BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
February 3, 2010
following HACSA
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 3/17/2010

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

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

There will be an Emergency Business item: Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, letter to the Association of Countyís Resolution.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Seaberry, Eugene, distributed information on Santa Clara/River Road.  He announced that yesterday he became cancer free.

John Sullivan, Vida, stated that Lane Manual 3.510 addresses the function of the Lane County Planning Commission.  He said the Board of Commissioners is responsible for the appointment and reappointment of members for no more than two consecutive terms.  He recalled in recent years the Board of Commissioners have vetted and appointed district specific members. He added they asked the Lane County Planning Commissioners to vet and recommend at-large positions and the Board of Commissioners (under normal circumstances) have approved those recommendations by consent.  He commented that the process works well because it is balanced.  He learned that although 100 percent of the Lane County Planning Commissioners and staff (after vetting all applicants) had recommended him for reappointment.  He noted some members of the Board of Commissioners disregarded a 100 percent recommendation.  He said it concerned him because it was about the process.  He said if the Board disregards the Lane County Planning Commission, the Board may weaken the Planning Commission.  He asked when it comes to at-large positions to let the system work as it should.  He said he has an excellent attendance record.  He was voted chair early in his first term.  He commented that he has the reputation by staff, citizens and members of the Planning Commission on being highly prepared for all meetings and for being fair on all issues.  He stated that he has never voted on an issue based on bias.  He commented that he has been highly respectful of every citizen who has every come before the Lane County Planning Commission.  He said he is confused (as is the Lane County Planning Commission) on why his appointment might not happen.  He asked that during the Boardís deliberations that they enter into the record specific reasons for not approving his reappointment.

Paul Biondi, Eugene, invited the commissioners to attend a fundraiser to help Haiti.  He reported that it is a free concert and all ages are welcome, but they are asking for donations.

Susanne Sarita, Eugene, discussed the benefit for Haiti.

Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Eugene, stated that he is on the Planning Commission and voted for John Sullivanís reappointment.  He said he didnít always agree with Sullivan, but that Sullivan knows the process and he brings up points that no one else is aware of.  He thought that was a major contribution.  He said that Sullivan was an integral part of the Planning Commission. He thought it was important to keep people who are knowledgeable for their second term.  He discussed LTD options for the meeting next week.  He said he didnít want to see transportation planning running over land use planning.  He thought the LTD routes should follow the commercial industrial zone versus the residential areas.

Illona Kolezar, said she is a member of Residents for Rapid Transit.  She distributed materials.  (Copy in file).  She recalled that three years ago neighbors from the Jefferson Westside Neighbors got together when they realized the West Eugene EM-Ex was likely to go through their neighborhood.  She said they want their local transportation system to be all it can be. She indicated there are five options.  She said they are concerned about Options 1 and 2 because they get left out.  She added that LTD is concentrating on the build options, as it is their project and they will be getting a lot of public money to do it.  She hoped the Board would ask questions about the no build and TSM transportation.  She wanted the Board to make LTD develop a TSM for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that they need to submit to the feds later this year.  She asked to consider the Sixth and Seventh Avenue options that serve neighborhoods where the major transportation facility is and where the most number of disadvantaged persons live.

Pauline Hudson, Eugene, said she is part of Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit.  She said they are a neighborhood group interested in transportation issues.  She said Sixth and Seventh Avenues are the preferred alternatives as there is the least amount of property and easement acquisition, costing less.  She stated that LTDís goal is to spur economic development.  She thought BRT would benefit the most.

Bob Noble, Eugene, said he is a member and is the Chair of the Lane County Planning Commission.  He said he wasnít speaking on their behalf, but raised a concern and advocacy for the reappointment of John Sullivan for a second term.  He said that Sullivan has extensive knowledge about planning issues.  He commented that a value for the County is embracement of diversity.  He hoped that is a value the Board reflects upon if they are going to debate this issue.  He said they have a diverse group and he hoped the Board wouldnít look for a political alignment.  He said they all donít agree on issues but they vet them with voracity.  He said they give the Board information they have from public testimony they receive.  He added that Sullivan is an attribute in that regard.  He hoped the Board would keep Sullivan for a second appointment. 

3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE

Sorenson discussed the Lane County budget.

Handy commented that people take seriously the River Road/Santa Clara area.  He discussed Marie Gray who passed away.

Stewart commented that the community is amazing in how caring when it is time for people to step up and help others.  He thanked members of the Planning Commission for their service.

Fleenor stated they hear what the Planning Commission is saying.   With regard to the budget, he said they  need to be careful as they move forward in the next couple of years with the uncertainty of the economy and of the reauthorization of SRS funding.  He thought they needed to hang onto the reserves as long as they can because once the funds are gone, they are gone.  With regard to Lane Countyís finances, he commented that they are right at the threshold with the reserves.  He thought it was important to keep the ratios in mind as they go through this budget to ensure that Lane County is transitioning from an SRS dependency to a non-SRS County similar to other counties.

4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

NACo Letter

Spartz explained that this is a proposal to NACo that is a policy statement.  He said it has to do with the potential for doing carbon sequestration projects on federal lands and those projects could be considered as a source of revenue diversification for the counties that have federal lands.  He said it is a payment in lieu of taxes.  He noted that in many of the counties more than 50 percent of the land is under federal control and cannot be taxed.  He indicated that it is cap and trade legislation that has passed the house.  He said that the President has put it on hold because he is not showing cap and trade revenues in the fiscal 2011 federal budget.  He noted that a permitted use of federal forests would be to store carbon under a cap and trade system until it becomes legislated.  He added that the local unit of government would be allowed to derive income from those resources.  He thought it was important that they get involved with this issue.  He supported this.  He said it wasnít accurate in the memo to say that federal forest lands in Oregon cover almost 50 percent of the state.

Sorenson thought they could be advocating for the use of federal lands for possible carbon sequestration and have the revenue shared with the counties.  He thought the private sector would be anxious to take advantage of leasing carbon offset sites that could be sold or leased for carbon offsets.  He commented that Lane County is a small landowner.  He wanted to see Lane County get involved with the effort of small forestland ownership in the County to have a cooperative agreement or to get together with small landowners to look for opportunities.

Fleenor agreed with the concept of the letter.  He recommended making changes in the letter. 

Handy was comfortable with the edits.  He was optimistic that exploring this pilot project on County owned lands will be fruitful.  He was supportive of exploring partnerships with small private landowners.

Stewart recalled that this letter was brought up at the AOC Meeting.  He said the association wasnít able to come to an agreement on the resolution.  He said there were some issues that were of concern.  He thought a majority would have recognized and supported it.  He said some members didnít think there was a potential for cap and trade.  He noted another concern was by sending something like this, how economically it might affect business.  He is supportive of the Countyís effort.  He said if this happens and they donít try to promote a way to seek revenue for counties, and the government is going to benefit from the forests,  he wanted to make sure that they have the opportunity to receive revenue.  He indicated that Clackamas County has also supported this.  He supported sending this out for public lands and for the NACo body to support.  He asked if staff could get the final draft of the corrections and bring it back after lunch.

Fleenor said they will roll this to the afternoon.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Approval of Minutes:
May 7, 2008, Regular Meeting, following Board of Health
May 7, 2008, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
January 13, 2010, Regular Meeting, following HACSA

B. Board of Commissioners

1) ORDER 10-2-3-1/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator and County Counsel to Perform Research and Report Back to the Board of County Commissioners on Issues Related to Current and Proposed Direction on Marginal Lands.

C. Health and Human Services

1) ORDER 10-2-3-2/In the Matter of Adding a Total of 2.5 FTE for the Community Health Centers of Lane County, Appropriating Revenues and Expenses in the Amount of $66,039 for FY 10 in Fund 286 of Health & Human Services.

D. Management Services

1) ORDER 10-2-3-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property for $11,500 to Ronald S. Pfaff, Former Owner of Record (Map #18-04-13-00-01100, 4820 Blanton Road, Eugene).

2) ORDER 10-1-27-11/In the Matter of Amending the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) Services with Chambers Construction Company for the Charnelton Community Health Clinic and the Riverstone Community Health Clinic.

E. Public Works

1) ORDER 10-2-3-4/In the Matter of Adopting the Memorandum of Understanding for Implementation of the Salmon Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) in the Cedar Creek Watershed.

Dwyer pulled D 1 and D 2. for discussion.  Stewart pulled B1.

MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.

Handy MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

5.B.1)

Stewart asked if this is one of the items they were going to recommend putting together a stakeholders meeting to discuss.  He said if they are going to put together a stakeholder group for forest lands and exception areas, he thought it would be prudent to include this in the stakeholder effort.

Fleenor said subsequent to a previous Board approval, he, staff and Mr. Just got together to discuss this issue.  He noted during the discussion it came out that they would need more information in order to move forward. 

Stewart wanted them to be mindful of staffís workload.

MOTION:  to approve ORDER 10-2-3-1.

Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

5.D.1)

Dwyer said they let this owner buy this property back in 2000 for $5,260.  He said the property owner didnít pay taxes and the County foreclosed and they let him buy it back.  He added that the property owner hasnít paid any taxes at all since they let him buy it back.  He said the County foreclosed again for $11,500 and they are going to let him buy it back again.  He indicated it is on the tax role for about $150,000.  He asked what kind of a message this sends.  He commented that everyone deserves a break, but this didnít make sense to him.

Stewart asked if there could be language that could help them.  He said if they are not going to pay their property taxes then this will reoccur again.  He commented that it is costly for them to go through the process.  He asked if there was a way to start the process if they are a year behind instead of waiting four years.

Dwyer thought they needed to have a policy discussion.  He wanted to find out from Jeff Turk, Management Services,  what the rationale is behind why they would continue to sell people back their foreclosed property for the amount of taxes owed.

Richardson recalled the policy in the past was to allow the person to buy back their property once.  She noted there was a time where they allowed someone to buy back their property a second time.  She said the Board could have a policy discussion on whether or not they want to make it on a case-by-case basis or say they could buy back property only one time.  She indicated that they wanted to get the property back on the tax role. 

Fleenor asked the agenda team to bring this back in a couple of weeks.

5. D.2)

Dwyer  thought a guaranteed maximum price was a guaranteed maximum price.  He said everyone comes and bids on the job.  He said the adjustment is now $4 million.  He recalled that they just hired someone to review all the contacts. 

Spartz explained that it was contemplated when they discussed this with bidders that they would be bidding Charnleton Place, the health clinic there and the health clinic at the Riverstone location.  He noted that all of the prospective bidders heard it but it didnít get stated accurately in the documents.  He said they are in a situation where they want to move ahead with the Riverstone project with the same vendor as is overseeing the clinic on the Olympic Street project.  He indicated that Management Services thought it was best to continue with the contract at Charnelton Place and for the clinic at Charnelton Place.  He noted the total increase for the portion of the project that the proposed vendor is going to do is about a 22 percent increase over the original cost.  He thought the delays would cost them more.  He thought this was the best way to go.

Dwyer didnít support this.  He said they need a third party review of the contracts.

Fleenor indicated the delay will cause a rippling effect for the rentals where they donít have extension agreements. 

Spartz said it would be unwise to assume there would not be additional expenses incurred by a delay.

Stewart said it was his understanding that the other contractors who bid have said they would honor this.  He supported this.  He acknowledged Dwyerís concerns.  He thought this could be something the auditor could review and report on.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-1-27-11.

Stewart MOVED, Handy SECONDED.

Dwyer agreed to have Stewart Bolinger set up a process.

VOTE: 4-1 (Dwyer dissenting). 

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

Spartz reported on carbon sequestration.  He said they have done an investigation on how one goes about carbon offsets to get them validated and what they are worth.  He commented that it could serve as a model for private ownership with forestlands to help them move forward to sell carbon offsets.  He noted in the United States the number one location for voluntary purchase and sale of carbon offsets is the Chicago Carbon Exchange.  He added that it is a voluntary exchange.  He said buyers and sellers can work with the exchange to match up and trade carbon credits for people who want to offset emissions.  He commented that if they want to do this as a demonstration project then it will cost money.  He indicated they have to get the forestlands certified.  He thought they could work with private landowners but the money is so slight that they wouldnít think it would be viable to attempt.

7. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

a. ORDER 10-1-6-13/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to the Lane County Planning Commission.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-1-6-13 to reappoint John Sullivan to the Lane County Planning Commission

Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. DISCUSSION/Lane Code/Manual/Comp Plan Revisions Per Adopted Land Management Division Program.

Matt Laird, Land Management, reported that Item 1 on the work program list has been broken into two pieces.  He said finalizing the packet that will go to the Planning Commission is scheduled for March 2.  He added the First Reading will go to the Board on March 17 for a Second Reading and Hearing on March 31.  He said streamlining of the code portion and policy consideration is what they will assemble for a stakeholder group.  He sent an e-mail out to interested parties on January 28.  He said they have been contacted by 24 people who are interested in participating.  He indicated he received some of the issue changes from Goal 1.  He thought some of the things were controversial and had not been done before.  He thought it would be labor and time intensive to work through some of the issues.  He noted with all of the items included in this proposal, it would exceed the .8 FTE, and  he would have to come back to the Board.  He asked if the Board is putting more staff resource into this issue, which one of the issues they should put on the back burner or second tier until they go through the other items.  He noted items 8 and 9 are with small cities and Springfield has multiple items as does Junction City and Florence.  He said they started to look at farmland and open protection.  He thought some of the items might end up in the Item 1 review.  He noted one thing eliminated from the work product is the F2 template dwelling provisions, and it was included in the packet.  He indicated that they didnít put a time estimate in because they knew it would take a lot of resources and would be controversial.

Fleenor asked Laird to come back next week with a priority list with the modernization of Lane Code.  He asked what could be accomplished within the timeline.  He added that once the Board accepts the priority list, it would go back to the stakeholders and they could come back with a list.

Sorenson wanted a timeline of when the stakeholder meetings would be taking place.  He wanted to put out a press release and put it on the website.  He also wanted Laird to do measurable check- ins with the Board.

With regard to timelines, Laird indicted that it depends on which items are worked on.  He said staff could go through the list and break out each issue and prioritize what they would want to get done.  He said he could get the stakeholder announcement on the website.  

Stewart stated that the information for the board packet wasnít made available until 4:00 p.m. yesterday.  He asked where they were heading.  He said as he read the agenda material he couldnít find where any of the items get put into Land Managementís long range planning. He didnít think for modernizing and streamlining that they would be using developed and committed areas or dealing with Goal 4 and forestland policy amendments and Chapters 14 and 15 with template dwellings.  He said when he supported streamlining, he talked about it with Chapters 14 and 16, going through the codes to get clarity.  He wanted the stakeholders and staff to discuss impacts of Measures 37 and 49.  He stated that it is taking landowners rights away.  He asked if there is still the ability for landowners to determine if they had a taking and asking for a waiver to be compensated.  He wanted to know the costs.  He said HB2229 was passed and it allows counties to go back and look at potential areas that were miszoned from 1975 to 1984.  He recalled that they have recognized marginal lands.  He thought there might be value in using that house bill to look at the urban growth boundaries between the city limits and where unincorporated Lane County takes place.   He understood there were no zone changes in those areas when they brought the acknowledgment in and there are out-of-date zones in what landowners can do in that area.  He added that it forces them to go to the city in an annexation process.   He asked if they could actually bring those areas up to the zones that are active and allow a person do something that is allowed with the County code and be considered for approval of the process.

Laird reported that for them to put together any type of packet they would need a minimum of three weeks to run through the standard processes.  He added that it would entail substantial work.  He said to have anything done in an appropriate manner, they wouldnít be able to come back next week.  He thought it would be the end of February or early March.

Fleenor asked to look at the next three months versus the entire year so they can continue to move forward with this issue.  He asked Laird to come back next week to see what could be done immediately and then have a second tier of projects.

Laird said he could come back but it couldnít be packet material.  He said he would have to distribute materials at the meeting.

Stewart asked staff to give staff the appropriate time to put things together.  He added that it would give the public time to read the materials.  He said this information wasnít available until yesterday.  He didnít see how Laird could get something together for the public to comment on by next Tuesday or Wednesday when they only received the material yesterday.  He asked to give the time needed to do the project right.

Fleenor said they are looking for Laird to come back to let the Board know where he is with the stakeholder group and the first concepts and ideas.  He said they want to be part of the start up of the process so they are doing the right thing.  He thought Laird should come back for a 20 minute briefing.

Richardson recommended a report on where they are with bringing in all the stakeholders.  Her concern is that they have only heard from one organized group that has been working on this for a long time.  She thought it was hard for Laird to report back next week.  

c. DISCUSSION/River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project Task Force Recommendations.

Handy said this is to address the work of the River Road/Santa Clara transition project and the task force that was formed.  

Jerry Finnigan and Jolene Simpson, Co-Chairs of River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project Task force, gave a presentation on the task force recommendations.  (Copy in file).

Fleenor said things have become so entangled in the Metro Plan.  He indicated that they are talking with their joint elected officials about the Metro Plan.  He suggested having separate Metro Plans, a comp plan for Eugene and a comp plan for Springfield. so they could specifically address the Santa Clara issue within the comp plan of Eugene.  He said otherwise it will be impossible to get the Metro Plan all working together. 

Dwyer said there are conflicting goals.  He said people want to have urban services  but donít want to pay city taxes.  He said there is economy of scale.  He asked how much of the parks and recreation district can be taken without falling apart at every level of service.  He asked how to provide the services at a cheaper level than the city provides.  He noted that the cities are the natural providers of services. He said they give the cities all the jurisdiction within the UGB including flood prevention and other elements but there is no money for flood prevention for areas outside of the city or any incentive to do anything until properties are annexed into the city.  He said they have to make sure they have safeguards in place that protect the community and the resource until the people determine  what they want to do.  He asked what authority they used when they delegated their responsibility to other people to look after their citizens.

Stewart recalled that they have delegated through 190 Agreements for Eugene to perform land use activities in those areas.  He said they have struggled to bring this topic up before the MPC and consent letters to the city of Eugene.  He commented that they havenít been able to get it to the point to talk about it and solve problems.  He wanted to know what authority Lane County still has in the area.  He asked what was needed for them to do that was requested to respond.  He asked if the County could hire a planner in Land Management that could start working solely on Santa Clara/River Road. He said that currently Land Management staff has a huge job in processing permits and it will take money and dedication to work on these topics to put together a plan.  He commented that if they donít dedicate someone to this, he was concerned that it would become a situation where this could fall by the wayside.

Handy said they need to have cooperation with the residents of the neighborhoods.  He thought the Board should look at a special area zone for River Road /Santa Clara to be formed by work that has already been done.  He said they should excise the Metro Plan in their update to help create a level playing field so they could have decisions to move forward.

There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary