February 16, 2010
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Bill Fleenor presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Pete Sorenson and Faye Stewart present. County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Item 5 b. will be a legislative update by Alex Cuyler
Jim Gillette, Eugene, recalled the last time he came to the County he thought he was going to have a meeting with County Counsel. He recalled in September his lawyer sent a letter to the legal department saying it was okay for him to negotiate any decisions as it was up to Gillette anyway. Gillette received a call from Richardson indicating that Gillette’s attorney still represents him because he filed an appeal. He said he has an attorney filing legal documents but all of the decisions are his. He said this is a free country and he wants to defend himself and he has the right to do that. He added that he can still have his attorney present to cover legal matters. He said he is trying to make a park. He was told he has the best trail system in the United States and the best ideas. He wanted someone to make this their pet project. He wanted to give away 500 acres as a park, free for people to use forever. He said he has a paintball area and laser tag area. He wanted someone to come and look at his property. He wanted to work with the Board instead of against them.
COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC
COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE
Fleenor asked if Richardson could comment on Gillette’s comments. He thought there were legal restrictions with Gillette having an attorney.
Richardson commented that as lawyers they are required to follow the ethical rules of the Oregon State Bar. She said they are precluded from talking to anyone who is represented by an attorney on the subject matter. She indicated that Gillette has an attorney who has filed an appeal on this specific issue that Gillette is asking Legal Counsel to talk to him about. She said they told him several times that in the State Bar and their opinion they can’t talk to him even if he is saying it is okay or the attorney is saying it is fine because he has an attorney who is actively pursuing an appeal on this matter. She said she wouldn’t put any of her attorneys in an ethical bind to talk to him. She stated that no one from her office can speak to him. She added they are moving forward on the appeal to get it resolved. She said it was not their intention to waive the fines or to agree to dismiss this case.
5. COMMISSIONERS’ BUSINESS
b. Legislative Update
Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, recalled the Board took actions on both bills on January 27. He recalled for SB 1055 relating to wineries in Exclusive Farm Use Zones, the Board took a position of monitor. He indicated the bill has moved from the Senate and will be scheduled for a floor vote and staff is recommending taking a support position.
Dwyer said the bill doesn’t do what the Board wanted it to do. He said they got this bill because of King Estates Winery. He added this bill still wouldn’t allow them to have a restaurant.
Cuyler explained the bill as amended will put King Estates Winery into a special use application process. He said it is so big that it falls completely outside the statute. He said the short amendment fixes the smaller wineries with limited use restaurants and gift sales and the holding of special events. He recommended the Board change their position from monitor to the requested position of support.
Stewart was supportive of the bill and what it is trying to do. He said they are trying to transition from one industry to another and tourism is the number two industry. He wanted to support these people in their operations as long as it doesn’t negatively impact the neighbors. He would be willing to support a motion.
Fleenor said in order to preserve agricultural land they need to ensure the success of agriculture and with the changes to the grass burning and with the declining economy; he thought they should take advantage of whatever is available to them. He didn’t see the practice of growing grapes to be deleterious to lands. He thought this was a move in the right direction and he supported SB 1055A moving forward, but he was concerned about language inserted at the house level.
Cuyler said changing the position
from monitor to support doesn’t mean he stops paying attention to the bill
once he has communicated that
MOTION: to change the
bill from monitor to support.
asked if they could state that Cuyler would be back if there are any major
said that would be willing to add
was disappointed that they don’t have a good understanding of what they are
doing. He commented that it is a
pivotal point in time for the whole state of Oregon.
was supportive of anything they could do for economic enhancement at a minimal
to not impact upon the existing land.
supported this because the sponsors of the original Oregon Land Use Law had the
idea that the future of Oregon farm and forest economy would be aided by
protection of farm and forests lands. He
said it is hard to have the protection of the wine industry without some
amenities connected to it.
commented that they are straying into an area where they are trying to help the
industry but they are sending a message to the state that they are willing to
forego some planning responsibilities.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer,
explained that this relates to greenhouse gas emissions.
He noted the bill has been changed because the first version had
technical problems. He stated that
it impacts local governments. He
added that it speaks to assist local governments to reduce gas emissions and
suggests that local government shall consider whether any immediate action could
be taken for greenhouse gas emissions from cars 10,000 pounds are less.
He said it suggests that local governments within the boundary of the
Metropolitan Planning Organization shall consider whether there is any reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions and whether a regional transportation plan could be
altered to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
He said given the responsibilities this puts on DLCD, ODOT and DEQ, there
was a large fiscal impact to those state agencies.
He added there were also fiscal impacts from AOC and League of Oregon
Cities. He said the League of Oregon
Cities thought the fiscal impacts could be as high as $1 million and AOC thought
the impact could be from $300,000 to $500,000.
He indicated this is the bill that passed out of committee with a
recommendation that it be assigned to Ways and Means.
He recommended that the previously taken position of monitor be changed
to oppose the bill due to the fiscal impact for local government.
said there has been a task force working at the state level about working on
greenhouse gas reduction. He said
some of the work and recommendations of that task force didn’t make it into
this bill including the Central Lane MPO’s interest in having a pilot project
that would have had state funds to pursue this necessary goal of gutting
greenhouse gas emissions. He thought
the unfunded mandate was overstated. He
agreed to support this bill, with removing the emergency clause.
He thought not supporting this bill would send the wrong message.
MOTION: to support SB
1059-A with the emergency clause removed.
MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
recommended removing Section 7 because he has seen what had happened with other
bills that required local governments changing regional plans.
His concern is that if they take the bill as it is with the exception of
the emergency clause, what the impact would be to staff for the requirements
under Section 7.
asked if they could support this as currently written, but if something changes
with the unfunded mandate, that he would come back and then they could oppose it.
said this falls to ODOT and DLCD to develop the rules.
She said unless the law specifically states what considers means, they
will be writing the OAR with what the counties and other entities are supposed
to do when it says consider. She
echoed Cuyler’s concerns, given how opened ended it is.
wanted to amend the motion to add a caveat within Section 7 to consider, but not
obligate for the language and it is specific to the rule makers.
was no agreement to amend the motion.
was in favor of minimizing greenhouse gases but he didn’t want to turn over
their interests to other agencies. He
was supportive of the concept. He wanted to make sure that when this is
transferred to ODOT and DLCD that Lane County is not obligated to spend money
they don’t have.
stated that he was opposed to this. He
was mindful of the potential economic cost it could bring to staff.
He said that everyone is aware of Public Works’ budget and the
difficulty they are facing. He noted
in the past 30 years greenhouse emissions from auto traffic has been declining
and continues to decline. He said
LRAPA is showing reduction in emissions and he didn’t know if it was
appropriate at this time considering the budget issues they are facing to impose
said the legislature wants complete control over counties and is insensitive to
the cliff they face with regard to federal forest payments.
He said they will tell counties how to behave.
He said they have to hammer home the message that the legislature shall
not provide additional costs and duties on counties in this economic
environment. He stated that there
was nothing in the recommendation that staff has brought forward that there is a
fundamental disagreement with the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions.
He believed that at one point in time the legislature will deal with
this. He said they should do
something, but not create something where the counties will be providing another
service to the state with no funding attached to it and that was his concern
about Section 7.
was afraid that they would end up with an unfunded mandate.
He said they are talking about local control and he wants to preserve as
much local control with the process.
said he would amend his motion to keep the language as is, to remove the
emergency clause and to make note they are not supportive of the unfunded
wanted to add to Section 7, (4) that costs incurred by a local government shall
be reimbursed by DLCD.
stated that it is difficult to make the commitment to tie transportation and
land use together to lessen the impact on the future of greenhouse gases and
vehicle miles traveled.
restated the motion is to support SB 1059(a) with the following modifications:
Section 11 will be removed and a new Section 7(4) inserted to read any
cost associated with complying with any provision is this section shall be
reimbursed by the state.
VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer,
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Management Services
1) ORDER 10-2-16-1/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to G&R Building Concept, Inc. for $500 (Map 17-04-15-41-00800, Located at the Terminus of Allea Dr., Eugene).
C. Public Safety
1) ORDER 10-2-16-2/In the Matter of Applying for and Acceptance of a U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women Arrest Grant for $400,000 and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Grant Documents.
D. Public Works
1) ORDER 10-2-16-3/In the Matter of
Appointing Five Members to the Tourism Council to Evaluate and Recommend Awards
1) ORDER 10-2-16-4/ In the Matter of Transferring $500 from the General Fund Operational Contingency to Materials and Services within General Expense to Support the Eugene 2010 Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
b. REPORT BACK/Lane
Spartz stated that he drafted a letter that was in front of the Board.
MOTION: to approve sending the letter.
Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Stewart thought at the beginning of the letter they should focus on the opportunity to bring rail back to Eugene and what the positives will be to lift that to the top.
Handy agreed to amend the letter. Sorenson SECONDED.
9. PERFORMANCE AUDITOR
b. REPORT BACK/Update on Public Contracting for Major Projects.
Stewart Bolinger, Performance Auditor, said he went through the change order of the contract for the Charnelton building and had a problem because the key attorney had not been in and David Suchart, Management Services, was ill. He hadn’t been able to consult with people but he will have a timely answer for future improvements.
Fleenor stated that the volunteers are at risk. He wasn’t sure what should be done, but he thought there could be a temporary contract.
Fleenor asked if in lieu of no security if they could have an alarm or two way radio.
Richardson noted the volunteers have phone numbers to call. She said they could explore a two-way radio, but not at a company that uses security because it would be supplanting the issue.
Handy wanted to put this on as a report bank. He asked if there could be a one-time expenditure for a radio to identify a person who would get the call from the volunteers and could then route the call.
Richardson recommended having someone report back from the Sheriff’s Department.
10. COMMISSIONERS’ BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/Lane Transit District Services Update
Moved to February 17, 2010.
There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.