projects are on the recent Lane County needs and
issues list as submitted to the state. He
said if they add a project, they would want to get direction to get whatever
project they had onto the list.
There being no one
else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
to approve ORDER 08-9-24-4.
that his wife is on the Relief Nursery Board.
ORDER 08-9-24-6 Receiving Comments From the Public Through a Public Hearing about Community Development Needs, Proposed Projects to Meet These Needs, Lane Countyís Performance of Community Development Block Grants and Setting Project Priorities
MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-9-24-6 with the addition of the Child Care Center project to the RIB list.
Fleenor MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
a. REPORT BACK AND ORDER 08-9-3-11 Commenting to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on Region 2, Area 5 Earmarks Requests List Priorities
Celia Barry, Public
Works, recalled that this item was before the Board on September 3, making
recommendations for ODOT Area 5 OTC Earmark List of highway modernization
priorities. She was asking for
adoption of an order. She recalled
on September 3, three people testified and the Board requested she report back
on two items. She said Green asked for a statewide list of earmarks. (Attachment
B to the Cover Memo). She added
that Sorenson asked for additions to the letter accompanying the order to recognize County sustainability values.
Barry stated there
is a revision to the order and Attachment B, a description of all the projects
on the project list. She noted the
list is proposed as the same list as was in the original packet.
She said Attachment B has 80 projects.
She indicated they were projects sent to Area Commissions on
Transportation and Lane County. She indicated the ACTS had not yet taken action to make
recommendations on those priorities. She
said the list will go down to about 45 or 50 projects and those projects will go
to ODOT and ODOT will take them directly to the OTC.
She added there will not be an all area meeting.
She noted in October they will be taken to OTC for initial review and
criteria. She said in November they
will go back to the OTC with a smaller list of about 20 projects.
She indicted the Board could participate in the November meeting and
provide comment after they received a list back. She
added in December OTC is expected to take action to adopt an official list of
about 15 or 20 priorities. She
commented that there is one development project but it most likely would be on
the final list. She said they are
proposing eight projects and some projects will come off the list.
Green said he
brought this up so the public could see the magnitude and scope of the
competition with regard to projects and funding. He commented that there was not a lot of dollars associated
with the projects.
Barry reported that
values werenít included because they were too diverse in how the individual
requesters came up with them. She
said the Portland area took action on their priorities. She said the Columbia Crossing will be going to Washington,
D.C. She added that it will be
requested out of a different pot of money.
She said they would be requesting $400 to $500 million, with the project
worth $4.5 billion. She said that
ODOT indicated they would be requesting money for that out of a nationwide pot
Barry read the
revised changes to the board order.
Fleenor asked if
they could put down rail as a change.
Sorenson asked how
difficult it would be to get the dollar amounts associated with the projects
that are in Exhibit B, the statewide highway program authorization earmark
proposals. He said the projects
from Lane County have no dollar amount.
ODOT, responded that the reason they werenít provided today was that they were
not accurate on a consistency scale.
Sorenson asked in
the future for Barry to get more information about Lane County, the governorís
sustainability executive order and what ODOT is doing to modify their previous
plans with respect to transportation. He
asked about the vehicle miles traveled and if it could be put into the chart.
Barry stated that
she didnít have the information. She
indicated that some of the projects include bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
She added they would be capacity reducing projects to support traffic that is
now congested. She commented that the building of the facility is not going to
lead to a certain level of traffic. She
said they have to have this order adopted by September 30.
Sorenson wanted to
know a designated number of vehicles mile traveled. He said they are being told by another branch of government
that they have to promote projects to bring down VMT.
Barry didnít know
about the dedication of staff time that would be needed.
She recalled by ORDER 08-4-30-10 the Board adopted priorities for
the statewide transportation improvement program and most of the projects are
out of the program. She noted Exhibit B of their order has detailed information
about each project. She said they
have been told that Area 5 supports these projects.
With regard to
inserting the word ďrail,Ē, Green thought there should be examples given
with light rail and passenger rail. He
said if they donít fill it in, they leave it up to them to define it.
He said they want to move passengers but they also discussed having fewer
trucks on the road, having them travel by rail.
He thought it keeps it clean.
Dwyer said I-5
Beltline and VMT is a capacity issue. He
added that all of the issues are capacity issues because they are at capacity.
He noted there was an alternative bridge built over I-5 to reduce VMT. He said that Lane Transit also reduces VMT.
He said the figures are available until 2025.
Sorenson wanted to
list as many rail descriptions as possible.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 08-9-3-11 with corrections and all rail aspects included.
Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.
Sorenson said he would be voting no out of the difficulty of making the decision based on anything other than his own personal preferences. He thought many of the projects were important. He said if he could get comparative data he would be more inclined to support it.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Dwyer said this was not perfect, but it was the best they could do and doing nothing was not an option.
Fleenor supported this but hoped in the future that they get more information.
DISCUSSION/Chapter 14 Code Amendments.
that Fleenor asked that this be put on the agenda for direction from the Board.
He stated that for staff, Land Management is experiencing a reduction in
applications and the reduction of the money being brought in.
He said they also allocated time out of Land Management to the Metro Plan
process and the coordinated population forecast.
He commented that as they move this forward, they have to think about how
they make compensation for time and money for the project.
Fleenor said his
original intent was to talk about a process by which items like this could be
brought forward by commissioners or interested citizens.
He didnít think today was a good time to discuss this.
He was looking for an opportunity for the Board to take action on a
flow chart he prepared. His
proposal was to simplify it and make it more user friendly and cost effective.
He said he took 90 percent of the work load off of Land Management.
He asked if the Board would be willing to advance this forward through a
process yet to be determined to start working on the code revisions and bring
them forward for review.
Green thought this
was on Land Managementís matrix sheet previous discussed.
Matt Laird, Land
Management, recalled on August 5, 2008, Land Management Division brought the
list of 24 items on the long range planning work program before the Board.
He said Item u was listed as review of appeals process which is this
item. He recalled at that meeting
the Board had a discussion on long range planning work programs and it got
transferred into a growth discussion. He
said ultimately the Board approved work on items q, w and x which are the
coordinated population forecast, the urban transition termination agreements and
the Metro Plan policy fundamental amendments.
He said this item was not directed by the Board to be worked on.
about a proposal to take the work that has been done and set up a first reading
and public hearing and see if both sides are interested. He said they would have a public hearing with the Board and
the Planning Commission so the public could come in and let them know how they
feel. He said if after the public
hearing it appeared there was going to be a small amount of work necessary, they
could get people representing the usual parties to agree to do some of the work
and if there was interest by the Board, they could move it for another public
hearing on the final version of these code amendments.
to direct the Agenda Team to set a First Reading and Public Hearing and set the
proposal for a joint public hearing with the Board and the Planning Commission.
Fleenor sent this
out to one dozen land use attorneys and the Home Builders and received several
responses. He thought they were a
win-win. He commented that there
might be language they could tweak with the code.
He thought all the players would be interested in moving this forward.
He didnít think there would be much opposition.
support the motion. He said they
need to run the proposal by the Planning Commission before they have a public
hearing and have the Planning Commission review the code and get their read on
how it would work and get their recommendation.
He said that way staff would also be involved.
He thought that was the proper way to operate. He commented that the
Planning Commission was not listed on the document and they need to be included
in the process.
Sorenson asked if
they could have an amendment to have the Agenda Team prepare an order requesting
that the Planning Commission consider this proposal. or a letter from the Board.
Green asked if it
was reviewed by Vorhes.
Assistant County Counsel, said he did not spend time reviewing it.
He said the charts first came in as a proposal on the consideration for
the fee package and the substance of this was sent around earlier when Fleenor
sent it out. He was included in the
e-mail and he knew it was in the work program that long range planning was
developing to come to the Board. He said until they got direction from the Board
on working on the project, he did not spend time on this.
He understood some of the changes. He
said if the direction of the Board is to review this, it could be folded into
some of the discussion at the Planning Commission.
He said the Board has legal discretion in terms of structuring on how to
review the applications for planning actions and set up appeals.
Green wanted Vorhesí
review as a good practice to follow. He
asked what the impacts would be to his department. He said he gets nervous when
they start taking money away from the operation of the department that relies on
fees. He thought from a fiscal
impact it could have some impact.
Kent Howe, Land
Management, said if the Board wants to take this to the Planning Commission,
they will do it and let the process go forward. He noted the Hearings Official Decision following an initial
public hearing that was proposed by Fleenor was the way things are done now.
He said the Hearings Official makes the decision and if the Board
doesnít want to hear it that is up to the Board.
completely change everything. With
respect to the budget, he didnít think it was the governmentís
responsibility to create such a convoluted process that they extract money from
people who maintain cash flow in order to pay for the overhead resulting from a
convoluted process. He said as they
de-convolute the process, staff time should be reduced, not increased.
He said the purpose is to
get the job done as efficiently and effectively as they can and he didnít see
Matt Laird, Land
Management, explained by streamlining the process, he sees removal of the
flexibility to reconsider decisions if there has been an error made or new
information brought to the table. He
said it is not used very often. He
said most of the time an appeal is following that process. He noted over the
past ten years they have done seven elective planning director public hearings.
He added in 2007 they did two of them with 418 director decisions.
He said most of the time it is following the standard path to LUBA on an
appeals process. He noted one of
the bigger processes for staff in doing any type of code amendment is not the
re-write, they have to go through code with links to the section through it. He said there will have to be re-wording throughout the code.
Spartz stated that
staff and Land Management are tightly stretched with the work priorities the
Board laid for them. He said if this takes more than a modest amount of effort,
they will have to make some decisions about reallocation of priorities of
they want to have these types of discussions before public comment.
She was concerned about the resource allocation as it might take time out
of their department.
that if it is not broken, not to fix it. He
wasnít opposed to having the Planning Commission review this.
He said see what they think about it instead of putting out a lot of
staff and lawyer time into it. He
added the Board chose what they wanted Land Management to do, Land Management
didnít choose what they wanted.
Sorenson was in
favor of the amendment being sent the Planning Commission to discuss it.
He said they knew staff had this on the long range work plan, but it
didnít mean there wasnít people out in the community that were concerned
about the problem and they wanted to write up an alternative process that would
not advantage either side.
Fleenor hoped the
Planning Commission considers this and if there is merit and there are issues,
they might be able to have an ad hoc committee take over and draft it to the
satisfaction of the Planning Commission so they minimize staff time.
Laird distributed a
list of what it takes to change a code amendment to get it through the Planning
Green said they
already have processes in place and they should be honored.
He said they should always have the true cost for services.
He stated that when they donít have the true cost and increase the
fees, there is an outcry by the citizens because the fees are low.
He commented that there is a cost for doing business. He added that they are not in it to make a profit but they
need to recover their costs to provide customer service.
concerned about Land Managementís work load.
He asked if this could go before the Planning Commission within their
work load and revenue sources. He
asked if they could then hear back from the Planning Commission.
that based on the last long range planning work program approved by the Board,
their estimate of a time commitment was 3.5 FTE.
He noted currently in the long range planning work program they have 2.4
FTE working. He estimated this item
would take .5 FTE through the entire process to get it from the Planning
Commission up to the Board. He said
he could bring back an evaluation of the specific tasks of the long range
planning program and what staff is working on. He added that they have mandatory assignments and
discretionary items by the Board.
Stewart asked if
they had resources under the current work load to send to the Planning
Laird stated they
could do it but it will have impacts on other things. He said when they are doing that then they are not working on
the urban transition agreements or the Metro Plan policy amendments.
He said there are consequences if they do it.
that he would do as much preparation as
he could to minimize Land
Managementís time and resource commitment
Laird gave a list
of what needed to be done for any type of code amendment. He said it would be
the long range planning work staff doing the work.
4-1 (Stewart dissenting).
Stewart said this
Board had given direction on the work plan and because of the workload of the
employees, he wanted to be mindful of what they could do time and money wise.
that he would take this to the Planning Commission and then come back to the
Dwyer said tomorrow at noon the Economic Development Standing Committee
meets in the Bob Straub Room to rank the proposals. He indicated that it wasnít on the calendar.
Fleenor received a letter
congratulating Amber Fossen on participating in a Leadership Program.
He announced he was having a community dialogue at the Gingerbread House.
Stewart announced that he started having community conversations.
He accomplished three of eleven scheduled.
On Thursday he will be at the Lorane Grange, on October 2 he will be in
Creswell at the Community Center. He
reported last night 12 people showed up at the
Cottage Grove meeting.
TO THE BOARD
Stewart indicated that he received correspondence from the U.S. Board of
Geographic Names and they approved the proposal to apply the new name of Hayward
Saddle, the gap located among the boundary between Lane County and Linn County.
There being no
further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.