BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
February 3, 2010
1:30 p.m.
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.

8. PUBLIC WORKS

a. ORDER 10-2-3-6/In the Matter of Developing the Process for Waste Division Opportunity Grants and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Contracts.

Patti Hansen, Waste Management, reported that this is a process for the Waste Diversion Opportunity Grant.  She recalled the tipping fee at one time was $65.00 per ton.  She explained that it consists of $35.05 for disposal fees, a system benefit fee of $26.45 and $3.50 for the other fee.  She said four years ago they developed the other fee as part of the tipping fee and fifty percent of those fees went to the nuisance site clean up fund.  She added the other forty percent went to the waste diversion opportunity fund.  She said over time they issued money to several organizations.  She recalled recently the Board increased the tipping fee $2 per ton and the other fee became $5.50.  She reported that they are now diverting that money to Land Management to help play for compliance, enforcement and long range planning.  She said they have grandfathered those two funds into the Waste Management Division and they have about $300,000 in the waste diversion fund.  She asked how the Board would like to spend the money over the next three years.

Sarah Grimm, Waste Management, explained that since the development of the program, they have received inquiries and specific requests.  She said over the last year they have been working with the RAC Committee to identify major issues and criteria.  She noted what is presented in the packet is most of the issues the RAC Committee thought were important. She said the grant process and applications have not gone through Legal Counsel.  She said they used examples from a grant program from the DEQ.  She said they are proposing for three years to advertise the availability of $100,000.  She wanted to keep the evaluation committee small with representation from the Waste Management Division, the RAC Committee and a commissioner or designee.  She wanted to make sure there are criteria that exist.  She said they want the ability to identify a focus area.  She indicated that the process does not supersede having the Board make the final decision.  She added the process would include coming back to the Board.

Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark explained what is being recommended is a process coming to the Board, not to the county administrator.

Dwyer thought this was a great opportunity to utilize the Economic Development Standing Committee to review any proposals to see how they could leverage the funding they have.

Fleenor asked how fungible the money was and if they were able to transfer to other funds.

Clark said the fee was collected with the understanding that it was going to waste diversion and the clean up fund.  He said there is $300,000 left for three more years of payment of grants for waste diversion projects at which time the Board could consider whether this sunsets.

Richardson stated that the money was collected for a specific purpose and then divided between the two funds.  She said they canít transfer the money to something else that is not related.

Hansen noted that Lane Code states in 2011 that funds could go back into Waste Management operation to avoid a tipping fee increase.  She indicated that it will be up to the Board at that time.

Fleenor asked if they could change the process to include the Economic Development Standing Committee function as criteria.

Clark said the criteria the two committees will be reviewing will be different.

Fleenor wanted to find an overlap and leveraging for economic development.

Hansen said she could suggest that when that committee meets they could find out what fits their criteria and they could blend it together at that point in time.

Dwyer asked if Mike McKenzie-Bahr, Economic Development, should be on this committee.  Dwyer thought everyone benefits when everyone knows what is going on.

Grimm recommended placing someone from the Economic Development Standing Committee on this selection committee so they could be looking at the projects.  She noted the timing decisions have to do with giving proposers time to develop their proposal.

Handy thought having McKenzie-Bahr as part of this was a good idea.  He wanted to reactivate the fund because he thought it was a valuable program.

Richardson reported that McKenzie-Bahr said he would work on the committee.

Fleenor asked for them to come back with a counter proposal with Stewartís recommendation of bringing the Resource Advisory Committee in as citizen lay group to assess the potential awards and have McKenzie-Bahr participate.

Clark said in the evaluation criteria, one thing that needs to be reviewed is the return on investment and how the money could be used.  He thought then they could look at economic development to see how it could be done as part of the criteria.

Dwyer stated that he wanted to be the Boardís representative on the committee to review proposals.

Fleenor asked this to be reworked and brought back on the Consent Calendar.

b. ORDER 10-2-3-7/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for the Five Year Parks System Development Charge (SDC) Methodology and Rate Review and Update (Public Hearing: 5/5/10).

Todd Winter, Parks, explained that the Parks System Development Charges were adopted by the Board in March 2002 and implemented in 2004.  He said Lane Code requires a periodic review.  He noted in August 2008, they had a review of the methodology for the rate for Parks SDCís.  He recalled in October 2009 there was a report back to the Board of the findings and the Board directed staff to set a Public Hearing following a 90 day review period.  He indicated that copies of the methodology report will be available in the Parks office and on the website.  He noted the only change was a reduction.  He noted the current rate is $404 for a single family dwelling and that was decreased by $26.  He added that the new methodology indicates $378 for a single family dwelling.  He asked for a Public Hearing to be set for May 5, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Harris Hall.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 10-2-3-7.

Handy MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

c. SEVENTH READING AND SETTING THE EIGHTH READING AND DELIBERATION/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).

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, recalled on October 20, 2009 the Board held a Fifth Reading on the current Metro Plan and the  Public Services Plan amendment to update the city of Springfield project list and table of significant stormwater facilities.  She said the studies concluded there is a need for a system upgrade to address flood control and water quality issues to the existing system and for areas within the urban growth boundary.  She noted that the city of Springfield reported that the city council approved the addendum to the Stormwater Management Plan addressing the Boardís previous concerns regarding the management of stormwater flows and volumes for new development.  She added that the city council would be adopting a clarifying ordinance to explicitly state that the Stormwater Management Plan would be followed in all development applications.  She stated at the Fifth Reading some of the Board expressed concern that the recent amendment did not adequately address their concerns for protecting downstream property owners and the specific citizens involved in previous discussions not having the opportunity to review the adopted policy amendment.  She said the Board requested Springfield return after the city council had an opportunity to address those continuing concerns and after the city conversed with the citizens involved on the issue.  She stated on November 4 a Sixth Reading was held to allow the Board to review packet material and to hear input from staff.  She reported on January 26 County staff presented information at a Board work session that related to stormwater management.  She noted during that discussion, staff presented the complexities of permitting hydromodification of management policies at the County level and voiced concerns that the County would have difficulty meeting its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements without an IGA with the city of Springfield .  She said the Springfield City Council has passed two revised city ordinances to adopt the stormwater projects within the city and to leave off the project upgrades shown on the Springfield PFSP map in the UGB area.  She indicated that the city has structured their ordinances to approve the city only projects at this time unless the Board adopts County Ordinance PA 1260 in which case the city action would be superseded by the County ordinance.  She said even though the Board agenda identifies this as a renewal, the city has requested the Board deliberate and act today on Ordinance PA 1260.  She indicated there are no further revisions to the project list.

Clark recalled the last meeting was a work session and it didnít relate to the item before the Board today.  He said it was a work session that dealt with stormwater issues.  He said Springfield is content with where things are and donít propose any additions to their own code or application in conjunction with this amendment to the Metro Facilities Plan.  He said what is before the Board is an amendment to the Metro Facilities Plan and to add projects.  He said the city doesnít want to change its code in order to facilitate the Boardís co-adoption of the projects that are outside of the city limits.  He noted what has been done since the process began was that the city adopted an amendment to its Stormwater Master Plan that added the policy that had been discussed about maintaining historical flows.  He said that was the addition that was made to the city since the discussion.

Fleenor asked how time sensitive this was.

Schulz indicated that projects would begin on the long range planning program and she thought another reading on this would be difficult.

Fleenor commented that they are working with their city partners through the joint elected officials process to examine the Metro Plan.  He wasnít sure whether deliberating to a conclusion will facilitate a more robust discussion on the Metro Plan as they move forward.  He asked if they should roll this.

Schulz reported that the projects are upgrades to the 20 year need for the current Metro Plan.  She said the JEO is working through the next iteration of whatever planning the metro area will be going through.  She added that these projects are not about the future, they are designed from work the city analyzed on what the need is now, given they are at the end of the 20 year planning period.

Handy was comfortable with what they have to do to keep the process moving.  He wanted a system and plan that works.

Clark explained that Springfield adopted an ordinance on Monday that approved the facilities within the city limits.  He added what is before the Board is Springfield asking the County to co-adopt the new projects or changes to projects that are within the urban growth boundary.

Stewart stated that he was comfortable with what was presented.

Dwyer stated that he wanted a system that will keep water out of the river off of the neighbors and to give incentives to developers and builders to develop the kind of projects that donít let water go into the system. 

Stewart thought they had work sessions and discussed language and desires to get the projects adopted.  He thought Springfield and staff had worked on them.  He said Lane County staff had already taken Board direction but it didnít work.  He thought the people having trouble with the language should communicate the exact words that would satisfy the needs so it could be moved forward.

Clark said County staff hadnít done anything with the language.  He indicated that it was new policy language that was added to the cityís Stormwater Management Plan the city developed.

Schulz said they would have to get the language to the city of Springfield because it is their plan.  She said the reason they didnít put effort into the language and wordsmithing is because it is not the Countyís plan.  She said it is not appropriate for the County to make changes. 

MOTION: to approve a Seventh reading and setting an Eighth Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance PA 1260 on August 18.

Handy MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.  

Dwyer said Springfield wonít like what he wants to come up with.  He asked if Springfield doesnít co-adopt in August, what would happen.

Clark said the County doesnít have any coordinated stormwater code. He said the Countyís rural area doesnít have the same issues as the urban areas.  He didnít think the city of Springfield wanted to do more than what they are doing already. 

Handy asked Springfield to initiate conversations with County staff.  He said if there is interest on Springfield ís behalf to address some issues of a co-adopting partner, to have the conversations and have the issues addressed. He said if not then, they will know where they are six months from now.

Len Goodwin, Springfield, explained that if the County chooses not to adopt the Public Facilities Plan that will be in place either 30 days from yesterday or acknowledged by LCDC, it will be a Public Facilities Plan that has new and different projects within the city of Springfield and the same projects that are in the current Public Facilities Plan for everything outside of Springfield.  He said that concerns Springfield because the projects proposed in the Facilities Plan for outside of the city limits are more detailed and extensive.  He added that in the absence of those projects being in the Public Facilities Plan, they are without authority to condition development upon compliance with the assumption that those projects will go forward.  He said they are concerned that it exposes the property owners outside of the UGB to a potential for increased risk because the development would be able to rely on the projects in the existing PFSP which they believe are inadequate.  He noted the language in the plan was agreed to by the property owners.  He recalled that they recently asked the property owners to consider some small changes and they reached agreement to be sure the property owners were satisfied.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.

9. COUNTY COUNSEL

a. Announcements

Richardson was asked to look into a meeting that was held by the Association of O & C Counties in January about an item they took into Executive Session.  She spoke with two people from Lane County who attended the meeting to gain information about what was presented.  She commented that it was an appropriate item to have in Executive Session.

Fleenor said this was in direction of a board order that they funded the Association of O & C Counties for half of the Fiscal Year 2009/2010.  He said a caveat was to promote them to follow the Oregon Open Meetings and Records Law.  He said they take this seriously.  He commented that in order for the citizens to have trust in the process they do have to have an open system.  He wanted to establish the fact that they are paying attention.

10. PERFORMANCE AUDITOR

a. Announcements

Stewart Bolinger, Performance Auditor, presented a summary of his activities  discussed in Finance and Audit yesterday.  He found out that he can audit the construction contract.  He said he will report back on the matter.

Fleenor also asked to report back if there are any policy changes to avoid the construction from taking place.

Stewart reported that he is working with the analysis of the cost accounting system from IS for the implementation of software.

11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Stewart announced that last Saturday he attended a community meeting of the Goodpasture Covered Bridge .  He noted there were over 90 attendees and he, staff from Public Works and Handy explained the situation.  He looked forward to the continued dialog.

Fleenor announced that he was having his 157th Community Dialog on Thursday at the Eagleís Lodge in Santa Clara .

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

None.

13. OTHER BUSINESS

NACo Letter

Fleenor had time to review it and the changes requested have been made.

MOTION: to approve sending the letter as modified.

Stewart MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary