BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
April 6, 2011
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners 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.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
The Jim Gillette agenda item will be moved to 9 b. at 10:00 a.m. time certain.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS #
3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE
Bozievich congratulated Sorenson on the birth of his granddaughter.
Handy announced there will be a free medical clinic for people who donít have insurance at Peace Health Medical Group on April 16 and 17.
4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes: None.
B. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 11-4-6-1/In the Matter of a Refund to Sierra Pines, LTD, in the Amount of $182,849.15.
C. County Counsel
1) ORDER 11-4-6-2/In the Matter of Settling the Claim of Michael Stephens.
D. Children and Families
1) ORDER 11-4-6-3/In the Matter of Approving the Submittal and, if Awarded, Acceptance of a Grant to the State of Oregon in the Amount up to $900,000 per Year for up to Three Years for Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Services; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign Grant Award Documents and Appropriate Funds up to $900,000 to the Department of Children and Families.
E. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 11-4-6-4/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the Acting County Administrator as an Authorized Representative to Execute Billing and Reporting Documents Related to Mental and Physical Health Services for Issuance to Medicare and Medicaid.
F. Public Works
1) ORDER 11-4-6-5 /In the Matter of Awarding Requirement Contracts to Various Contractors to Establish Unit Prices for Liquid Asphalt Materials, Delivery, CRC Distributor and Operator Needs During the Fiscal Year 2011-2012, Prospective Contract No. 11/12-M&S-52 and that the County Administrator be Authorized to Sign the Contracts.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Richardson reported that last week they did a soft start on tweeting. She indicated the Lane County Board is now tweeting during the Board meetings. She said they are tweeting the decision the Board makes or direction on items they believe are of greater interest than routine items to the residents of Lane County. She said if anyone tweets they can go to LCBoard and start following. She added that Ms. Zimmer is the one who will be sending the tweets. She indicated they are also putting the finishing touches on a Lane County Facebook Page.
Stewart commented that he thought this was a good idea and it could help staff.
Handy said he didnít recall this going through Policy and Procedures. He asked about the parameters on what is being tweeted and who is making those decisions.
Richardson responded that this is an administrative decision after they adopted the Social Media Policy in the APM, under the County Administratorís authority. She added the guidelines are to tweet when the Board reaches a decision affecting greater Lane County.
Richardson announced there will be an Executive Session for Friday at 1:00 p.m. and a regular Work Session following Executive Session.
7. COUNTY COUNSEL
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 11-4-6-6/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official Decision Reversing the Planning Director's Denial of a Riparian Modification (Dept. File PA 10-5248)
Sarah Wilkinson, Land Management, explained that this is an appeal to decide whether or not to elect to hear the appeal of a hearingís official conditional approval of a riparian modification to allow two existing storage sheds and attached decks that are unpermitted in the riparian set back area on a property located off of Triangle Lake.
Wilkinson indicated the Board has to decide whether or not to hear the appeal subject to the criteria contained in Lane Code 14.600. She said if the Board decides to hear the appeal, a subsequent hearing will be scheduled with notice given and all parties present.
Wilkinson noted the decision criteria contained in Lane Code 14.600, are: 1) whether or not the issue is of countywide significance; 2) whether or not the issue will occur with frequency and if there is a need for policy guidance; 3) whether or not the issue involves a unique environmental resource and 4) whether or not the planning director or hearingís official recommends review. She said as discussed in the agenda memo for this item, the Planning Director determined that the appeal does not meet the decision criteria contained in Lane Code 14.600 and recommends that the Board elect not to hear the appeal and move to adopt the order. She added they recommend Option 1.
Handy asked if there was a correction to be made on the lot size.
Wilkinson indicated the agenda memo contains an error with regard to the lot size. She indicated the correct lot size is .06 acres.
Handy thought this was an issue of countywide significance.
Vorhes thought in this particular matter the question relates to this application. He indicated it was the property ownerís attempt to utilize the existing riparian regulations to get approval and that process has now run its course. He explained that in this particular case the applicant sought approval for these placements in the riparian area and followed the existing riparian provisions. He thought this was consistent in what they are trying to do in forcing the existing riparian regulations and the decision in this case is fact specific to the proposal on this property. He added how likely this similar situation will occur is not in the record.
Stewart thought the recommendation to not hear this because of the criteria is correct. He noted the applicant is asking that they take the option not to hear this so they could go directly to LUBA. He added that was an effort the Board did with a task force to streamline the process and this is what they are requesting to do. He said there is a compliance issue the applicant is trying to work through to get permitted and they are using the process to do it.
Vorhes noted in the findings there are two places where the acreage is stated .6 and they direct staff to make the typographical errors.
MOTION: to approve Option 1 for ORDER 11-4-6-6 and to fix the typographical errors.
Leiken MOVED, Bozievich SECONDED.
9. COMMISSIONERSí BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/Confederated Tribes of Siletz Request.
Dee Piglsey, Tribal Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Bud Lane, Vice-Chairman Siletz Tribal Council and Craig Dorsay, Tribal Attorney, Siletz Tribe, gave a presentation of their request. (Copy in file). Pigsley asked for the Boardís support for a bill they hope to get introduced in Congress that defines the original Siletz Reservation.
Bozievich stated he was uncomfortable due to his conversations with the Confederate Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw. He indicated they were not in agreement with this request at this time. He wanted to see something unified before the Board takes action in support of the Siletz Tribe. He was reluctant to move forward today without getting further information. He wanted more time to do research to see if there is a unified front for this effort.
Handy thought it would be beneficial to give the Board more time to meet with the various tribes so they can make sure they are in agreement.
Bozievich didnít want to rush to endorse something when another tribe had stated concerns. He added there are also concerns on behalf of the Grand Ronde Tribe. He wanted to see letters of support from those tribes or have them appear together in a meeting. He said it is hard for him to be supportive today.
Leiken indicated he was prepared to move to support the resolution, but with Bozievichís concern, he thought it would be better for there to be unanimous support. He wanted to work through this with Bozievich. He wanted to bring this back on the agenda for unanimous support.
Stewart stated that he didnít want to get in between a conflict. He wasnít hearing that anyone was opposed. He wanted to get a letter of support that everyone was in agreement.
b. DISCUSSION/Direction Jim Gillette
Assistant County Counsel Marc Kardell, recalled that Gillette said if the Board could disprove any of the list of facts he sent the Board, he would go away to get his claims refunded on the fines he paid. He discussed Fact 21. (Copy in file). He gave a power point presentation. He asked the Board what they wanted to do.
Stewart recalled when he came on the Board, he helped Gillette get into compliance. He said the claims were supposed to have been taken care of.
Gillette stated the only reason he is fighting this was because he was fined unjustly. He indicated that there was nothing Kardell said that he couldnít refute. He gave the Board a list of 27 facts and he said if the Board can find any that are untrue, he would drop the case. He thinks he has been honest and he didnít think the County was completely honest. He said for fact 21, he never said there was no paintball on his property, he knew there was a paintball tournament. He didnít know there were three of them. He said the County fined him because of the events listed on the poster. He added that they did not all take place. He said Lane Code said they needed to go after the person who had the event, not the landowner. He said the County came after him for fees. He stated that there has never been a hearing on the facts of the case, all the hearings have been if it was legal to fine him without giving him a hearing. He said he was fined before he was proven guilty. He said the Board changed the way they did things and didnít make it retroactive to his case. He said he has affidavits of people who said they left his property by midnight of July 10. He recalled at that time there was a bad homeless situation. He admitted that sometimes he had 15 homeless families living on his property for over 15 years and the County did nothing about it until he applied for a park and this was their way of getting back at him. He said they punished the homeless people because he wanted to have a park. Gillette said that Jim Harang his neighbor didnít want him to have a park there. He said 95 percent of the neighbors signing a petition was not true. He said some people lived a mile a away. He said the County for years complained about his mobile homes. He said the County was only concerned about the R.Vís, the other structures were not part of the fine issue. He said with some of the facts the County lied to him. He recalled he received a letter that there was an inspection June 26. He said the Board got a letter stating there was an inspection on July 26 saying all the R.Vís were still there and he never got a copy. He added that he never saw a copy of that letter for six years and then it was too late to do something about it. He didnít think the Board should accept any evidence in Executive Session. He stated he didnít want to fight the County, he wants to work with the County and he wants a park on his property. He didnít deny ever having paintball on his property. He stopped them and June 8 was the last tournament. He added when they fined him, they listed all the tournaments that took place after June 8. He commented that of all the facts, that fact was a gray area. He said there were never 70 participants in the tournaments.
Kardell said based on the evidence they had, the paintball tournaments were not cancelled and they took place.
Stewart said in 1996 there was an attempt for an initial approval for a paintball park and it was reversed. He added there are compliance letters in 1998 that state they need to cease and desist as they were still taking place. He said it was clear for multiple years that paintball was not supposed to take place and there were tournaments continuing to take place. He asked if those violations could have been fined and if a warning letter could have been sent.
Kardell said under the code they try to get voluntary compliance. He said in looking at the record, there were a number of times they asked Gillette to stop. He said there was nothing that said ten days before a fine they have to send a warning letter. He recalled that Gillette stated everyone had left by midnight on July 10. Kardell said that everyone had met to sign a letter offsite on July 11 or they were still onsite on July 11. He wanted direction from the Board as to what needs to be done in the future. He added that they have settlement agreements in both cases and they have been dismissed from the Court of Appeals. He said they continue to spend time on this on an almost weekly basis.
Handy asked about the settlement agreement currently in place.
Kardell said Gillette had sent a letter to the Board on July 6, 2010, offering $10,000 to dismiss the appeal and he no longer contests the fine in his case. Kardell added that Gillette had the Court of Appeals dismiss his case when there was a tentative settlement that had not yet been signed. He indicated that they have a signed settlement agreement that accepted the $10,000 but added conditions including the right to inspect in the future to make sure he remains in compliance for a five year period. He said it was signed by Gillette in October, 2010 and Jeff Spartz on behalf of the County later that month.
Gillette said he signed the settlement to avoid a $32,000 fine. He didnít feel he signed the settlement voluntarily.
Stewart noted in fact 4, Gillette stated the campers left his property, but it doesnít mean that they didnít come back. He said there were three pictures of an R.V. in 1996, 1997 and 1998. He added that according to the pictures, it doesnít look like the vehicle left on July 10, 1996.
Kardell there were date stamps for 1997 and 1998 but it was hand written on the picture from 1996. He said on July 11 it appears the people were still on the premises. He said the next testimony was the people living on Gilletteís property telling the Board they still live on the property, as they had no place to move.
Stewart explained that today they want to determine if three or more commissioners want to do any more on this.
Bozievich believed that Kardell had well proven that one of the 27 facts was in fact false. He didnít believe there was any need to move forward with a hearing on the subject. He stated that they have heard from Gillette quite a bit and they spent an enormous amount of staff time on this. He didnít think they needed to spend additional time.
Stewart stated that there was no movement to make any direction change. He said he has worked closely with Gillette for the six years he has been a commissioner. He stated that Gillette has been in compliance since they signed the last settlement. He indicated there were many issues they dealt with and it is behind Gillette. He commented that not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome. Stewart believes that since he had been involved, that the Board has gone out of their way to help move this forward to bring it to closure. He hoped that Gillette can focus on moving forward with his property.
10. CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
a. PROCLAMATION 11-4-6-7/In the Matter of Proclaiming April to be Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Stewart read the proclamation into the record.
MOTION: to approve PROCLAMATION 11-4-6-7.
Handy MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.
11. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Leiken announced on Friday he has been asked to come before the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and on Friday afternoon he will be in front of the Springfield Chamber.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of pending litigation.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.