April 7, 2010
Harris Hall Main Floor
12. PUBLIC WORKS
Mark Bernard, Public Works, recalled on February 10 the Board held a public
hearing, closed the Public Hearing and move to hold a Third Reading on the
Junction City Highway 99 Refinement Plan. He
said the record was kept open to today’s Third Reading.
He said the Board directed staff to come back with a range of options to
move Phase One forward. He added the
Board directed staff to report on issues related to the refinement plan
including legal questions relating to adopting portion of the refinement plan,
whether the Oregon Transportation Commission could support adoption of a portion
of the refinement plan, the role of transit and the Lane Transit District’s
involvement in the selection of the preferred alternative of the refinement plan
and whether Junction City received funding for elements of the refinement plan
within the city limits. He said
staff’s discussion yielded two options for the Board to consider:
Option One, approve the ordinance adopting the entire refinement plan,
the Highway 99 corridor, functions as a system and the refinement plan addresses
safety and operations along Highway 99 in and around Junction City to the 2026
planning period. He indicated that
the five phases comprise one project. He
added that each phase is not by itself a project that fixes any issue.
He said the findings address the entire project.
He said Option Two is to take no action on the ordinance.
He said if the Board decides to take no action on the refinement plan,
then the Junction City 2009 plan would still be valid within their city limits.
He recalled with Attachment 1 of this Memo, ODOT can support Junction
City 2009 adoption of their refinement plan and recommends that the Oregon
Transportation Commission adopt those portions of the refinement plan within
Junction City’s jurisdiction. He
said the design is far from site specific at this stage.
He didn’t know if the city would need to annex the parcels for
construction to move forward.
Bernard indicated that Junction City is currently in periodic review to
update their transportation system plan.
He added that elements of the refinement plan outside the city limits of
Junction City to be incoporoted into the TSP update and considered
by the Board when the TSP is co-adopted by lane County.
He indicated it will provide an opportunity for the Board
to see how the refinement plan fits within the over scheme of land use
and transportation modes required to be addressed by the city under the state
land use Goal 12 and the transportation
planning rule. He added as part of
Junction City’s TSP update, ODOT
is exploring alternatives to propose County facilities articulated in the
refinement plan located on lands outside of the city limits of Junction City.
Bernard indicted that staff continues to recommend adoption of the entire
With regard to the funding of Phase One, Fleenor asked if they were not to
adopt this but have a resolution in support, he said it wouldn’t stop Junction
City’s ability to seek funding for Phase One, while in the next two years they
will be doing a TSP that will include all of the elements of the refinement plan
outside of Phase One, that the County could then considered.
He thought Phase One was better than nothing.
He said they could look at it as a transition into the TSP and
co-adoption in two years.
Handy was satisfied that the waiting for the TSP update will give them the
opportunity to address these issues. He
is supportive of finding a way to move forward with Phase One, which is within
the city’s jurisdiction. He said
given they are in the process of forming an Area Commission on Transportation,
it could be one of the projects the partners in the ACT might want to prioritize
with the Region 2 partners. He was
supportive of doing that. He
supported Option 2, taking no action on the ordinance.
He said they want to take an action to move this forward with the Phase
One project. He indicated they are
taking action supportive of Phase One.
Fleenor asked if they take no action if this is kept in.
Clark explained that taking no action means the ordinance is not adopted and
the County has not adopted it in total. He
noted that Phase One identified in the plan has already been adopted.
He said by not adopting the plan, it doesn’t inhibit the city where
they can to seek funding with the first phase.
He stated that it is not a quasi judicial matter.
Dwyer wanted to help facilitate the city’s ability
to secure funding for Phase One.
to issue a letter in support of Phase One with regards to funding
Dwyer MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
Sorenson asked if this meant they could continue to work on the rest of it.
Clark responded that if the Board doesn’t want to take action on the
ordinance on the plan at this time, but wants to indicate support of the
city’s efforts to seek funding elsewhere for Phase One,
he didn’t know who the letter to be sent.
He thought they might want to do a generalized resolution in support.
He said no action on the plan means that some of the policy issues for
the plan get pushed back for the city’s TSP update that will come back to the
Board for review. He thought the
letter or resolution in support of the city indicates the County has chosen not
to proceed at this time but wanted to signify the city’s effort for Phase One.
Fleenor thought they should have a resolution.
Dwyer concurred going with a resolution.
Handy agreed to have a resolution. He
wanted to say they support Phase One and that there are outstanding issues that
need to be addressed. He said he is
the representative on the ACT Charter Committee and where they are partnering
with the smaller cities. He thought
they should give a heads up to the smaller cities that they would be doing this.
His concern is they are sending a message to ODOT that they are in
support of the project. He asked if
that had a weight around any other city’s projects.
Barry commented that the Board was not necessarily prioritizing the Junction
City efforts over other cities. She
said what the Board is saying is they are
not co-adopting the TSP at this time, but they are supportive of the city moving
forward with Phase One.
Dwyer said this has nothing to do with the distribution of funds or the
expectations that the cities have. He
said the cities work closely together.
With regard to the ordinance, Clark said they could call for a vote, or to
do nothing or they could set it for a time certain to come back for another
reading in a year or two.
Bork said the ordinance may change because the TSP may have additional
language. She added the refinement
plan might change. With regard to
the County procedures, she said whatever accommodates the Board
would be best.
approve a Third Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading and Deliberations on Ordinance
No. PA 1257 for October 20, 2010.
Dwyer MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
b. STATUS REPORT/Work Group for Lane Code/Manual/Comp Plan Revisions Per Adopted Land Management Division Program and Possible Consideration of a Board Order to Establish a Code Revision Work Group.
Matt Laird, Land Management, recalled on March 17 as part of the long range planning work planning Task One, the Board created a Land Use Task Force that was charged with reviewing six land use issues that were identified by the Goal One Coalition and to be determined to have merit by the Board. He reported the first Task Force meeting was held on April 1 and the primary focus was getting the task force set up. He said on the agenda was election of chair and vice chair, ground rules were established, consensus building techniques were discussed and the meeting schedule was set. He said the group chose Mia Nelson has Chair if the Land Use Task Force and the Vice Chair was Mike Reeder. He noted future meetings were moved from Thursday to Mondays from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in Harris Hall. He reported the second task force meeting was held on April 5 and the primary focus was compliance code amendments. He noted on the agenda that night was whether to have public comment testimony taken at that meeting, preparation of a media release, compliance enhancements was the major topic. He added home occupation was also discussed. He said the group decided they would not have time to take verbal public comment at those meetings, but people could submit things in writing. He commented that the meetings have been well attended by the Task Force members. He added less than 10 people from the general public had been attending the meeting. He noted the next meeting is Monday April 12.
c. ORDER 10-4-7-8/Options
for Discount Disabled Veterans on Annual Parks Passes.
Todd Winter, Parks, explained that this a proposal for a discount for
disabled veterans living in and around Lane County.
He said the Parks Division and the Board have received feedback in the
past from Veterans asking why Lane County doesn’t provide a discount for
disabled veterans for an annual pass. He
said research was done to find out was other agencies to do provide discount to
Veterans. He indicated that state
parks waive a day fee, the national parks and federal recreation land agencies
have tried a free lifetime pass. He
said the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife offer free hunting and fishing
licenses and the DMV offers discount registrations.
He said currently Lane Manual provides for a 50 percent discount for
seniors at age 62 and an earn a pass program where a citizen or family living in
the area who couldn’t afford an annual pass could volunteer 15 hours of time
in one of their parks and receive an annual pass in exchange for volunteer time.
He indicated that staff believes the revenue losses won’t negatively
impact Parks operations. He added
that according to Lane County Health and Human Services, approximately 38,000
Veterans live in Lane County and of those approximately ten percent have service
related disabilities. He said based
on that assumption, 3,800 Veterans might qualify. He said each Veteran that has
a disability status receives a letter from the VA with the percentage of
disability. He added that state
parks, ODF& W and DMV require that this letter be presented in person to
receive the discount. He said they
plan a similar procedure. He noted
the three Veteran’s option are Option 1: a
50 percent discount on annual passes to veterans who have a disability rating of
25 percent. He said Option 2 is for
Veterans with a disability raiting of 100 percent and a 50 percent
discount on an annual pass for veterans with a disability rating of at least 25
percent. He said Option 3 would be
for the Board to make no c hange to curren tpoliciy or fees.
He stated that staff recommends Option 2, a free annual pass 100
percecent disability and a 50 percent discount with a disability rating of at
least 25 percent. He added that
Option 2 was supported unanimously by the Parks Advisory Committee and the
Finance and Audit Committee.
Dwyer commented that this was long overdue and happy they can offer Veterans
Sorenson also thought they should approve this.
He wanted to have Winter and Amber Fossen work on a press release or
public service announcement to promote this.
MOTION: to approve Option 2 for ORDER 10-4-7-8
Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
13. COMMISSIONERS’ BUSINESS
DISCUSSION and POSSIBLE ACTION/Fiscal
Anette Spickard, Assessor, distributed information
regarding the Downtown Urban Renewal District. (Copy in file).
She recalled on March 12 the County Administrator received the official
notice of the city of Eugene that the council
is considering adopting a plan amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal
Plan. She noted there are four basic
components they are planning in the plan amendment.
She said they want to increase the maximum indebtedness allowed under the
plan by another $16.15 million. She
noted that the maximum indebtedness amount is not a part of the tax formula they
prepare in determining how much money the County pays into the plan.
She indicated what it does is extend the life of the plan.
She noted there is an amendment proposed to terminate the plan after
additional projects are c ompleted and those proposed projects are to contribute
to the construction of the new LCC Downtown Center Campus, to assume the
Broadway Place Garage debt payment in order to free up other no n-urban renewal
funds to pay for a Downtown Public Safety initiative, to make improvement to the
Park Blocks for the farmers market and to assist with the location of the new VA
Clinic if Peace Health Willamette Street
site is elected. She indicated they
would be expanding the boundary area of the plan to loop in the Willamette
Street site. She said the expansion
of the boundary will add another 18 property tax accounts to the plan area, but
only four of those accounts are taxable. She
added that most of the accounts in the expansion are exempt.
She said the plan would continue for another eight years, ending in FY
Spickard indicated the Board received the required
notice and there is a Public Hearing at the Eugene City Council on April 19.
She said they are able to receive written comments up to the end of
April, beyond the hearing date. She
reported they are scheduled to have a work session to discuss all of the public
comments they have received at the hearing and in writing on May 10 and the city
staff would prepare any adjustments to the plan amendment on May 12.
She said the city council is scheduled to consider the ordinance on May
24. She indicated that if the
ordinance is adopted on May 24, it would begin the citizen referendum process.
She said it would need to be completed on June 23 for the November
ballot. She added if the ordinance
is adopted and a referendum process isn’t completed, then the plan amendment
would become effective on June 23. She
asked what written comments the Board wanted to make on the plan.
Spickard reported that the estimated fiscal impact
to the property tax revenues for the additional eight
years of the plan is about $1.4 million. She indicated the first year
2010/2011, it is estimated to take
about $150,000 from the County’s tax levy and that amount would grow over time
to about $200,000 of tax loss the last year of the proposed plan amendment of
2017/2018. She estimated that when
the levy ends, that the additional property tax revenues will be $210,000 and in
reviewing the plan amendment document provided by the city, there is a projected
revenue and expenditure analysis that shows that at the end of those eight
years. She estimated that $860,000
would be left over in the plan that would be distributed back to the districts
through the refund statute. She
thought $75,000 would go back to the County.
She reported that for the last seven years the Downtown Plan impact to
the County has been $1 million from the general fund.
She thought the Board should take the opporutynity to comment on the
fiscal impact to the County of the continuatiuon of the plan.
She thought the Board should comment on the proposed projects in the plan
amendment and whether the projects would be of benefit to the County and its
citizens for the $150,000 to $200,000 per year contribution they would be making
to the plan. She said the Board has
expressed interest in other forms about public safety, farmers market, LCC and
this is another opportunity to weigh in on those subjects.
She thought the Board should also comment on the expansion of the
district to incorporate the Peace Health site.
She said that without including that plan site in the area, the ability
of the city to assist the VA in locating at the site would be limited if the
ydidn’t have help from other partners. She
thought it could be another area of interest for the County for Veterans
Services. She also thought the Board
should comment on the commitment of the city council to adhere to their timeline
in the plan amendment by 2019. She
thought the Board should comment on the expectations and the timing of plan
administration if the referendum is successful and the plan doesn’t become law
or if the plan is not adopted by the council and it ends, the Board should be
clear in giving notice regarding the refund of tax dollars back to the County
and the other tax districts.
Fleenor wanted to know about language that caps the
costs or provides accountability with respect to fairness.
Dwyer said he has an issue with the parking bonds
that frees up money. He said he
doesn’t like those processes. He
said they need more clarity on how and why they are going to do it.
He commented that this never ends. He
thought the college was a good idea to be placed Downtown and a good use of the
money. With regard to the projects,
he didn’t have any problem and thought it was good use of the money.
He commented that the money will finally get to where it was intended.
He said the bottom line is they have no authority on whether this goes
forward. He wanted to increase the
boundary to include the County’s FQHC.
Richardson reported there appears to have been
additional money collected in 2009. She
said what triggers contacting the Assessor is that there deposits in the special
fund are sufficient to fully pay principle and interest on the indebtedness.
She is trying to gather information on that and the timeline issue.
She said if they end up increasing their maximum indebtedness because of
the expansion then they haven’t collected enough money.
She hasn’t been able to find out about administrative expenses.
She indicated there is a prohibition about paying operations. She
recalled that there was a question about how specific a project has to be.
She said given the nature of urban renewal district proposed projects, t
hey can be vague. She said the
paying off of the parking garage is
an allowable expense. She agreed
with Spickard’s issues of what the Board should address.
She said since it appears the urban reweal district will go forward,
looking at some of the suggestions that Dwyer had that the County could see that
would benefit the County.
Sorenson thought an outcome of today’s meeting
would be sending a letter to the Mayor, City Manager and the individual
councilors coverying them the report they received from Spickard.
He wanted to launch a project to bring back a draft letter that Spartz
writes. He wanted to lay out the
consultation requirements under the statute to say they are looking forward to
the consultantion. He thought they
should say that the law should be amended and not allow one jursidcition to tax
another without their consent. He wanted a paragraph with the date of the
extensions so the readers know their concerns of a sixth extension is not
unfounded. He thought they should
comment favorably on the projects. He
thought a portion of the letter should be devoted to the issue of the parking
garage and the repayment and the use of that money to use for city purposes.
He also had concerns about the administration and the cost of
administrating this district. He
wanted to identify specific County concerns.
He thought they needed to comment on the city’s reduction on their
general fund that is applied to Youth Services, District Attorney, Parole and
Probation and the operations of the Lane County Sheriff’s Department and the
correction function. He thought they
should follow up that the boundaries on Exhibit A have notable exceptions that
could be added. He wanted to have a
balanced letter and make it known that the County won’t play any role.
He wanted to know what the impacts are on other taxing districts.
Fleenor asked if Spickard would be comfortable
sending the letter based on the Board’s request.
Stewart was in support of the projects they placed.
He recalled three years ago they amended this plan before.
He was on the Board and he remember having a conversation and requesting
the city of Eugene to see if they could incorporate the Charnelton Building
because they were in the process of purchasing it.
He said they were told it wasn’t possible.
He believed it would be good to see if they could include the Charnelton
Building. He wanted to also
add the Public Service Building and the courts and other pieces of property they
own. He thought the letter should
come from the Board.
Sorenson thought since the statute requires the city
to consult with the Board that they would say in the first letter that they got
a briefing from Spickard. He said
they would have the Board chair send a letter from the city and include this.
He said there wouldn’t be any need to get into the details and then
they ask Spartz to write a draft letter which they review that has Fleenor’s
signature. He commented that this
was the first time the projects would benefit the County.
He thought the letter should state they were in favor of those projects.
Spartz thought asking the city to include one or more
of the County’s property in the district will mean the life of the district
will extend out to 2022 or 2029/2030.
He thought they should be careful what they ask for.
Handy was comfortable with the bullet points that
Sorenson discussed. He wanted Spartz
to work with Richardson and Spickard to draft the second letter.
He wanted the letter with bullet points before the Board next Tuesday and
have it as part of next week’s deliberation.
He commented that it was important they revitalize Downtown Eugene.
He said the projects are worthy. He
said the main question is how are they paying for them and who is paying for
them. He thought there were other
ways the projects could be funded. He
added that the city of Eugene has not chosen to look at those.
He said the effects have urban renwal have been controversial.
He wanted to explore with their legislative partners that at a minimum
urban renewal districts and plans need to have a definite maximum life and a
public vote should be required to form a new urban renewal district.
He wanted to ask the Attorney General for an opinion.
He commented that the extension of the district not only doesn’t look
good after promises it wouldn’t be extended again,
he doesn’t want to rely on the city of Eugene to get information. He
said the projects are worthy and the partnerships are worthy and they have a
situation that needs to be addressed.
Fleenor commented he finds the urban renewal district
an exercise in creative initiations of law.
He said the first thing government should do is buy back jail beds, not
parking lots and that is the message they need to send.
He isn’t happy about this. He
commented that when they are stealing money from the County, they are robbing
public safety coffers. He
thought they need to ask Spartz to put together a letter that send the briefing
from Spickard and that Spickard, Richardson and Spartz
need to draft a second letter that incorporates what Sorenson requested.
MOTION: to move that the Board chair transmit a copy
of the County Assessor’s April 7, 2010 memo to the Board, a transmittal letter
to the city manager, the mayor and each individual city councilor.
Sorenson MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
Spartz recalled there was bill on whether or not vineyards would be permitted to have certain operations. He said the AOC is putting together a task force. He asked if a Board member wanted to serve. He noted that Alex Cuyler said he would be willing to sit on the task force.
MOTION: to designate Alex Cuyler to sit on the task force.
Stewart MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0. (Dwyer out of room).
b. DISCUSSION/Letter to White House Staff as Follow-up to United Front Trip.
Cuyler indicated that this was a document that was put together for a cover letter to Michael Blake at the White House. He said the letter was requested from a meeting with Fleenor and Sorenson with him on March 3 to discuss in greater detail regarding the ramp down of the 2008 Secure Rural Schools reauthorization and what the impacts to service levels and job cuts would be in Oregon and Lane County. His recommendation is to get this in the mail as soon as possible since it has been over a month since the meeting occurred. He commented that this document could be timely with the Campaign for Rural America for Secure Rural Schools.
Fleenor indicated there were changes in the letter. He asked what they should do.
Cuyler asked for the changes and bring it back to the Board.
15. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Handy announced that he attended a CAPS meeting at the Lane County Fairgrounds. He reported that tomorrow he will be the kick off speaker at the Lane County Human Rights Summit.
Stewert announced that tomorrow night there is an event at McKenzie High School addressing substance abuse and underage drinking.
Fleenor reported that tomorrow he has a community dialogue in Veneta.
EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for discussion of potential or pending litigation.
17. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:10 p.m.