July 27, 2010
Harris Hall Main Floor
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.
b. REPORT BACK/I-5
Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled that this project is
currently in the Coburg TSP as a refinement
to the Coburg TSP. She noted
there was a need for improvements at the I-5 at Coburg interstate some time ago
and there was planning and analysis. She
added that it made it into the Coburg TSP as a project to be completed.
She recalled that several of the local jurisdictions went back to
Barry explained that before the Board is whether or not to put
the match money back into the CIP and give direction to the County Administrator
to approve to execute several
IGAís related to getting the project done on the ground including an access
management IGA and a construction
IGA. She indicated there is not
action required on facility permits. She
noted there are related documents at the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning
level. She explained that there are
two general areas of concern: payments
to landowners for right-of-way and access management.
Sorenson asked if they could get a written motion that the
Board could support at the August 12 MPC meeting to make it clear it is the
Boardís view that the improvements and the money Congress has appropriated for
in Lane Countyís budget is something they could support; that the other items,
such as the eastide component of Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be left out.
Dwyer asked what gives ODOT jurisdiction on a road that is
owned by Lane County categorized as an arterial road
Sonny Chickering, ODOT, indicated that ODOT doesnít have
jurisdiction and that is why he is asking the County
because they canít reconstruct any streets without the Countyís
Dwyer asked if anyone benefited by the roadway.
He asked if the adjacent owners have to pay for curbs and gutters.
Chickering responded that there is no local improvement
district or other assessments of abutting property owners.
He said they intend to purchase abutting property from property owners.
He added they are not asking the owners to contribute to the project.
Barry noted the Truck and Travel property was at issue several
years ago and they fought the left turn. She
added that if they lose the left turn, they would have to develop a circulation
plan for trucks to face the pumps in the right direction.
She said they have expressed plans for a new use of their property.
Handy stated that he was not prepared to support any motion
this week. He wanted to corral all
the elements so they have a total package next week.
He thought they were still missing the RTP Phase 2.
He said they havenít reconciled that yet.
With regard to the IAMP, he said it is a complicated set of issues.
He was prepared to leave the IAMP as it is and with the motion that this
is on the calendar early and often with the 18 month timeline.
He commented that the world has changed since some of the assumptions
were made and some changes are reflected in the priorites that were established
in the stateís current STIP process. He
said there is a need for cost planning and integrating land use and
transportation and the greenhouse gas emissions and the need to reduce them.
He added they have seen changes in the employment siutation.
He said the Board is supporting Phase 1 of the improvements.
He added there are assumptions in Phase 2 and conflicting information to
the possible project. He said given
they are close with the ACT, this is a project that Lane County, ODOT and Coburg
will want to partner with, but their ACT partners will want to be involved with
the Phase 2 projects. He wanted the
Phase 2 in the RTP to be removed. He
said what they need before next week is to remove RTP Phase 2 references in the
RTP for $22 million for interchange improvements.
Stewart asked by taking the right-of-way acquisition off the
eastside if it reduces the approval process for the County as it looks at
Barry said any use or change would require a new facility
permit. She said they would have to
come to the County for a facility permit.
Stewart believed by the modifications that the Board is taking
away some of their ability to have authority in the process they donít have
today but they would have had. He
asked if the projects would be able to be completed and improved with the
Chickering responded that the improvements on the westside
were selected specifically to assist in getting vehicles that are north bound on
the freeway into the job centers on the north and south side of Pearl Street as
efficiently as possible and allow them to exit from their place of work onto
Pearl Street and get onto the freeway soutbhound in a safer more efficinet
manner. He indicated they are easing
the traffic flow.
Stewart said they worked hard to address the impacts.
He thought with 2 million square feet of buildings there is the potential
to have jobs in the future. He
wanted to make sure access is still accomplished.
He said when he read through Supplemental 3, they were scheduled for a
June 6 public hearing but it was pulled off the agenda and placed as a work
session for the July 28 meeting.
Barry indicated that direction was changed when she came back
Stewart indicated that Handy has said nothing was going to be adopted. He asked who changed that. He asked if Barry had Board direction to make the change.
Barry said she received a phone call from Handy.
She prepared all the materials. She
mistakenly thought that was the center of the Boardís request and they would
be dealing with RTP and MTIP issues first.
Stewart said when the Board gives direction , it takes three
commissioners. He wanted to have
three commissioners change a request in a Board meeting.
He said there are people who plan to come to these meetings to make
public comment and when the direction is changed without direction of the Board,
it is not good public process. He
was concerned about individual commissioners giving direction to staff and what
was given as Board direction.
Barry agreed with Stewart.
She said if the Board directs her she could put those on the Consent
said he was a yes on this motion but a no on the final outcome.
said they directed staff to come back on July 28 with a board
order, IGAís, CIP and related materials. He
said that Handy expressed concern that the related materials were not available
and or initiated. He said in this
instance it wasnít all ready to go. He
thought in Handyís mind it was a good judgment call.
He said Barry needed to be careful to follow the chain of command in the
said she was before the Board last week and she made the decision not to include
the materials because of Handyís call. She
said because of past history of where these kinds of discussions have gone, the
materials were voluminous and she wanted to help the Board focus.
said the call was not clear and it was on behalf of the agenda team because the
center of the Board wanted to have all the elements in place before and to
approve things as a package. He said
it was the agenda teamís view that all of the related materials werenít
ready and it wasnít right to put a couple of items on the agenda..
He asked about the Phase 2 project on the STIP criteria.
Thompson, LCOG, responded that Phase 2 is not in any TIP or STIP yet.
He said it is a future project and not subject to review as part of the
STIP development. He said the
current project in the 08/11 adopted MTIP and STIP and proposed for the 10/13
MTIP and STIP is the Phase 1 westside improvements and they will be reviewing
said they want to make sure they do this right once.
He asked about contacting the Federal Highway Administraiton on the
amount of time it is going to take to get things done.
recommended being vague and not committing to September in a letter.
He thought it would be October at the earliest.
asked if Thompson could look into options to bypass the CAC where they could
call a special meeting. He suggested
they bypass the Roads Advisory Committee and keep it at the Board level.
He stated that the Board will take no concrete actions on any of the
IGAís or CIPís until MPC has made their decision on the RTIP amendments
including Phase One and Phase Two and the MTIP amendment.
He thought they could line up the
said they wonít bring any concrete actions on any documents until the MTIP is
amended and until the RTP is amended to delete the Phase 2 and draft languge for
amending Phase 1. She indicated that
the Board wanted the inclusion of an updated timeline amending the RTP and the
MTIP and incluision of an FHA letter to delete reference to a specific month.
asked if they were moving toward a decision next week with the RTP.
He asked if the Board is going to make a decision on their position that
will be carried to MPC on August 12 because they canít unilaterally do
something to the RTP.
said they want MPC to consider the timeline and language.
asked if the MPC modifies the RTP to the Boardís satisfaciton if the Board
will consider approving all the agreements and necessary actions to move forward
with the process.
said once MPC makes an approval they can put it on the Consent Calendar.
recommended bringing this back next week for another discussion.
c. UPDATE/Ice Rink.
reported the supporters of the ice rink have managed to independently raise
$52,000. He said that David Suchart,
Management Services, told him that Becker Company out of Minnesota concluded
that they could put in the upgrade to the dasher boards.
He said it would be about $46,000 and at this point they are ready to
begin work on August 23. He added it
is a five day project and it leaves enough time to get the ice made and the rink
ready for use on September 13. He
said they have a go and hope the revenues come in.
regard to the contract with Becker and Associates, Fleenor asked in the event
there are subsequent liability issues based on the dasher board repairs if the
County is now partially covered for this type of activity because they now have
commented that hiring a contractor that specializes in this will reduce any
possible incidents and they themselves carry insurance and liability.
asked with the hourly rate to be full cost recovery, if they could recalculate
the actual cost of ice time based upon increasing participation and use of the
facility. He hoped they will be able
to reduce the cost based on increased usage.
indicated they donít know the point of diminishing returns.
He wanted the ice rink to succeed.
said the $2.4 million that would need to be raised by March will go a long way
to indicate where this is going. He
recalled the motion he made had lower costs that might have addressed this issue
to drive up the usage.
thought the pricing should be open to modification.
He thought this was going in the right direction, as the ice people have
met their burden.
said the point of sale software will make things more efficient and effective to
recalculate the costs. He heard from
the Board that they are interested in being accommodating to the ice rink users
and it is up to them to show the Board they will use the facility at the optimum
level for the cost per hour.
REPORT/National Association of Counties (NACo)
and Richardson gave a report on the NACo Conference in
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Handy announced that tomorrow night he is having a meeting in Harris Hall on the Fairgrounds. He attended a meeting last Thursday at the DLCD on reviewing TransPlan alternative performance measures.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 3:20