December 15, 2010

Following HACSA

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 3-15-2011


Commissioner Bill Fleenor presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Rob Handy, Pete Sorenson and Rob Handy present.  County Administrator Liane Richardson, County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




Item 6.E.1) will be pulled off the Consent Calendar.


Handy publicly noticed Bill Dwyerís retirement party for tomorrow night.


Dwyer thanked everyone for his job and the constituentsí kindness throughout the years.


Sorenson recounted the years he had worked with Dwyer.




Roberta Kellis,  Eugene, stated that she has a 19 year old son who lives on his own and befriended a Hispanic senior citizen and was told he couldnít stay at his home.  He tried to help find funding for the gentlemen and no one would help him.  She said that Centro Latino was the only one who would meet with him every day. She stated it gave him dignity and gave him a way to communicate with the community because of the language barrier.  She didnít think cutting the funding with Centro Latino is a solution.


Minalee Saks, Eugene, Birth to Three, said they have had a long and productive relationship with Centro.  She recalled in the past ten years private non-profits have done a great job of becoming more aware of working culturally with Latino families.  She said what Centro has that no one else has is a place to go to help people find different types of resources they have.  She understands the cuts are 40 percent of the budget.  She said it is an organization that is symbolic in what it does.  She stated that if they seriously weaken the organization, what would the message be that they are sending out to the community on how they value Latinos in the community.  She strongly supports the work that is done at Centro Latino, as it is a gateway to other services.


Miki Singer, Birth to Three, said she underscored what the prior two speakers said.  She said the families they serve go to Centro. She said if they donít have Centro, they donít know how they will be able to do the work they need to do for the families they see coming through their doors.  She said Centro is a trusted organization.


Random Butler, Eugene, said his mom is a Centro Latino Board Member. He stated that he volunteers for the organization.  He said Centro cares about the health of the community.  He said they provide essential emergency services to the members of the Latino community network.  He said it is a great investment.


Betsy Davis, Cottage Grove, said she is a scientist at Oregon Research Institute.  She spoke in support of continued funding for Centro Latino.  She indicated that Centro Latino has the ability to bring millions of research dollars into the Latino community to create jobs.  She stated to cut funding looks like they donít have support of their local community.  She indicated that to cut money now will punish them.


Andrew Stuckey, said he volunteers for Centro Latino.  He stated they are the face of the community.


Joel Ibua, Eugene, said his mother been working at Centro Latino since he was six years old.  He said Centro Latino was instrumental in his own education.  He commented that without Centro Latino, the Latino community would be lost and disenfranchised.


Anna Mercado, Eugene, said she is with Adelante Latino, a bilingual magazine and she is Chair of the Latino Business Network of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce.  She said they have been able to collaborate in some events with Centro Latino.  She commented that without Centro Latino a potion of the community will be lost.


Jim Gillette, Eugene, stated that he appreciates the Latino community and he will miss Bill Dwyer.  He commented that the board decided his case behind closed doors.  He indicated the Board heard his case in Executive Session.  He stated the case will be tried in the press.  He said he was never given written proof that he was guilty.


Rocio Peterson, Eugene, supports Centro Latino and the work they do for Lane County.  She indicated that her family volunteers for Centro Latino.


Michelle Smith, Program Director, Metro Affordable Housing, said there is not any other agency in the town serving the niche of people like Centro Latino.  She stated that it is very important in the community.


Martha Morales, Eugene, said she works for the Girl Scouts.  She said she is in charge of the Spanish initiative.  She stated that Centro Latino gave her skills to help raise her children.


Susan Ban, Shelter Care, reported that Shelter Care has been providing emergency services since 1970 and they support the intention of the allocation process.  She said the intention of the process was to move away from practices that donít necessarily have measurable outcomes for homeless families with children toward practices that do have nationally established measureable outcomes like rapid rehousing or homeless prevention.  She said they on principle, support the decision of the allocation process to forward those initiatives.  She stated they are concerned because, a drop of $300,000 for emergency services in Eugene creates a gap.  She said the community has zero percent vacancy rates for affordable housing and it is impossible to do initiatives to keep people in housing when they donít have affordable housing.


Sura Cox, Eugene, said she has lived in Lane County for ten years and she has heard about the services of Centro Latino.  She indicated that she volunteered this summer as an English teacher for Centro Latino.  She commented that if this funding goes away, it will actually cost the County more because people will fall through the cracks and will need more serious services.  She added that other agencies are not prepared to provide the services that Centro Latino now provides.  She hoped that Centro Latino continues to receive support.


Michelle Maher, Eugene,  supported Centro Latino.  She said it is a community network.  She said processes sometimes have blips that are part of processes that hurt the community.  She asked to look at the process so the communities can work together.


Rudy Chavarria, Eugene,  stated the importance of Centro Latino.  He commented that Centro Latino is different than what it had been in the past.  He asked the Board to pay attention because the people need the help.  He volunteers with Centro Latino and he said they are trying to do the best they can.


Erica Lincango, Eugene, said she is a professional journalist.  She commented that Centro Latino does a great job helping people where English is not the first language to get together in a way they can present to different employee opportunities.


Allan Benavides, Eugene, said he is the new General Manager for the Eugene Emeralds.  He stated he is a first generation Latino. When he came to the community, he reached out to Centro.  He said they have done some fundraising and he believes if it wasnít for the people at Centro, he wouldnít be here.  He was proud to help them.  He commented that any cut to Centro would be devastating to them.


Victoria Astuhuaman said she is a beneficiary of Centro Latino.  She asked the Board to continue funding Centro Latino because without it things will be difficult.


Onalee Carson, Eugene, said she works for the Eugene Emeralds.  She said they feature Centro Latino as a non-profit at the ballgame.  She said they reached out to them early and did a lot of appearances with their mascot Sluggo.  She stated that without Centro Latino, the community will be lost.


Andrea Ortiz, Eugene, said she never used the services at Centro Latino but she considers them allies.   She stated they have been a rock for the immigrant community.  She commented that without Centro Latinoís help, a lot of  people will be lost.  She asked the Board to continue to support them at the level the County always has.


Rand Dawson, Siltcoos Lake,  spoke on behalf of West Lane Translator.  He said their issue is the October FCC award to West Lane Translator for a non-commercial  educational radio station license.  He noted the resolution on the agenda is a mirror of the one Dunes City passed.  He stated that unanimous support of the resolution will help them.


John Sundquist, Coburg, urged the Board to act on three recommendations from the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee where he was Chair.  He said the VMAC recommends that the Board of Commissioners vote to pass the 2010 Integrated Management Program Policy.  He also asked the Board to vote to remove the misrepresented management prescription document from the website and the policy documents as they were concocted to restart roadside spraying and deserve to be eliminated.  He wanted the Board of Commissioners to draft a letter to the Department of Agriculture informing the ODA that spraying of the County right-of-way by adjacent landowners or anyone is a violation of County ordinance.  He stated with the passage of the Last Resort Policy in August 2003, Lane County Public Works stopped spraying and citizens got to see what unpoisoned roadsides looked like.  He commented that today Lane County is a model for the rest of the state and nation.  He said the passage of these three recommendations will bring County policy in line with County actions.


Ross Penhallogen, OSU Extension Service, Eugene, stated he disagreed with John Sundquist regarding the spraying policies.  He commented that the information Sundquist gave was wrong.    He recalled at the least meeting on November 10 these items were brought before VMAC and different proposals were brought forward.  He said they never saw the exact proposal that would come forward and several people during that meeting voiced concerns because the exact document was not there.  He added that Recommendation 2 does need to be changed, but they see more work that is needed and Recommendation 3 was not discussed among the VMAC members.  He was concerned about that.  He said that herbicides seem to be a large issue.  He stated that he has been a weed expert for over 44 years. In dealing with right-of-way issues, he believed it is a process of education.  He thought the question that needed to be asked was why the growers were spraying in the right-of-way.  He said the reason is they are trying to protect important crops.  He said that discussion has not been held within the VMAC and recommendations are being made without truly understanding the process going forward.  He disagreed with recommendations 1, 2 and 3 moving forward as they are incomplete documents and he recommended the Board of Commissioners send the documents back to staff and VMAC to provide a more complete document.




Handy said  when he was elected commissioner two years ago he begged his fellow board members to be the commissioner on the Human Services Commission. He said the needs of the community are up and the revenues to address the community are down.  He said they had 66 proposals totaling  $6.4 million and now they have a draft filling 37 proposals for $3.7 million.  He noted it is 20 percent less than last year.  He commented that whatever happens today, it is not necessarily the end.  He stated they will continue to turn to and not on each other during these trying times.


Sorenson thanked everyone who came to Public Comment and the importance of Centro  Latino in the community.




a. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDER 10-12-15-1/In the Matter of Adopting the FY 2010-2011 Supplemental Budget #1, and Making, Reducing and Transferring Appropriations.  


Commissioner Bill Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.  There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.


Jennifer Inman, Senior Budget Analyst, gave a correction that appeared in The Register Guard.   She indicated the totals in the board order were correct.


MOTION:  to approve ORDER 10-12-15-1.




VOTE:  5-0.








A. Approval of Minutes:


April 15, 2009, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

April 15, 2009, Regular Meeting, Following Board of Health

September 23, 2009, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

November 2, 2010, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

November 23, 2010, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

November 23, 2010, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.


B. Board of Commissioners


1) ORDER 10-12-15-2/In the Matter of Acknowledging the FCC Award of a New Non-commercial Educational Full Power FM Radio Station Construction Permit to Lane County Nonprofit, West Lane Translator, Inc.


C. County Administration


1) ORDER 10-12-15-3/In the Matter of Transferring $300 from General Fund Operational Contingency to Materials and Services Within General Expense to Support the 2010 Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration.


D. County Counsel


1) ORDER 10-12-15-4/In the Matter of Amending the Contract Amount for Legal Services Provided by Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC.


E. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 10-12-15-5/In the Matter of Approving an Amendment from Oregon Housing and Community Services of $3,624,978 to Increase the Intergovernmental Revenue Agreement to a New Total of $17,000,000 and Appropriating an Additional $3,624,978 in Revenues and Expenditures for 2010-2011 in Fund 285 Department of Health & Human Services In Order to Accept Additional Revenues for Human Services Programs in Lane County. (PULLED)


F. Public Works


1) ORDER 10-12-15-6/In the Matter of Issuing a Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment for Highway/Railroad Grade Crossing Number CF-583.80 (ODOT) / 766237R (USDOT) on Winfrey Road, Westfir, Oregon.

2) ORDER 10-12-15-7/In the Matter of Accepting Dedications of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Access to the Junction City Prison Site (16-04-20).


3) ORDER 10-12-15-8/In the Matter of Awarding a Three-Year Requirements Contract to The Jerry Brown Company, Inc., for the Purchase of Cardlock Fuel and Fueling Services in Veneta, Contract RFP 10/11 FS-04.


4) ORDER 10-12-15-9/In the Matter of Approving a Reimbursable Agreement with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for Five Rivers Road Culvert Replacement Project to be Funded Through the Oregon Forest Highway Program and that Public Works Staff be Authorized to Prepare the Necessary Right of Way Plan and Amend the Capital Improvement Program FY 11-15 to Reflect the Funding Source Change, and that the County Administrator is Authorized to Execute all Related Agreements, Amendments, and Construction Contracts.


5) ORDER 10-12-15-10/In the Matter of Proceedings on Remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals of the Board of Commissioners Decision on an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Reversing the Planning Directorís Denial of a Group Care Home (LMD File  No. PA 09-5314/Teen Challenge)


G. Management Services


1) ORDER 10-12-15-11/In the Matter of Acknowledging Receipt of the Lane County, Oregon Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010, and Setting Forth the Corrective Measures for Deficiencies Contained Therein.


2) ORDER 10-12-15-12/In the Matter of Permitting the Wayne Morse Historical Park Corporation to Have Inscribed Additional Pavers and Spacers on the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza.


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.


Stewart MOVED, Handy SECONDED.


VOTE:  5-0.




a. DISCUSSION / ORDER 10-12-15-13/In the Matter of Considering Protests and Awarding Contracts to Provide Human Services to Low-Income, Disadvantaged, and Disabled Lane County Residents.


Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, explained that he has been at the County for 24 years and this was the third time they have had an appeals process.  He said these cuts are small given what is coming up.  He thought his department might have a $30 million biennial cut.  He said the reality is this is the first hit and no matter what they do today, there will still be other issues coming up.


Steve Manela, Human Services Commission, commented that this is a time of greater need in Lane County than they have seen in a number of years.  He said the last time they were in this position was in the early 1980ís.  He recalled that last year they served 83,000 people in the community and their ability to do so is pooling funding that comes from the federal government, state government and from local jurisdictions.  He indicated that they came up with policy guidance for the Human Services Commission to consider the Human Services Plan.  He said they came up with a constrained vision, a not so constrained vision and one that would more optimally address the needs of the community.  He stated they had discussions about revenue to address the Human Services needs.  He added that they looked at what it would take to sustain what they are doing.  He noted in the RFP process they had a choice to make.  He said they are currently funding agencies for about $5 million.  He said they know a large piece is money from the American Recovery Act and that money would be going away.  He said taking away the ARRA money; they now have $4.3 million.  He said in coming up with a price tag with the RFP, a recommendation was made by staff that they look at a $4 million RFP, a 20 percent reduction with the federal ARRA money.  He said it is typically the federal government that addresses these needs.  He stated they are looking at a time now where the federal and state funding is also uncertain and they have uncertainty at every level.  He indicated in the RFP process they had 28 local agencies that responded with 66 proposals.  He added the proposals totaled $6.5 million.  He said what is in front of the Board is the outcome of the review committees.  He reported that they had six review committees with 24 community members.  He explained the role of the committees was to take the evaluation criteria in the RFP and apply it against the proposals.  He noted the policy framework for this was developed by him and others and applied to the proposal package.  He said because he and his staff work with all the community non-profits, they had their Health and Human Services Division conduct the RFP process.  He said the way the process and RFP was designed was to conduct a fair and equitable process with less money.  He indicated there was procedural fairness, process equity and one of the policies they put in place was equity based on the geographical distribution of the funding.


Assistant County Counsel Trina Laidlaw explained the process for protest.  She stated that if anyone wanted to protest the evaluation committeeís recommendation, they have within seven days to file a written protest to the department.  She added the department has the opportunity to  prepare a written analysis of the process and make a recommendation to the Board on what the action should be.  She explained that non-responsive means a higher proposal didnít respond in any way to a question when they had a requirement in their solicitation document for them to respond.  She indicated the adequacy of the response was not the issue; they didnít address what they wanted them to.


Fleenor explained that the Board of Commissioners is the decision maker of protests of competitive process in the contract arena.  He added it is similar to quasi judicial in the land use arena. 


Appeal 1

St. Vincent de Paul Egan Warming Center Appeal


Deb Heeszel, Health and Human Services, distributed the awards by outcome and rank.  (Copy in file). She explained that St. Vincent de Paul argues that the criteria used to evaluate the proposals did not pertain to the services or products requested.  She added that one of the criteria in the RFP was linking participants to other services.  She said St. Vincent de Paul believed that was not necessary or applicable in looking for a shelter or warming center.  She stated it was one of the criteria laid out in the RFP and that criteria was not protested as part of the RFP document protest process.  She said the questions to the criteria were removed from the RFP and the Egan Warming Center continued to rank in the same place and did not move up and would not have been funded.


Terry McDonald, St. Vincent de Paul, said the Egan Warming Center was never designed as a program to move people from one life situation to another.  He said it ties services, the faith community and the community as a whole into a comprehensive set of services at a difficult time when they have winter emergencies.  He said it is not a program that will work well in moving people on.  He indicated that this program is designed to be used only for special events at a modest amount of money. 


Dwyer asked why McDonald didnít appeal the criteria before the scoring if they didnít think it was applicable.


McDonald didnít appeal the criteria because they thought it was appropriate for most of the program.  He thought they would be marked up on other areas but they were not.


Handy said this appellant is not next in line.  He added there were others  who werenít funded and who scored higher.


Laidlaw stated in the statute it shows that if the protest is granted, it has to be someone who would be eligible to be getting the award.  She said they have to show that if they won they would get the award.  She added the rule they have for Lane County is that they are next in line.  She indicated that they donít look at the next agency on the list that didnít get funded, but is the person who is protesting, entitled to get the award.


Susan Ban, Eugene, was present on behalf of Shelter Care.  She said her agency has supported the Egan Warming Center from the beginning and many of their employees volunteer.  She said they did not protest, they supported the criteria.  She thought there were some problems with the process that leaves some gaps.  She urged the Board to review some of the gaps.


Craig Opperman, Looking Glass, Eugene thought they were going to be allowed to give public testimony with the response to appeals.  He thought this was a first step.  He thought the second step was to get together and figure out what they are going to do about the gaps.  Thought they should honor the process that was set up.  He agreed to the award by staff recommendation.


Fleenor heard that the process might have been flawed and that some of the organizations will not get funded.


Heeszel explained that proposers could have submitted proposals as individual agencies or they could have submitted collaborative proposals with one agency as the lead agency.


Laidlaw wanted to take each appeal and follow the ten minute process.  She noted numbers 2 and 3 were appeals that were withdrawn:  Looking Glass and Committed Partners.  She said those wonít need to be considered.


Handy said given they have small discretionary funds available for the emergency shelter, he would not uphold this appeal.  He wanted to have all the contracts move forward, but to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to do a mini RFP with the unallocated funding for $165,000 available for emergency shelter and basic needs.  He also wanted to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an evaluation of the availability of emergency shelter services available for homeless families, those who are chronically homeless and to report back to the Human Services Commission at their January meeting and the Board of Commissioners thereafter.


Stewart didnít think they should be giving the direction of a mini RFP at this point.  He said it is clear there are reserve funds in the HSC.  He thought it was more appropriate to get to these appeals, base them on the merits of the appeal and criteria. He added then the HSC can have the conversation at the next HSC meeting to make a recommendation to ask staff to look at the impacts of the denials and find a way to consider funding.  He didnít want to add additional direction.


Fleenor proposed to deny the protest but to move forward the South Lane County, West Lane County Emergency Food Coordination Access and integrated health care and to remand the  Eugene Central Lane County and Springfield East Lane County, because of 1 c) it was reasonable and within the Countyís discretion to expect the basic needs programs including the Egan Warming Center to also provide some assistance to participate and to use it as an evaluation criteria.


Laidlaw asked what the purpose of the remand would be.  She said it was reasonable for the department to include it as a criteria.


Stewart stated what staff has prepared is actual grounds for denial of the appeal.  He said the motion is to move to deny and he was also stating that they accept the appeal and they want it remanded back.  He said if they want to remand it back, to give the reasons of merit to remand it back.  He thought there is an opportunity for the HSC to review these again because there are some potential reserve funds that they would be able to allocate in another process.  He didnít see any reasons to accept the appeal and remind it back.  He added the applicant stated they didnít meet the criteria.


Dwyer said the question of whether or not they have extra money and how that money should be allocated should be kept separate.


MOTION:  to take recommendation of staff to deny and incorporate Appendix A, Section 1 (a)(b)(c) and (d).


Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.


Dwyer didnít think they met all criteria.


Handy agreed with the motion.  He stated they are sending the message they do need to evaluate the availability of emergency shelter services for homeless families and the chronically homeless and that this needs to be addressed and the HSC will take this up and report back in January.


VOTE:  5-0.


Appeal 2

St. Vincent de Paul for Connections Program


Heeszel reported that St. Vincent de Paul indicates in their protest that this falls outside of the criteria for appeals outlined in their RFP.  She recommended the Board deny the appeal based on the fact it does not meet the appeal criteria that the Lane Manual requires.  She said although it falls outside the appeal criteria, what St. Vincent de Paul argues is that this will have an impact on the Lane County continuum of care application for the HUD grant in subsequent years if the service is not funded.


Anne Williams, St. Vincent de Paul, had identified in their appeal that the grounds for appeal fell outside.  She thought it was important to note there are some issues in the allocation process that didnít get addressed.  She indicated that Connections serves families who have multiple barriers to housing stability.  She added that many families have had repeated episodes of homelessness.  She said the families are not necessarily going to benefit from homeless prevention and it means they have serious barriers to permanent housing stability and it will be transferred to their children if they donít intervene with appropriate and intensive services.  She commented that over the years this program has had a significant success rate.  She indicated that without funding, they will reduce the number of dedicated housing units they will be able to provide services for at the intense level of services needed by families with multiple barriers to houses.


Craig Opperman, Looking Glass, commented that this process was difficult for everybody.  He agreed with what Williams presented and the work they do.  He said their proposal has similar compelling messages and stories.  He said in this case he defers to the committeeís decision and supports it.  He was in support of the process being held whole and moving forward as a first step.


Susan Ban, Shelter Care, said they depend on Connections all the time.  She said it is a tragedy that they are not funded.  She supports the process and the criteria used in the process.  She commented that the funding for the homeless prevention is critical to the community and it is a huge cut for them as well.


MOTION: to deny the appeal because they wouldnít necessarily be the winning appellate if they were considered and the criteria by which they were judged was fair and impartial to the best of the ability of those scoring.




VOTE: 5-0.


(The following part of this agenda item took place in the afternoon).


Appeal 3

Sexual Assault Support Services


Heeszel explained that this is an appeal by Sexual Assault Support Services.  She  said they are arguing that the evaluation committee failed to conduct the evaluation of the proposals in accordance with the criteria or processes described in the solicitation material.  She said they argue that it is stated in the RFP that the decision making process will take into account countywide distribution of services and the RFP indicates that the goal is to have a countywide distribution of services.  She indicated some categories were broken down to subcategories by region and geographical area.  She said the Building Safer Communities subfunding category was not one of the categories broken down by geographic area.  She said it was not possible to break down all the funding into geographic areas because there wasnít enough money.


Laidlaw indicated that Sexual Assault Support Services submitted a written protest.  She added they had the option to make their presentation.


Dwyer asked if they nullified the award if Sexual Assault Support Services would benefit or if it would go to someone else.


Heeszel responded that there were two other proposals that were not funded that ranked higher than they did.


Irene Alltucker, in behalf of Jan Aho.  She read Ahoís letter into the record. (Copy in file).


Irene Alltucker, Relief Nursery, said they were one of the funded agencies at 67 percent and they have to cut services.  She recognized that Steve Manela and his staff have worked hard to stretch the dollar to work through the process.  She commented that there are no good answers because someone is going to have to be cut.  She said each one appreciated the difficult decision before the Board.  She added if there is more money they hope the Board will fund more programs.


Peggy Whalen, Eugene, stated she is the Executive Director of Womenís Space.  She responded to the appeal of  SASS for the RFP process.  She said she is placed in a difficult situation, having to defend decisions made in the RFP process since their organizations work so closely together.  She honors the work SASS provides as their services are crucial to the community.  She said the RFP process they were engaged in for the HSC funding was a competitive process.  She added that they were told from the beginning that not all agencies would be funded and that there would be scoring and a ranking process.  She indicated there was limited funding available and they were competing against their primary collaborators.  She said in their area of Build a Safer Community, there was only $298,886 in funding available and the RFP clearly stated that they would fund no more than four proposals.  She  indicated there were nine proposals submitted in this category and the top scoring applications were recommended for HSC funding.  She noted the funding that was recommended was drastically reduced from what Womenís Space has historically received.  She said their funding level was reduced by 33 percent and their request was to fund their Domestic Violence Shelter.  She noted their Turning Point Program  provides case management service to survivors who have left their abusers.  She indicated that they will have to cut some of the vital life saving services.  She will continue to support SASS in any way possible and collaborate with them to help find funding they need.  She asked the Board to approve the recommendation submitted by the HSC.


Craig Opperman, Looking Glass, echoed what was just said.  He appreciated all the work that SASS and Womenís Space does.  He supports the committeeís decision.


MOTION: to move to uphold staffís position and deny the appeal based on the criteria. 




Laidlaw explained they are not taking the next person in line that did not get funded.  She said this is reflective of the departmentís position.  She noted while the RFP generally had a goal of wanting to provide services countywide, they had to look at the amount of money they were going to be designating per area outcome.  She added in some of these cases there was not enough money to have projects funded for each geographic area. 


Heeszel asked if they could say geographical distribution of services was not a criteria for the Building Safer Communities funding pool, therefore the committee did conduct an evaluation of  proposals in accordance with criteria laid out in the RFP.


VOTE: 5-0.


Appeal 4

Centro Latino Americano


Heeszel said this appeal is from Centro Latino Americano.  She said they appealed on three separate grounds.   She noted the first is that the evaluation committee unfairly applied evaluation criteria to a proposal.  She stated that Centro Latino argues that is evidenced by scores that individual reviewers gave to questions on individual proposals.  She noted one was a reviewer who traditionally gave a lower score across the board.  She said in looking at the data, they found that there was not a consistent anomaly, not a consistent reviewer that appeared to have applied criteria across the board differently than to other proposals.  She noted the second criteria for which they are appealing is that different criteria was used to evaluate different proposals.  She said Centro Latino Americano looked at the scores given on a question by question basis by each reviewer and staff analysis scores did not indicate there were particular reviewers that applied criteria differently.  She added that there were no huge outliners and that is what they looked at.  She noted the third appeal criteria  were that all higher ranked proposals were non-responsive. She added that part of the proposal process was responding to mandatory measures and different currently funded projects through the HSC have different mandatory measures.  She noted that none of the funded proposals responded to the mandatory measures that were in Centro Latino Americanoís current contract with Lane County but the proposals all responded to mandatory measures or created measures that would become mandatory measures as was outlined in the RFP criteria.  She indicated there was a secondary letter that came in from Centro Latino Americano arguing that a proposer inaccurately represented their relationship with Centro Latino Americano as a partner, possibly inflating their score.  She added what Centro Latino Americano argues is that the guideline for the RFP requested that only formal funded partnerships were included in the proposal.  She indicated that guideline was in response to a question through a question and answer process posted on the web by staff and referred to Section E of the proposal.  She noted the respondent referred to a partnership in a different set of questions and did not present the relationship as a formal partnership but was clear the relationship was a referral relationship only.


Laidlaw explained that the rule says they can remand to the department or committee for further information or consideration.  She said it intended to address the situation where they were not ready to deny or grant the protest.


Richardson asked if the Board had any ex parte conflicts with any of the participants in the process.


Fleenor asked if there were any conflicts with St.Vincent de Paul.


Dwyer had none.


Sorenson recalled getting an e-mail but he doesnít remember who it was from.


Stewart had none.


Handy heard from many people and he indicated he could not talk to them because of this hearing.  He directed them to talk to Heezel, Manela or Laidlaw.


Fleenor had none.


Appeal 2

St. Vincent de Paul Housing


Dwyer had none.


Sorenson had none.


Stewart had none.


Handy had the same response as above.


Fleenor had none.


Appeal 3



Dwyer had none.


Sorenson received an e-mail.


Stewart had none.


Handy had the same response as above.


Fleenor had none.


Appeal 4

Central Latino Americano


Dwyer received a lot of mail on this.


Sorenson received a request for a meeting from the chair of the board and executive director when Laidlaw counseled against the meeting.  He said he had e-mail sent but they never had the meeting.  He also noted that he received a lot of mail on this item.  He also saw a petition that was sent in.


Stewart received a considerable amount of mail and e-mails regarding this matter.


Handy had the same response as above.


Fleenor received voluminous mail and e-mails but never responded.


Marcela Mendoza, Executive Director, Centro Latino Americano, said they are not talking about budget cuts or their organizationís capacity to write proposals that are competitive.  She said with the ranking of Centro Latino Americano, out of the 66 scores their score is the sixth with 96.5 points.  She said they applied to improve access to the service priority area that has two specific outcomes for increased access to service for the Spanish speaking population.  She added that this not their current contract, it was the RFP text.  She said it is the only priority area with the mandatory outcome and it is the area with the least funding available.  She said Centro was third to submit a proposal in that area because the area had those two mandatory outcomes.  She said they applied in that priority area because that is what they do.  She said the HSC has been contracting with them since 1999 to provide that type of service.  She said the contract pays their salaries.  She said they produce reports and meet and exceed expectations of the contract.  She indicated their agency is funded by the commission.  She said if they were to work less, the ability of other agencies to reach out to the Latino population would be seriously  undermined.  She said it will cost more to Lane County.  She said they are not funding a project, but access to an entire population. She said the Board received two letters this week in PDF. She indicated one was from the Oregon Commission of Black Affairs and the other was from the Oregon Commission of Hispanic Affairs.  She said both letters said they were concerned and recommended looking at a screening committee.  She learned today how the committees were selected and one of the members of the committee that screened their proposal should have excused herself for a conflict of interest.  She noted a member of the committee, Sascha Cosio, has been an employee of Centro Latino Americano for more than two years and she directed a program.  She added that Cosio was an employee at Centro Latino Americano after becoming a Lane County employee.  She thought that was another ground for an appeal.  She said they reviewed other proposals and found several flaws that the evaluation committee should have noticed. She said the reviewers gave them fewer points for demonstration of need and duplication of services.  She said they also got fewer points because they werenít in line with their mission.  She noted that different criteria were used to evaluate different proposals and theirs was evaluated differently according to program impact.


Liura Spanko, Program Development Manager, Centro Latino Americano, said the third basis for their appeal is that all higher ranking proposals are non-responsive.  She said there were mandatory measures stated in the RFP around increased access to services for the Spanish speaking population.  She stated that Lane County has already made priorities that this was important and Centro Latino Americanoís application responds to the two mandatory measures.  She said the other applicants reach out to services, but none of them in their proposals speak about these mandatory measures.  They believe the mandatory measures relate to federal requirements and to Lane Countyís Diversity Action Plan.  She said that HSC says this is important.  She indicated their application was important but there was not significant funding to address it.  She said it doesnít seem adequate.  She asked who would provide this service.  She noted the response to their appeal says access to services is already addressed in the RFP.  She indicated that Centro is utilized by various agencies for outreach to the Latino population.  She didnít think that was a reason not to fund their agency.  She added there are few agencies like Centro in the state and they believe it is important to consider their appeal.  She said they received five points for reaching out to special populations.  She didnít think that was adequate.


Juan Carlos Valle, Board President, Centro Latino Americano, said the RFP is inconsistent.  He said Centro Latino Americanoís RFP is competitive and they are comfortable with the process.  He said the process was used to score and make recommendations for funding.  He said they just received a response 20 minutes ago.  He wondered what was going on.  He said everything was done behind closed doors, there were no notes from staff.  He asked the Board to send a message that they do want Latinos here and to contribute and to continue to have a partnership with this caliber of agency.


Chuck Girard, Eugene, Coordinator of White Bird Clinic, said he has already submitted a more technical answer to Centroís appeal.  He said it has been difficult and a painful process.  He said in looking at the process, he couldnít find anything that was flawed.  He said it is more a situation where there were not enough resources for a need.  He added they knew this going into the process that there was less money available.  He believed that everyone acted in good faith and that funding priorities have been addressed.  He said that not all agencies can be funded.  He thought there was confusion about measures.  He indicated that throughout the process, it took awhile to understand that the mandatory measures are mandatory for the County, not for the people writing the proposals.  He said Centro, a key agency in the community talked about their long relationship with HSC and the importance of their work for the community and that they must not be underfunded.  He believed that was true of everyone who submitted proposals.


Craig Opperman, Looking Glass, supports Centro.  He also endorses all the comments about their value and importance of their services.  He didnít want them to go away, he wanted them to grow bigger.  He said he may not agree with them in terms of their critique of the scores and process.  He said the committee did as best they could in a difficult situation and made the choices.  He didnít like all the choices in regard to his agency either.  He said they are still taking a 30 percent cut and he is concerned that they will lose runaway and homeless youth to the streets or the justice system or death.  He said it became clear to him at the Human Services Commission meeting that there are two steps.  He endorses the committee and staffís decision in this process and that should move ahead.  He said the second step is that Centro, the Human Services Network and the community to gather and talk about the gaps in services.  He said they need to endorse the decisions that have been made with this RFP process.


Susan Ban, Shelter Care, stated she uses Centroís services and they refer people there all the time.  She said the process was beginning to move the dial in anti- poverty programs in Lane County.  She stated they have national established best practices and this RFP process allows them locally to begin to do some of them in a small way in the community.  She supported the committeeís recommendation.


Rockstroh thought the Board should uphold the process and have the HSC do something differently but recognize there are gaps they need to discuss.


Stewart asked how much Centro Latino Americano requested.


Manela said they requested $145,000.


Stewart asked if Cosioís scores were reviewed and if it made a difference.


Manela stated that Cosio gave the highest points toward the score.


Handy said with the appeal unfairly applying the valuation criteria, he said the time to have addressed the criteria was when  they were putting together the criteria.  He said if they donít get the criteria correct, then they should improve the process.  He wanted the Board to consider remanding this back to the committee to give it another look to make sure they got it correct.


Sorenson asked about the fairness issue.


Laidlaw said they could say they have a significant question about the fairness issue and to send it back to review it to see if that is the score they are going to stand with.


MOTION:  to remand this matter back to the committee and staff for evaluation of whether the fairness matter was considered fully and they have a sufficient question on the fairness issue.


Sorenson MOVED, Handy SECONDED.


Sorenson thought denying the appeal didnít help them resolve allegations of unfairness.


Dwyer said a reasonable person could say there were reasons why the score came out the way it did.  He said Centro Latino asked for about three times as much as some and twice as much as those that were successful.   He didnít oppose remanding this back to the committee.


Stewart asked if there were funds that could be applied to this in another fashion.  He thought some money they discussed earlier wouldnít qualify.


Rockstroh didnít know how to remand it back to the committee and ask them to be fair.  He wanted to look at a gap analysis.  He thought there was a risk to remand it for fairness.  He thought it should be remanded to be reviewed and leave all the questions open.


Stewart wasnít convinced there was a strong enough case to remand this back.  He said that Centro Latino is an important segment in the community.  He said if they need Lane Countyís support, to find funding for them to show their commitment to the community.


Manela said they set the RFP at a $4 million target and it is a revenue target.  He didnít know if they could accomplish that.  He said they donít have reserve money.  He said they realize they have gaps in services as they have less money.  He noted the other proposal ahead of Centro Latino was a proposal for senior citizens.  He said when they set out the policy for the RFP process they didnít have in mind that they would not be looking at dedicated services to the fastest growing populations.  He indicated they gave the review committees process about policy and how to make adjustments with all the tools available.  He stated the committees all did their jobs that way.


Handy stated there are ongoing conversations they need to have.  He said the intent of the motion is to remand this back to the committee without them sending the particular signals on what they want them to do.   He wanted to address the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an evaluation of the accessibility of contracting Human Services provided through the HSC alliance where language, literature or cultural may be a barrier along with other things to report back on. 


Laidlaw said some changes need to be made to the board order if they are going to do the remand.  She said they could approve the contracts that have no appeal involved.  She said they could approve the contracts they heard the appeal on today but denied the protest.  She added they would have to change the wording of the board order to reflect that and attach the reasons in a written form to the board order. 


Sorenson amended his motion to include all other issues for the remand.




Dwyer commented that not everyone got everything they wanted.


VOTE:  5-0.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-12-15-13 as amended with the actions taken today.




VOTE: 5-0.


MOTION: to bring back the remand of Centro Latino Americano on February 9, 2011.




VOTE: 5-0.




a. Announcements


9. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for discussing pending litigation.    




a. TENTH READING / PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1260/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Consistent with Policy G.3 in Chapter III, Section G, Public Facilities and  Services Element; Amending Table 6, Table 18, Table 19, Map 3 and Map 8 of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Metro Plan Amendment) (Applicant; Springfield) (NBA & PM 7/8/09, 7/22/09, 8/5/09, 8/26/09, 10/20/09, 11/04/09, 2/3/10, 8/18/10, 9/28/10)


Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, recalled on October 28 the Board continued the Public Hearing and scheduled a Tenth Reading on Ordinance No. PA 1260, updating Springfieldís list of storm water projects designed to meet current population needs.  She added as of last August, they have had no change in the list and they donít have new material to provide.  She requested the Board to make a decision today or if not, to roll to a date in 2011.


Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public  Hearing.  There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.


MOTION: to approve the Tenth Reading and Setting an Eleventh Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance No. PA 1260 to May 4, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.


Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Stewart asked why this is set out so far.   He asked Handy if he was waiting for more information to make a decision.


Handy responded there was no particular reason he wanted to continue this.


VOTE: 3-1 (Stewart dissenting, Dwyer out of room).


b. SECOND READING / PUBLIC HEARING / POSSIBLE DELIBERATIONS/Amendments to the Social Host Ordinance, Lane Code 6.900, Amending Sections 1(h), 3, 4, and Adding 5(c). (NBA & PM 11/23/10)


Richardson recalled the Board adopted the original Social Host Ordinance last year.  She said they had a report back for recommended changes and the County started experiencing rave parties in outlying areas.   She said they brought back an initial recommendation and the Board wanted to increase the amount of fees they proposed for events.  She noted before the Board are the changes they discussed at the last Board meeting.  She stated they didnít follow all of the procedural issues, rushing to get this on for today.  She indicated that if the Board has changes, they will set up more readings and hearings.  She didnít think the Board should deliberate today.  She thought they needed to repost with an ordinance number.


CA Baskerville, Health and Human Services, reported that the ordinance has not been used at all by law enforcement because some of the language included in the original language was too ambiguous and confusing as reported by law enforcement.  She, Richardson and the Sheriff Department met  to review the language and made the new draft ordinance before the Board.  She added there was a change in the fee structure.  The current  fee for a minor in possession and furnishing alcohol to a minor was a higher fee than the original structure of the Social Host Ordinance.  She indicated the fee structure for the Social Host Ordinance for alcohol will be raised equal to minor in possession or furnishing alcohol to a minor.  With regard to addressing raves, she indicated it was a challenge, but they have language that would capture it.  She stated she received phone calls from the community about the language.


Richardson said they had comments from people on how this would limit the ability of people to have parties.  She noted the Social Host Ordinance is about alcohol and drugs to underage people.  She indicated that it applies to people who are violating the law or allowing the provision of alcohol and drugs to minors.


Commissioner Fleenor opened the Public Hearing.


Jenny Velinty, Florence, said she lives in West Lane County and is a secretary for the Siuslaw Area Partnership to Prevent Substance Abuse.  She indicated they are  a small non-profit with the goal of community education to prevent substance abuse in underage youth.  She commented that this amended Lane County Social Host Ordinance  as written is an excellent and much needed ordinance to raise awareness among people who are giving and selling alcohol, drugs and illegal substances to underage persons.  She commended the Board of Commissioners for having the foresight and the willingness to write an ordinance that can be enforced and funded by people who cause physical and mental harm and contribute to the delinquency of minors.  She recommended adding page 1, paragraph 1, to read as a natural or adoptive parent or step parent.  In h, line 2,  as occupants of residences, adding to an underage person.


Walter Hunt, Eugene, said the dance community wants to listen and dance to music.  He said they want their community to be safe and a gathering to be positive.  He said they are opposed to alcohol use and abuse especially when using a motor vehicles and by minors  He indicated that they have participated in many events with countywide support that were sponsored by the city of Eugene.  They want to work with the County to ensure a safe atmosphere for their dance community by maintaining high standards of care at their events.  He asked not to fine them for wanting their dance and music.  He asked if the County could issue some different permits so events could be better contracted.  He thinks it needs more work.


Michael Friedman, Eugene, said he moved to Eugene two years ago because of the many things taking place here and Eugeneís art and music cultures.  He said he is a promoter and DJ for Cherry Productions, a company that regularly throws 18 and over parties all over the County.  He stated that they raise canned food and toys for local food banks.  He indicated that they promote alcohol and drug free parties.  He asked the Board to reconsider the increased fine for the Social Host Ordinance. He commented that a $20,000 fine is completely disproportionate and unfair to the people who would affected by such an outrageous fine.  He said just because they are charging at the door doesnít mean they can pay such an exorbitant fine.  He said the spirit of the law is a direct offense to his community as well as other arts communities in an open and free society.  He said this ordinance will be devastating to what makes Lane County so special.  He added that a $20,000 fine would be a serious financial setback for any of the artists that try to provide high quality events that are safe and fun.  He agreed there should be some safeguards to protect youth from drugs and alcohol, but he said there are already enough measures to protect them.  He said the sale and possession of drugs is already illegal.  He said some of the promoters in the dance community have agreed to a drug and alcohol prevention liaison to attend their monthly promoters meeting.


Holly Emery Walen, Portland, said there is a misunderstanding that happens between different cultural groups inside Eugene and the County.  She said they interact with law enforcement.  She asked a Eugene Police Officer what he thought of electronic music events.  She said he had no idea what she was talking about.  She then asked what his stance on Rave parties and he told her they were considered drug vendors.  She said that censorship is always targeted.  She said the campaign is happening  to regulate Raves and punish the hosts who are known as the promoters with unaffordable fines.  She indicated that it will discourage them from throwing events.  She stated that there is a generation gap.  She commented that responsible party hosting is imperative to any event and event organizing is the only way to maintain safety and enjoyment for all participants.


Kent Roberts, Blue River, said they were advocates for passing this law.  He said everything he read concerning everyoneís concerns seem to further make the argument on why this is a good thing


Joe Bussell, Eugene, said he enjoys going to electronic music parties.  He wanted to separate the issues related to drug and alcohol from the issues related to the dance community.  He said he has never seen alcohol given at any of these parties. He thought they could possibly have outside influences in Eugene, but he is not seeing it where he is attending parties.  He is concerned the issue improperly targets people involved in the electronic music community when his own lifeís experience has demonstrated that alcohol provision happens more in other communities than in Oregon.  He said there needs to be more communication in the community to make sure they are not demonizing people who are trying to create good visual and audio experiences while providing a safe place for them to do so.


Hans Fuson, Eugene, commented that a three minute limit for this important issue is of concern to several people.  He said the language needs to continue to be revised, especially with the penalties.  He said he didnít like the inclusion of costs for police or fire or emergency care.  He noted there is emphasis on Rave but this pertains to all events.  He said they have to define how events in rural areas outside the scope of the city of  Eugene laws can happen with mixed age attendees in a less risky atmosphere.


Shaya Dagvino, Eugene, agrees with the person who just spoke about the length of time they get to speak.  She said to eliminate the youth being involved in these community events completely defeats their purpose.  She said there should be no reason why kids under the age of 18 canít experience an enlightened state with a group of people that have their best interests at heart.  She said the idea of the party is not to get people wasted or messed up.  She said it is to gather in a spiritual essence and to dance and celebrate their sense of community.  She said there is a misconception for this. 


Miles Young, said he is a dancer and sound engineer and producer of events in Eugeneís electronic music community.  He said he went to the University of Oregon.  He expressed the value of their electronic music community.    He said it strengthens the greater community and exemplifies the societal values of the area.  He has been involved in many events in which the community participated and from an artistís perspective, the local community provides an amazing place to produce art.  He said the fines donít go in conjunction with the events.  He said the amount of attendees and the amount they charge  are based on covering their overhead.


There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Fleenor closed the Public Hearing.


C.A. Baskerville, Health and Human Services, reiterated she heard the need to have better communication and collaboration among the community and there is a misunderstanding about the social host ordinance as it is written.  She  noted there were comments about eliminating youth participation in events and targeting certain types of music and cultural groups.  She stated the Social Host Ordinance does not target a particular music or eliminate youth participation in any type of event.  She explained the Social Host Ordinance talks about responsibility of adults and people over 21 who host events to be responsible for the people underage who attend.  She said it asks that those who are adults be responsible for the people who are younger.  She noted in the Social Host Ordinance there is no language regarding the electronic music community and the word Rave is not included in the new language.  She heard concerns about the fines and the fees assessed.  She stated it is important to note in the new language it is a maximum fine up to $20,000.  She added there is no minimum set


Richardson commented that there is confusion in the community.  She noted the ordinance has existed since February of last year.  She said the promoters have the current ordinance and it is already in effect.  She added that all the Board did was make changes when there is something that costs money to attend, but now it covers all events in unincorporated Lane County.  She noted the response fees are already in the ordinance that exists and was passed in February of last year.  She said the Board could revisit the penalty issue to an appropriate maximum fine.  She stated the ordinance applies to persons hosting or allowing an event or gathering at any residence, premises or any other  private or public property where alcohol or illegal controlled or intoxicating substances are present when the person knows or reasonably should know that an underage person will or does consume alcohol or illegal controlled substances.  She heard issues about people wanting to revisit land use issues which are not what the Board is talking about with the Social Host Ordinance.


Sorenson said if there is a plan for changes to the ordinance that it should be subject to a Public Hearing.  He was in favor of the Social Host Ordinance.


Stewart was supportive of the Social Host Ordinance.  He commented that it appears to be a misunderstanding as to who it applies to.


MOTION:  to move this to the future agenda in February or March for a work session and guidance as to forming changes to the ordinance for a First Reading.


Stewart MOVED, Handy SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.




a. Announcements




b. REPORT BACK/Naming Policy for Public Facilities. (PULLED)


c. REPORT BACK/Trip to Washington D.C. (PULLED)




a. DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE ACTION/Vegetation Management Advisory Committee (VMAC) Recommendations.


Oren Schumacher, Public Works, reported that these three items are VMAC Advisory Committee recommendations.


MOTION: to approve the letter from the Board of Commissioners to the Oregon Department  of Agriculture with a cc to the Department of Transportation.




Handy said this would address an item of sending a letter.


Stewart stated he did not receive this information in his board packet.  He received an e-mail from Handy late yesterday that gave the draft letter.  He doesnít know where this is expected to go.  He thought they should have this item discussed under a better circumstance.  He said when he read the letter through, he asked if the Oregon Department of Agriculture is the body that manages.  He asked what the intent was to write the letter to the Oregon Department of Agriculture.


Schumacher said it was more of an information piece to the Oregon Department of Agriculture about their Last Resort Policy for roadside management.


Fleenor was concerned about the lack of notification to the public.


Schumacher also indicated that he just received this letter yesterday.


Handy said this is a mild and general letter to clarify things to help complete some of the work the VMAC has done this year. 


Fleenor asked about VMACís recommendation on the letter.


Schumacher indicated that VMAC has not provided a recommendation on this letter.  He recalled in July they had a discussion at the VMAC committee bringing back a letter.


Handy said this letter has been vetted by VMAC and is consistent with Board policy.  He said it clarifies that Lane County doesnít use herbicides on the right of way or to allow others to apply herbicides to Lane Countyís right of way and ultimately it is the Oregon Department of Agricultural who deals with these issues.


Stewart noted the letter had not been reviewed by Legal Counsel.  He asked if there was anything of importance they needed to know in the letter.


Assistant County Counsel Marc Kardell, said they could tell what their policy is.  He was unclear whether the VMAC construed this to be an ongoing complaint.  He said the intent of the letter was unclear.


Stewart said the issue is they havenít had an official committee recommendation.  He recalled in public comment today there was controversy about this letter. He said the public hasnít had the opportunity to review it so he didnít know if there were other concerns from the public.


Fleenor was uncomfortable with the third paragraph.  He wanted to strike it.  He was supportive of the motion if they were to strike the third paragraph.  He stated he was unhappy with the process.


Handy amended his motion to strike the third paragraph.


Dwyer seconded.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. Announcements


Schumacher said they are working on things currently on their website about the policy documents they use.




Dwyer announced his retirement party for tomorrow.


Sorenson thanked Dwyer and Fleenor for all of their work.


Dwyer thanked Fleenor for being chair.  He said that Fleenor did good work as a chair.


Stewart thanked Dwyer and Fleenor. 


Fleenor expressed his gratitude to his fellow commissioners to serve as chair this year.


14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

(Commissioners' Conference Room)


Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose for litigation.






There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:55 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary