January 7, 2009
Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Rob Handy and
Faye Stewart present. County
Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording
Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
TO THE AGENDA
Sorenson added Item
3. b) 6. to the Consent Calendar. It
is a board order appointing Chair and Vice Chair.
He added ORDER 09-1-5-1 will be placed under Commissionersí
David Force, Eugene,
stated he represented Jim Gillette in different parts.
He explained that there has been an ongoing land use dispute enforcement
issued between Gillette and Lane County. He thought there had been a
misunderstanding of some things taking place.
He and Gillette are in agreement that the ultimate solution should be a
political one instead of a legal solution.
He recalled that this has taken place for over a decade and it could go
on for another one. He recalled the
Countyís goals were to bring Gillette into compliance with the land use code,
and he had been in compliance for two years.
He added the fact the controversy has to go on costing Gillette and the
County money doesnít make sense. He indicated that there was a Writ of Revenue
proceeding in the case before Judge Carlson in 2006 and Gillette was the
prevailing party. He added that
Gillette didnít get everything he wanted and now there is another Writ of
Revenue proceeding that began in November.
Jim Gillette, Eugene, said the Board promised him a hearing on the old case.
He said the Board stated in public meetings that they werenít
interested in punishing him; they were only interested in his getting into
compliance. He indicated that he is
under compliance. He wanted to be a
good citizen to the County. He
wants to give his land to the city and he wants it to work.
He thought there was someone in the legal department that didnít like
him. He also thought there were
neighbors who donít want him to have a park and they could be the ones behind
it. He recalled that there was no
transcript of the hearing because they didnít do a complete transcript.
He stated that last year he handed the County a statement of 29 things he
thought the County had done and he had said if any of those were untrue, he
would give up. He thought he has
been stepped on by the County but he wants to cooperate and be a good County
A. Approval of
May 16, 2007,
Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 23, 2007,
Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
May 23, 2007,
Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
May 30, 2007,
Special Meeting, 3:30 p.m.
December 16, 2008,
Regular Meeting, 10:30 a.m.
December 17, 2008,
Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
December 17, 2007,
Budget Committee/Leadership Team, 8:30 a.m.
1) ORDER 09-1-7-1/In
the Matter of Reappointing Justices Pro Tempore for the Florence Justice Court
Through January 7, 2010.
2) ORDER 09-1-7-2/In
the Matter of Reappointing Justices Pro Tempore for the Central Lane Justice
Court Through January 7, 2010.
3) ORDER 09-1-7-3/In
the Matter of Reappointing Justices Pro Tempore for the Oakridge Justice Court
Through January 7, 2010.
4) ORDER 09-1-7-4/In
the Matter of Appointing Three Members to the Public Safety Coordinating Council
and Amending the Terms of Statutory and Other Ex Officio Positions to
5) ORDER 09-1-7-5/In
the Matter of Transferring $300 from the General Fund Operational Contingency to
Materials and Services within General Expense for the ďWhat Martin Luther
King, Jr. Means to Lane CountyĒ Event.
6) ORDER 09-1-7-13/In
the Matter of Appointing Chair and Vice Chair for
the Board of County
C. County Counsel
1) ORDER 09-1-7-6/In
the Matter of Selecting Newspapers to Publish Monthly Notice of Expenditures,
Personal Property Tax Warrants, and Notices of Real Property Tax Foreclosure.
D. Health and Human
1) ORDER 09-1-7-7/In
the Matter of Awarding a Contract Amendment to Supported Employment Services in
the Amount of $44,112 for Services to Individuals with Developmental
Disabilities for the Time Period from November 13, 2008 through June 30, 2009.
2) ORDER 09-1-7-8/In
the Matter of Adding One Fulltime (1.0 FTE) Environmental Health Specialist
under Position Number 15181 for FY 2008-2009 in Fund 286 Department of Health
& Human Services.
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 09-1-7-9/In
the Matter of Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement With the State of Oregon
and the City of Eugene to Facilitate Replacement of the Interstate-5 Bridge Over
the Willamette River.
2) ORDER 09-1-7-10/In
the Matter of Accepting a Dedication of Land to be Used as a Public Road
Easement for County Road No. 602 (Pitney Lane) (16-04-06)
3) ORDER 09-1-7-11/In
the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for the Proposed Surrender of Portions of
Rhododendron Drive (Co. Rd. No. 65) and Sebastian Street (Co. Rd. No. 1969) To
the City of Florence.
item E. 1) and C. 1) be pulled.
to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.
Handy said he has a goal around community involvement and public outreach. He thought there was a situation where they could blend their traditional approach with looking at things in a different way. He commented that he still wanted to see The Register Guard involved but he said in going door-to-door, he heard people were disenfranchised with The Register Guard. He noted that The Eugene Weekly has a distribution around the County of 40,000 papers. He asked the Board to do the notice within The Register Guard, but also use The Eugene Weekly.
Dwyer stated that the law requires a newspaper of a certain amount of circulation. He indicated that The Register Guard was the only newspaper that met the criteria. He said The Eugene Weekly would have to be in addition to and not in lieu of. He added that if they are going to expand the publishing of their notices, they would have to decide which papers they wanted to use.
Richardson stated that only The Register Guard qualified from the criteria. She recommended having The Register Guard as the official paper and to bring back a discussion item to see if other papers could be designated.
Stewart concurred in choosing The Register Guard and then reviewing others.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 09-1-7-6 with
staff examining the cost and the circulation of each weekly paper, bringing the
information back as a discussion item.
last Monday when they discussed changes to the Good Governance Board Order,
Bobby Green was watching the web cast. He
said Green sent him an e-mail asking him to retract the fact that Green was
involved in any changes to the board order. Fleenor officially retracted any comments he made relevant to
Greenís involvement in the order. He
said he will avoid mentioning Green relevant to good governance in the future.
Stewart said at
Public Comment there were comments from the attorney for Jim Gillette.
He asked the Board if they could have a review of Jim Gilletteís matter
and address the comments that were made about his winning the lawsuit.
a. REPORT BACK
Approval of Oregon Ocean Policy Advisor Council Letter of Support.
that this letter was requested by Representative Susan Morgan to fill the
position being vacated by John Griffith.
to approve recommending Susan Morgan for the appointment to the Ocean Policy
b. REPORT BACK
Approval of Letter to LRAPA.
that the Board received a letter from the City of Springfield requesting that
Lane County review its commitment to the intergovernmental agreement and to LRAPA.
He noted at the Boardís last meeting of the year they had a
presentation from Merlin Hough, Director of LRAPA.
He recalled at the conclusion of that presentation that the Board wanted
to continue its involvement with LRAPA. He
added that Lane County was asked to send a letter stating its support so there
could be easing of tensions among the employees and the members involved with
to approve sending the letter to LRAPA.
recommended sending a copy of the letter to the City of Springfield.
c. ORDER 09-1-7-14/
In the Matter of Appointing Liaisons to Various Committees
to approve ORDER 09-1-7-14 with discussed changes.
d. ORDER 09-1-17-15/In
the Matter of Appointing Representatives to Various
to approve ORDER 09-1-17-15.
that this Board order will not be beneficial to the organization as a whole as
it is cumbersome and will create more work.
He didnít like it and didnít think all of the ramifications were
thought out. He said they should
figure out a way to phase out the committees, not just an order ending the
committees. He indicated at the
Finance and Audit Committee they listen to three hours of testimony. He thought they might have to meet other days for the
committees. He noted that any
recommendation made to the Board is still made in public, (as they are noticed)
and any subsequent referral to the Board is made in public and the meetings are
televised. He commented there is
lots of transparency. He didnít
understand why it is in the Boardís interest to get rid of the committees
unless the Board wants to take on another layer of responsibility. He noted with the Economic Development Committee the Board
would have to participate in scoring all projects.
He didnít think it was in the Boardís interest to open the scoring up
to the whole Board as it might embarrass people.
He stated that he would not support this order.
Sorenson said the
board order is a substantial improvement over last yearís board order. He
said they are recognizing the work they have internally and with constituents.
He added they have outside responsibilities and this board order appoints
the commissioners to the various external organizations.
He said they are not proposing to get rid of any committee.
He added that the membership has changed by board order.
He stated they are taking the commissioners off the committees.
He added the committees could still meet and do work and they will be
invited to meet with the Board jointly. He
indicated that this board order is specifically time limited to 30 days so if
the Board wants to revisit and appoint commissioners, they could do so.
Handy said citizens
having been telling him for months that they want the County to do things
differently. He said they have to
provide leadership and take care of the organization with a long range plan that
is sustainable, making sure they can help the organization and community get
revenue. He thought this was a good
Stewart thought it
was important for all of the commissioners to be involved.
He said it is nice when they have citizen members on the committees and
they come up and appreciate the commissioners being there listening.
He had concerns about this. He
wanted this figured out before they adopt a 30 day trial and error deal. He noted that Economic Development meets monthly and they
have grants that need review. He
added the SAVE Committee meets monthly and also makes recommendations.
He said employees appreciate commissioners present who make decisions and
meet with them. He also thought it
was important to hear from the Parks Advisory Committee.
He said he wouldnít support this board order.
He hoped they wouldnít regret doing this in the future.
Fleenor said there
is nothing in the board order that states a commissioner canít attend a
committee meeting. With regard to
Finance and Audit, he said they were asking for an agenda position and to then
come in to report. He thought
meeting in Finance and Audit and the reporting back to the Board from Finance
and Audit was a waste of time for staff who is giving the presentation twice.
He thought this would be more efficient and money saving.
He thought all five commissioners should receive all the information, not
just one commissioner. He said it
was important to have all the committees in front of the Board giving them the
information as they are the decision makers.
that they are moving toward a staff driven model.
He wanted an elected officialís model.
He commented that it will have long range consequences with resources.
He stated that money corrupts. He
added that they are injecting something that sometimes skews the process.
Sorenson said this
is to get the commissioners focused to help govern the County.
He said they are sending the clear message they want to have the policy
decisions done at the Board table where the public sees the business being done.
this because they have a heavy workload and his approach to good governance is
for the important decisions to go to the full Board so they could be vetted
among all the citizens who voted for them.
He thought Spartz was an important part of this.
He didnít look at it being staff driven, he thought of this as sharing
a triangle with Spartz.
Stewart urged the
Board to take more time to review the committees and what is involved with them.
He didnít believe unplugging him from committees was a mistake.
Fleenor said there
are too many bosses with respect to internal committees and staff.
He commented that they are not the staffís bosses, Spartz is in charge
of staff. He said to have the
commissioners oversee staff is a direct and clear violation of the separation of
the executive from the policy makers. He
thought that was poor governance. He
commented that they do not have time to micromanage.
Dwyer said they
donít direct staff, they work with staff to develop an agenda.
He added that they make policy. He
said they need to go slow because they are not benefiting the citizens of Lane
Sorenson wanted the
motion to reflect that there was no Exhibit A to this board order.
that Sorenson take time to evenly spread out the commissioners on the committees
3-2 (Dwyer, Stewart dissenting).
e ORDER 09-1-5-1/In
the Matter of Establishing Good Governance Principles and
Practices for the
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Spartz had concerns
about what exactly is required in terms of minutes and preservation in written
form. He recommended consulting
with the state archivist. He
didnít want the County to get in trouble with the matter.
He thought before they changed the minutes that there should be a work
Sorenson asked that
the Save-It Committee explore a larger program allowing for taxpayers to submit
Dwyer asked when
two or more commissioners get elected in the same year, which gets sworn in
first. He thought it should be alphabetical.
He asked for that language to be inserted into the board order.
that a review of this board order come back to the board July 8.
Stewart wanted to
have a meeting in Cottage Grove including the Cottage Grove Youth Advisory
Council and members of Commission on Children and Families.
He wanted it to be focused on what a Lane County Youth Advisory Council
would look like. He said it was
brought to his attention that for certain grants the County applies for written
minutes are required. He asked if they were continuing on with a minutes recorder.
He asked if they were going to have a minutes recorder, why they would
have to bring in a court reporter for additional cost.
the last sentence in the minutes section of the board order said another body
could take the minutes by a majority vote of the board.
Stewart asked what
the costs would be for this board order.
there would be additional costs.
that it was hard to approve something when they donít know what the costs
would be. He was in favor of good
governance, but he had concerns about a few items.
that this was a living document that they could revisit at any time.
He said it was an attempt to try something different.
He thought the citizens of Lane County would be appreciative of the fact
that they are trying.
to approve ORDER 09-1-5-1.
4-1. (Dwyer dissenting).
he voted no on the portion of the committees.
He still had concerns about cost and staffing. He said they have been assured by the Board that this is a
living document that could be reviewed.
PRESENTATION/Working for You Video.
Session Regarding January 13, 2009 Joint Elected Officials Discussion on Metro
Plan Revisions Required to Address Issues Identified by the Lane County Board of
that he and Mayors Piercy and Leiken met to discuss the agenda
for the upcoming Joint Elected Officials meeting.
He said the intent was to deal with the five areas of concern the Board
of Commissioners had regarding the Metro Plan:
annexation policies, ambiguous and conflicting plan language related to
urban services, perceived citizen disenfranchment, jurisdictional autonomy and
dispute resolution policies. He
said they recommended taking item two and four to the joint elected officials
Kent Howe, Land
Management, indicated that staff next week will seek general direction and input
from the joint elected officials as they begin development of specific Metro
Plan amendments. He noted that
issue two the Board identified was description of urban services in the Metro
Plan. He commented that it was
problematic for Lane County in that the terms used in the plan donít
specifically refer to, define or recognize those key functions and services that
the County provides that are used extensively by urban residents.
He stated that it was problematic for funding for Sheriff and Correction
Services, the District Attorney, criminal prosecution, Parole and Probation,
Elections, regional transportation facilities, Mental and Public Health services
and Animal Services. He said if the
County is interested in funding those departments in different ways then the
creation of special taxing districts for those services would likely not be
feasible or could be precluded because public services are not defined in the
scope of the defined key urban services in the Metro Plan.
He noted the Metro Planís fundamental policy is cities being the
primary provider of urban services.
Howe thought the
solutions would be revisions that would include modifications and clarifications
to the fundamental principles of the Metro Plan and the definition of key urban
services and public services within the Metro Plan glossary.
He indicated that the planning directors met on December 15 to discuss
modifying the existing fundamental principle or goal and policy language in the
Metro Plan that needed clarity. He
added that making the clarifications could have far reaching and unintended
consequences with the cities and delay their land use and annexation review
criteria and their process. He said
they thought the possibility of adding a definition in the Metro Plan glossary
to articulate the key County provider of urban services was a possibility.
He added that option would recognize the Countyís role in urban service
provision, and it wouldnít run the risk of impacting the citiesí land use
and annexation review criteria. He
indicated that it is unlikely that approach would go far enough to fully
recognize and incorporate the Countyís urban service provider role. He and the other planning directors recommended a more
comprehensive analysis to determine which specific components of the Metro Plan
would require revision to acknowledge the Countyís role as a key urban service
provider and to determine what possible externalities those revisions would have
on existing city processes. He said
they recommended that any future Metro Plan revisions to address the issues be
coordinated with city staff as they develop the proposed amendments associated
with HB 3337.
Howe indicated item
four dealt with jurisdictional autonomy and the Metro Plan boundary adjustment.
He noted the remedy involves limiting the applicability of the Metro Plan
by modifying the boundaries so it is coterminous with Eugene and Springfieldís
urban growth boundary. He said they
are trying to position the Board of Commissioners and staff to interject and
work with the two cities in developing ways to address changes to the Metro Plan
as the cities is making changes.
they were getting off the trail. He
said they need to be focusing on representation and fairness for the individuals
living in the urban growth boundary outside the city limits.
He thought the technical adjustments were secondary.
He thought they should first discuss equal representation.
He wanted to see a simpler process. He wanted to see Eugene and
Springfield separated from one another.
Sorenson asked if
they could terminate the Metro Plan.
that terminating the Metro Plan is not an option. He noted that terminating the IGAís with the two cities is
what they discussed with the urban transition.
He said they havenít sent notice that is called for under the
agreement. He said the
Board will have to consider what will have to happen to make the transition if
the cities allow the County to take over the services.
Handy stated he
agreed with the Boardís list of five items.
He agreed the dispute resolution part was challenging and it should be
discussed later. He noted the
biggest priority is the citizen disenfranchment. He didnít think coordinating only among different
jurisdictionís staff was good. He
was interested in community engagement. He
agreed with number two, but wouldnít support the others.
He didnít want to be as concerned about opening up the Metro Plan.
Stewart stated that
he made it clear to both mayors the most important piece the Board wanted to
focus on was representation. He
commented that this is a three way partnership and no one is king.
He thought if they were going to take this approach that they wouldnít
get anywhere. He said if they
donít want to work together and recognize that they have two other partners in
the process and they donít want to recognize the County is an equal partner,
they will be wasting their time. He thought they should get support at the legislature and
change the land use process. He
recommended going to the joint elected officials meeting and working on the two
items to try to accomplish things.
that if they canít solve the most important item first than they are wasting
their time. He asked if they could
do something better. He said each
jurisdiction needs to develop its own comprehensive plan.
He indicated that politically and demographically he sees a difference
between Springfield and Eugene. He
asked if they should look at a whole new paradigm.
Dwyer said he is
willing to work with the cities. He
wants more open space and rural
that the Board was interested in all five issues. He said they tried to set the memo up to make it clear they
will work on the other issues at Lane County.
He said the intention of this memo was to indicate that the County was
going to continue to work on all five issues but they wanted to start engaging
the other two elected bodies on the two items decided as the starting point.
He added the rural reserves could be articulated as the cities look at
what they are going o do with the studies on buildable lands.
With regard to the two specific issues, he said the reason the planning
directors discussed changing the definition is to allow the Board and staff to
have a conversation about what the changes to the Metro Plan should look like.
He thought there was likelihood that from the efforts under HB3337 to
establish separate urban growth boundaries, they will see a change in the
landscape of planning in the metro area.
that they identified items with the least resistance as they attend meetings
with Eugene and Springfield. He
said as the text amendments come through, they can make sure the Boardís
interests are inserted. He said
they are trying to have specific text language put in the plan.
He noted they have continually run into the fact that the cities are the
logical provider of urban services.
Dwyer indicated the
City of Springfield supported the concept of rural reserves.
He said they need to define a rural reserve and what type of soils would
be in rural reserves. He said they need to discuss the voluntary insertion of
property into a rural reserve concept. He
stated they need to find out what they want to preserve and enhance so they
donít become California.
Sorenson hoped they
could move forward with rural reserves.
think the County should be a provider of urban services, but he thought that
could be a possible outcome.
Lane County should take on urban services if that is the only way they could
provide representational government. He
said they havenít had a discussion with the joint elected officials regarding
whether they want the Metro Plan and if they do, if they could modify it. He
added that if they agree the Metro Plan is worth saving, then they could discuss
which priorities to take on.
a. ORDER 09-1-7-12/In
the Matter of Creating the New Classification of Electrical Inspector and
Establishing its Corresponding Salary Range.
to approve ORDER 09-1-7-12.
Fleenor announced that he has a community dialogue tomorrow at Shariís
Sorenson announced the Board will meet on Tuesday January 13 on what the
life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., means to Lane County.
He also announced that Tuesday is a joint elected officials meeting at
noon at the Springfield City Hall. He
added at 1:45 p.m. the Board will meet in Springfield to have a discussion of
economic development issues. He
said he is working on a proposal for Lane County to commit to helping rural
landowners that have high value forestlands privately held.
He indicated that the County would be involved through bonding power,
having an investment in clearing the lands, growing trees and providing rent to
Stewart received a phone call from Gloria Griffith about contributing to a
Martin Luther King event in Springfield. He
understood that previously they supported the event financially.
He didnít know if it had been processed.
He wanted to reconfirm the commitment.
He asked if the Board could contribute $500 to the event through the
Board contingency fund.
Spartz said it is necessary for the County to receive an invoice and then
they can issue the money.
TO THE BOARD
SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with counsel on
this morning at Public Comment that Jim Gillette and his attorney made some
comments. He asked if there was
interest to discuss this in an Executive Session.
this should be discussed in Executive Session the last week in January.
the Matter Allowing the Legislative Committee to Meet Separately from the Board
of County Commissioners for the Duration of the 75th Oregon
to approve ORDER 09-1-7-16.
In the Matter of Allowing the Technology Management Team to Meet on Thursday
January 8, 2009, Outside of a Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting
to approve ORDER 09-1-7-17.
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.