April 26, 2011
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioner Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy, Sid Leiken, and Pete Sorenson present. County Administrator Liane Richardson, County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
There was a moment of silence to honor Eugene Police Officer Chris Kilcullen.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Under Other Business, Stewart wanted a discussion on Performance Evaluations. He noted for tomorrow there is an Emergency Business item, for the District Attorney’s office. He added there will be an Emergency Business item for HACSA. He said there is an addendum under Public Works for 13 c.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bob Getty, Eugene, stated that he and his wife own a vacant lot in River Road. He gave information to the Board about his vacant lot next to his River Road area home. He recalled that they purchased the house they live in 1964 and purchased the vacant lot in 1971. He said both properties were and are now in an approved County subdivision. He added that they have water, sewer, gas and electricity available to them. He indicated that neither of the properties are contiguous to any other city of Eugene annexed properties. He said both of those properties are on the County tax rolls. He indicated that at the time of their purchase their thought was to use the 1971 purchased lot as a garden and play yard until their three children move away from home. He added that they would sell the home they built in 1964 and then use the proceeds of that sale to build a smaller home on the 1971 purchased lot. He said he and his wife are in their 70’s and they want to do what they had planned. He said there have been changes in the land use laws in the River Road area that make it almost impossible to do anything to accomplish his goals. He said the vacant lot they purchased in 1971 cannot be used to build a home on any part of it and they can’t create a minor partition to take into account the options they would like to have available as they age. He said they have a large lot they pay taxes on that they cannot do anything with. He believed the solution proposed by Kent Howe, Land Management, as outlined in the agenda memo will help solve the issue for them. He urged the Board to approve it.
Jim Gillette, Eugene, wants to work with the Board but he said it doesn’t see how it can happen. He thought there was prejudice against him. He invited the Board to see what happens on his property. He commented that if he dies before he gets the park done; the Board will be responsible for losing the 500 acre park. He wants the Board to be fair. He stated that he is opposed to Executive Sessions. He wished he could work this out.
3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE
Leiken requested that the Board put forth a resolution for Chris Kilcullen. He wanted to see if the Board could put it on the agenda for tomorrow.
Handy sent his sadness to the Kilcullen family. He announced that there will be a public ceremony in memory of Officer Kilcullen at Matt Knight Arena.
Bozievich recognized Getty’s predicament. He commented that when they do things by statute on a state level, it created unanticipated consequences. He and Mike Clark, Eugene City Councilor have been working with legislators to find a way to annex properties that are not contiguous on a voluntary basis. He thought there was some possibility of a legislative fix to Getty’s problem.
4. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/In the Matter of an Update on the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Joint Elected Officials’ Regional Issues Work Plan (NBA & PM 4/11/10, 11/9/10, 2/9/11).
Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled in June 2009 the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County directed staff from all three jurisdictions to develop a work plan with timeline, cost estimates and implications for specific changes to the Metro Plan to address the following Joint Elected Official recommendations: the overarching policies that identified and address regional issues; the policies that allow for individual refinement plans for Eugene and Springfield to address jurisdiction specific issues; adjustment to the Metro Plan boundary and text to address jurisdictional issues arising in the urbanizable area and the area outside the UGB; and a dispute resolution process that reflects the changes.
Howe indicated that staff provided the JEO with a Metropolitan Plan Work Plan overview in December 2009 and gave three general updates to the JEO last year on February 26, June 7 and in September. He added that much of the conceptual draft language amending the Metro Plan has been prepared. He said there is a logical sequence for the implementation of HB3337 work through the Envision Eugene and the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the cities and the County should take the regional issues and the JEO recommendations into account as the cities complete HB 3337 work. He said the Board met in a joint public work session with the city of Springfield City Council on February 7 regarding the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and their UGB. He added that the Eugene planning staff provided the Board with a progress report on the Envision Eugene process last September and on March 15, 2011. He recalled the Board gave specific direction in February to initiate amendments to the Metro Plan boundary so it would be coterminous with the specific urban growth boundaries that must be adopted individually by Eugene and Springfield. He indicated they are doing the work in two separate phases. He noted that Phase 1 focuses on the Metro Plan area adjacent to Springfield UGB and Phase 2 will modify the Metro Plan boundary adjacent to Eugene’s UGB. He noted that three separate plan amendment tasks are involved in each phase.
Howe reported that they held a public Open House last week about moving the Metro Plan boundary to the new parcel specific Springfield UGB and have scheduled a joint Planning Commission Public Hearing for June 7. He said final action for Phase 1 will be dependent on the adoption schedule of Springfield’s Metro Plan amendments to implement HB3337.
Howe asked for the Board’s direction to provide Eugene and Springfield with the County’s draft text amendments and proposed administrative processes to address the Board other issues of: 1) clarifying the definition of urban services so it doesn’t interfere with special district formation; 2) the urbanizable area citizen representation and 3) a proposed dispute resolution process. He indicated the planning directors are working to align (where possible) to combine processes to meet the requirements of HB3337, the JEO subcommittee recommendations and the required conforming and housekeeping amendments to the Metro Plan. He added if the Board gives direction to insert the draft Metro Plan text amendments provided in the series of attachments 2, 3 4 and 5 into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and Envision Eugene processes, they will be considered in the city’s process to implement HB3337 and brought forward to the Board by each city for co-adoption. He added the series of attachments 2 b through 2 d (copy in file) provide the draft Metro Plan amendments addressing the provision of urban services that impacts the formation of special service districts. He added that attachment 3 provides the draft Metro Plan amendments that address the jurisdictional autonomy for both cities. He said it would also establish Lane County as the sole land use jurisdiction outside the UGB. He noted attachments 4 a and b gives the Board direction to insert the draft Metro Plan text amendments provided in the series of attachments 2, 3 4 and 5 into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and Envision Eugene processes, they will be considered in the city’s process to implement HB3337 and brought forward to the Board by each city for co-adoption.
Howe noted the series of attachments 5 a through f provide the draft Metro Plan in Lane Code Chapter 12 amendments, the MPC bylaws and supporting staff communication addressing the dispute resolution for the Metro Plan. He said Board direction on these four areas will allow him to work with the other planning directors to tackle the process issues that include 1) the staggered HB 3337 schedules of Eugene and Springfield. He said they need to determine the timing, process and adoption schedule for both cities since Lane County must co-adopt with each city. 2) The conforming language as a companion piece to HB 3337 amendments require coordination of all three jurisdictions to co-adopt through joint hearings and 3) How the JEO recommendations and housekeeping edits should be integrated with conforming language.
Handy stated the issue is jurisdictional coordination inside the UGB, outside the city limits for the unannexed, unincorporated areas.
Stewart indicated that they are trying to provide jurisdictional autonomy. He noted at the present time the metro boundary extends past the UGB. He said this moves the metro boundary back and limiting to three different areas of jurisdiction.
Handy stated the bigger question in Santa Clara/River Road is not addressed. He added that was why he is suggesting that jurisdictional coordination for properties inside the UGB and outside of the city limits in the unincorporated unannexed areas are not captured. He distributed submissions for addressing the River Road/Santa Clara piece that he has been working on with community leaders. He commented that being they are in a major Comprehensive Plan amendment period; it is time for them to deal with the River Road Santa Clara pieces in the Metro Plan. He noted for Chapter 2, Section F of the Metro Plan that addresses the Santa Clara River Road issues; the time is ripe to address all of the important revisions.
Howe noted for jurisdictional autonomy, (number 2,) inside the urban growth boundary the County and both cities have jurisdictional authority and it requires both bodies to set the policy. He said the Board of Commissioners is in the policy making role in the Metro Plan inside the urban growth boundary of Eugene and Springfield. He indicated the situation Mr. Getty is in deals with those policies that are governed by the Metro Plan and this Board is part of the decision process of those policies. He noted the recommendations in Section 3 dealing with the urbanizable area citizen representation is that when there are these types of issues that come forward, the Board feels they need a policy discussion with whichever city it is that is relevant, then it would provide the mechanism to have that policy discussion to take care to make adjustments so those kind of situations could be addressed.
Leiken liked what Howe brought. He said it sets them out on the right course.
Handy indicated the draft before them has been vetted with a lot of neighborhood leaders and this is the time to look at it. He said if there are barriers that they need to be addressed.
MOTION: to have Lane County staff meet with the city of Eugene’s staff before the JEO meeting, address what works in the document and to bring it back to the Board regarding Chapter 2, Section F for River Road.
Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Stewart indicated that no one had the opportunity to read this through. He thought it would be more appropriate to bring this back tomorrow for discussion. He stated that he couldn’t support something he hasn’t read.
Howe stated that this was the first time he had seen the document. He agreed to bring this back tomorrow after he has had a chance to review it.
Handy withdrew his motion.
Bozievich commented the recommendations made by Handy were not set up correctly with the language. He didn’t know if they needed to wait until tomorrow to provide staff direction. He said this was not written in Metro Plan language. He wanted to find out what resources staff had to work with this. He wanted to find out what doesn’t get done if they work on Handy’s recommendation. He agreed now was the time to address the River Road issue. He didn’t want to come back and adopt this as what they would put forward.
Howe noted there were many questions on the handout. He said they do have staff allocated in their Long Range Planning Work Program to do Metro Planning. He said this was reasonable to take forward and work with Eugene staff to get their reactions to this as a proposal. He added that once they get answers to the questions, they will bring it back to the Board and this could then be inserted into the Envision Eugene process.
Handy noted that a lot of the document has been worked through so it will save staff time. He said the important thing is to collaborate with the city, staff and elected officials. He didn’t see this as being a drain on County staff’s time because there are willing partners.
Leiken thought this was a good time to see if they could do a parallel to look at the broad Metro Plan issues and working specific on the River Road plan. He said if Eugene is willing to move this forward, it is the right time for the Board to look at the specific River Road fix. He was committed to reviewing this.
Stewart stated this is the right time in the Metro Plan to start working on these issues. He wanted to review and discuss the document tomorrow. He stated he was not trying to hold up the process, he wanted to read the materials and digest them. He was interested in addressing a lot of the issues. He indicated that they will bring this item back tomorrow between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
Vorhes noted for the River Road proposal, the language is phased in Metro Plan text. He added that once the cities have finished their work on urban growth boundaries, the Metro Plan as they know it now will be different and these proposals may not fit. He wanted the flexibility to work with language instead of specific language proposals.
Leiken liked the phased approach. He noted Springfield is in a situation where they are further along than the County. He said both cities have embraced moving forward on HB3337. He thought the phased approach gives flexibility. He thought what was important was the whole Metro Plan boundary line and the urban growth boundary line. He noted that they don’t have all the information yet from the city of Eugene. He added they have their information from the city of Springfield for the co-adoption phase.
With the proposed language changes, Bozievich agreed with Handy and Leiken that there is nothing that stands out. He wanted to keep moving forward with both jurisdictions to get the language in the Metro Plan, or their versions of the plan. He said the time is ripe to handle the subsection on River Road/Santa Clara. He said they should either reference the transition plans or include some of the transition plan recommendations into it.
Howe heard that the Board majority wants to move forward to work with Eugene and Springfield with the text amendments and concepts and incorporate that into their processes. He said it will be worked by those cities and then will come back to the Board for co-adoption. He indicated that he will work with the two planning directors to find out the best mechanism to insert these proposals into their processes and coming back tomorrow to discuss the proposal on the River Road/Santa Clara section.
Handy wanted to deal with the issues comprehensively. He supported a motion moving all of the amendments they have forward along with a consideration of having the two staffs have a discussion about the River Road/Santa Clara section.
Stewart was supportive of the document Howe presented and he was in support to move plans for River Road/Santa Clara. His concern was if they move what Handy recommended, there could be a problem with supplementing additional information specific to River Road/Santa Clara.
Handy said he withdrew his motion to give the Board comfort to review this. He said they aren’t going to see anything controversial and it is efficient and effective and jumpstarts an important conversation.
Bozievich agreed with waiting until tomorrow to discuss both matters.
Stewart indicated they will continue the conversation tomorrow under Other Business.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
(Commissioners' Conference Room)
Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of discussing litigation.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
Evaluation/Performance Review of Acting County Administrator and Acting County Counsel
Stewart recalled that Liane Richardson and Stephen Vorhes have each been in their positions for approximately six months. He said they haven’t taken any action sooner because they were in the middle of the Budget. He thought it was appropriate to have an evaluation of the work that has been done to date. He proposed the Board give direction to do that. He added after the Board is presented with the reviews, that HR also give potential recommendations on how to fill the positions permanently.
Bozievich supported moving forward with an evaluation of the acting County Administrator and County Counsel. He thought it was important to start to fill the positions permanently. He wanted to assess the acting positions and make a decision to make them a more permanent position or to go to an outside process. He believed they needed to provide permanent stability. He was in support of moving forward with the performance evaluations.
Leiken concurred with Bozievich. He said it made sense and the time was right. He thought after the budget process they could get to the evaluations.
Handy said it is important to have an open and wide ranging recruiting process for all of the important positions at Lane County. He said those were his positions for the Sheriff and the HACSA Director. He said at this time the evaluation was premature. He thought they should be focusing their efforts on committing to the open and wide ranging recruiting process.
Sorenson said they should be putting their energy around the decision to announce the position and get the recruiting going and hiring people. He didn’t want to evaluate someone in an interim position. He said they need to make a timeline for the appointment and the interview process.
Stewart stated that Richardson expressed her desire to compete for the position on a permanent basis. He thought it would be appropriate to have an evaluation of Richardson and Vorhes’ work performance for the six month they have been in the position and depending on the evaluation and the majority of the Board, it could be a short appointment process or it could be one that is lengthy and could cost a lot of money. He recalled the last time they went out for an administrator’s position it was about $75,000 to perform the function. He wanted an evaluation to be given in mid-May and it would be good information for the Board to consider. He is in support of the evaluation process and then going onto the next steps.
Handy said they need to have open recruiting processes. He said there is nothing to fear but there is a danger with Lane County to get inbred in their decision making processes. He said if this is the approach they are going to use with each important hire, they would be doing the organization a disservice.
Bozievich asked if Richardson could ask the HR Director to come back with what an outside hiring process would look like and estimated timeline and cost for the process.
Stewart thought they could do the evaluation and at the time it would come back, they could give recommendations or possibilities of next steps and it could include the cost for a recruitment process.
MOTION: to have the H.R. Department do evaluations and come back with possible recommended next steps to the process of hiring and filing the positions of County Administrator and County Counsel permanently.
Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.
Handy thought they were moving in the right direction, but he was not ready to support the motion today.
VOTE: 3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).
Richardson noticed that tomorrow there will be a HACSA meeting. She noted the two appointed commissioners will not be attending. She sent a draft of a resolution honoring Officer Kilcullen to the Board. She indicated that it is on for Emergency Business tomorrow.
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 2:55 p.m.