July 27, 2010
1:30 p.m.
Harris Hall Main Floor
APPROVED 9-1-2010

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.


a. Announcements


b. REPORT BACK/I-5 Coburg Project Timeline.

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 Washington , D.C. and obtained two earmarks totalling $12 million.  She noted one project Lane County was committed to was a local match for 10.27 percent or $1.03 million.  She said because of the budget shortfall, they put in a reduced amount.  She indicated the match in the CIP in the last year was taken out by the Board.  She noted that since then they have been looking  to delete Phase 2 of the project of all of the improvements on the east side and replacement of the bridge.  She added along with the process has been adoption of the Interchange Area Management Plan (or IAMP), the land use planning document that is the current refinement plan for the project.  She said the Board, the city of Coburg and the OTC adopted it and the document contains analysis and a need for both Phase One and Phase Two. 

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 approval.

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 potential development.

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 interchange.

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 July 14.

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 Calendar.

Dwyer said he was a yes on this motion but a no on the final outcome.

Fleenor 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 future.

Barry 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.

Handy 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.

Paul 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 those.

Handy 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.

Thompson recommended being vague and not committing to September in a letter.  He thought it would be October at the earliest.

Handy 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 Lane County pieces so they could be ready after MPC addresses those issues.  He wanted an inclusion of the updated timeline, adjust the letter to the Federal Highway Administration and for a motion next week noting what some of the issues are for the IAMP.  He wanted to help put together a motion based on all of the pieces being in place and a motion to pass the road map and template by next week.

Barry 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.

Chickering 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.

Handy said they want MPC to consider the timeline and language.

Chickering 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.

Handy said once MPC makes an approval they can put it on the Consent Calendar. 

Fleenor recommended bringing this back next week for another discussion.

c. UPDATE/Ice Rink.

Spartz 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.

With 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 a contract.

Richardson commented that hiring a contractor that specializes in this will reduce any possible incidents and they themselves carry insurance and liability.

Fleenor 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.

Dwyer indicated they donít know the point of diminishing returns.  He wanted the ice rink to succeed.

Handy 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.

Sorenson 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.

Fleenor 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.


a. REPORT/National Association of Counties (NACo)

Spartz and Richardson gave a report on the NACo Conference in Reno .


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




There being no further business, Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.  

Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary