BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’
February 9, 2011
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
Item 8 c. has been pulled. There will be a letter under Emergency Business.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Marilyn Cross, Vida, said she is a member of the newly formed resident association McKenzie Clear Water Coalition. She spoke about the Long Range Planning Work Program. She stated that they read in the material provided for the session that the Lane County Planning Commission has increased the priority for items 15, Flood Plain Code Amendments Revision and 16, Drinking Water Source Protection Ordinance Revision. She recalled while the public hearing last October was truncated before spoken comments were offered, they presented serious issues. She commented that the present water quality is excellent and EWEB studies find most pollutants at non-detectable levels. She added that EWEB’s report concludes that no significant issues are being introduced to the river. She indicated that residents have a long history of stewardship. She hoped these issues would be addressed before ordinances are seriously presented to the Board again.
Mark Callahan, Eugene, spoke about the proposed projects labeled in the Long Range Planning projects 22 and 23. He noted there are five choices on the projects. He said for the flood plain code revisions and the drinking water source protection ordinance revision they should either start the public hearing or let it die. He stated they need more transparency in government.
Scott Router, Vida, said the County has many committees and commissions. He thought they should pull the plug instead of pushing the restart button on not just the overlay, but on the whole concept of having all the committees drafting plans for their future without their awareness. He didn’t want to be a part of Agenda 21.
3. COMMISSIONERS' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND/OR OTHER ISSUES AND REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson agreed the public process needs to be restarted for the drinking water ordinances so the public will have an opportunity to give their response to the work the Lane County Planning Commission put into this. He thanked the Eugene EMS for helping with an emergency matter with his mother.
Handy attended a conference on Saturday about child abuse. He said that challenges are around the issues of drug and alcohol. He stated that he was committing himself to the effort.
Leiken thanked the people for testifying on the EmX. He reported there were over 300 people who attended the meeting. He discussed the recent death of the two South Eugene High School students.
Stewart received over 1,000 e-mails, letters and phone calls about the riparian zones. He received 25 for the process moving forward and the rest were against it. He said his district is the one affected. He heard loud and clear that the process was not functioning properly and it did not involve the citizens at the start. He was not in favor of moving the process forward. He said last night he attended the unveiling of the 2011 Cycle Oregon Event. He reported the first night they will be staying in Cottage Grove, Oregon.
#4. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
Letter to Senator Ginny Burdick in Opposition to SB 304
Ben Nessbaum, Intergovernmental Relations, explained that this bill came up quickly and they thought they should bring this as Emergency Business. He said it is a major change in which attorney fees are awarded in property tax appeals that go to tax court. He indicated the counties will be culpable for these expenses. He reported that Marc Kardell, County Counsel estimated that if this bill should pass, the County would have to hire an additional lawyer just to ensure the legal needs of the County were met. He said they want to give this letter to Senator Burdick on Friday so the County can be heard on the issue.
Leiken wanted to be more diplomatic on the first paragraph.
MOTION: to approve sending the letter as drafted with the following: “Lies in the face be struck and insert “may impact” be substituted and then to be sent to the Chair for signature.
Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * * (estimated 2 minutes)
A. Approval of Minutes
B. County Administration
1) ORDER 11-2-9-1/In the Matter of Supporting Events to Promote Human Rights, Equity, and Diversity in Lane County.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 11-2-9-2/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to the Lane County Animal Services Advisory Committee (LCASAC).
D. Public Safety
1) ORDER 11-2-9-3/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with State of Oregon Department of Corrections to Implement a Grant-Funded Transitional Housing Project in Lane County.
2) ORDER 11-2-9-4/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Amendment #1 to the Inmate Pharmacy Services Contract between Diamond Pharmacy Services and Lane County in the Amount of $230,000.
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 11-2-9-5/In the Matter of Recognizing the Transfer of Ownership of the Wildish Sand & Gravel Site to The Nature Conservancy and Authorizing an Alternative Form of Security to Replace the Performance Bonds for the Reclamation Activities.
2) ORDER 11-2-9-6/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Roads Advisory Committee.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Leiken MOVED, Handy SECONDED.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
In response to Handy’s question about Lane Manual and the Advancement for Human Rights, Richardson checked the on line version and the committee is has seven representatives with those seven appointing two more. She said Sascha Cosio, attached the older Lane Manual items to bring the new commissioners up to date.
Sorenson wanted a follow up in two weeks on the status of the applicants.
Handy recalled that they have a letter into the city of Eugene about Santa Clara related issues and working with their partners in the River Road Park District and the Santa Clara Fire District. He asked if Richardson had heard back from the city.
Richardson couldn’t find a copy of a letter that former County Administrator Jeff Spartz had sent. She spoke with Mayor Piercy and John Ruiz and neither of them had received a letter. She told Mayor Piercy why the County was contacting her and Piercy seemed supportive of the idea. She and Ruiz are going to be meeting to work out the details.
7. COUNTY COUNSEL
There will be an Executive Session today.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. WORK SESSION/Board Direction Concerning the Land Management Division’s 2011 Long Range Planning Work Program.
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained that the Long Range Planning Work Program is responsible for the maintenance of the County’s Rural Comprehensive Plan. He added that staff completes projects at the direction of the Board and coordinates regional planning efforts with other local, state and federal agencies and organizations. He indicated that the Long Range Planning Program strives to enhance the quality of life for current and future generations of Lane County residents by developing a land use plan that provides for a spectrum of economic, environmental and social benefits through a balanced land use management approach consistent with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.
Howe indicated that 24 long range planning projects have been identified for possible action over the next year shown in Table A (copy in file) and summarized in Attachment B (copy in file). He noted that nine of the projects are ongoing work items, they consider essential. He added the remaining 17 projects are discretionary. He indicated that staff resources are not available to carry out all the identified projects and the Board is being asked to prioritize identified projects and/or indentify other possible projects. He recalled that much of the long range work the Board has directed them to undertake is ongoing from year to year. He said that includes the processing of plan amendments, multi-jurisdictional coordination, maintenance and upkeep of their website, GIS technologies, and annual flood plain community systems recertification. He added besides the projects, proposals arrive each year and projects that were not prioritized by the Board in years past also resurface.
Howe reported on January 18 the Lane County Planning Commission held a work session to discuss the Long Range Planning Work Program for 2011. He provided their recommendations on page 2. (Copy in file). He said the Planning Commission recommended as high priorities projects 10 to 14. He said the reasons project 22 and 23 were included ( the floodplain code amendment revisions and the drinking water source protection ordinance revision) was because they were interested in ensuring that the work projects don’t fall off the table and the items are taken up again at some point in the future. He indicated the Board has three considerations. He said there is the need to determine if the project list is complete. He said because a large number of complex projects have been identified and resources are not available to address them all, the Board needs to prioritize what items staff needs to work on this year. He noted projects 22 and 23 are controversial and the Board needs to determine if those efforts should be continued in some form or if they should remain tabled to a future work program. He noted at this time there is only 3.5 FTE available to address long range work items. He estimated that between 11 and 14 FTE would be needed to carry out all the identified projects. He explained that projects 1 to 9 are projects that are ongoing and previous Boards have directed Land Management to undertake. He commented that continuity of these projects is critical. He said approximately 2.1 FTE are required to address the projects. He added that projects 10 to 24 are considered discretionary and would consume almost 9 to 12 additional FTE. He said if 2.1 FTE are dedicated to the essential projects, then they have 1.4 FTE available to dedicate to discretionary projects.
Stewart asked if the work with Santa Clara River Road collaboration process is included in the ongoing work.
Howe recalled that the Joint Elected Officials gave direction to the three jurisdictional staff to come back with amendments that would coincide with HB3337 changes through Envision Eugene and the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Planning process. He indicated that it addresses the disenfranchisement issue with the citizens in the Santa Clara River Road area, the dispute resolution of the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan boundary being moved to the urban growth boundary and the definition of urban services. He indicated all of these items fall under number 1.
Stewart concurred with the top nine projects. He wanted to improve the economics of Lane County to get their economic engine going. He thought the first top ten or eleven projects were important. He thought number 14 was important bringing the Metro Plan boundary to the UGB. His priority was 10, 11, 14 and what staff is recommending.
Leiken concurred with Stewart. He wanted to work with the city of Springfield regarding the Metro Plan boundary. He wanted to focus as much as possible on the commercial and industrial lands and on the Goshen opportunity. He commented that Goshen is a significant opportunity. He indicted the Goshen property is a job creating property. He commented that 3.5 FTE is not a lot of staff time and they are going to have to be focused on the areas where they can see results. With regard to project 22 and 23, he stated at this time he is supportive of tabling the items. He said if they continue to go down the same road, they would be pouring gasoline on a fire. He said it is a great opportunity for EWEB to go through an education process with the people who live up the McKenzie River.
Sorenson said to him one of the most important things is the protection of an individual’s property and the rights they enjoy under the federal and state constitution to their property and the duty of government to provide for the general welfare. He said he was for both. He thought it did a disservice to the public to not have an opportunity to comment on the work they paid for last year in terms of the preparation of the drinking water protection ordinances. He believes that citizens have a right to know what the government is doing. He said taking it off the work plan doesn’t really solve the problem. He said he is in favor of many aspects of the work program. He said he would be a no on the motion without the additional work and follow up with a public hearing.
Handy asked if Howe received his memo.
Howe responded that he just received Handy’s e-mail this morning. He said the information Handy is asking for is in the Lane County Planning Commission Annual Report. He indicated they completed that on January 18 with the Planning Commission.
Handy wanted to know the costs and the FTE. He wanted to reconcile what is being heard today and bring it back to the Board in a few weeks so they can see it on a one pager that makes sense. He requested a copy of the Planning Commission’s annual report. He recommended adding a column on the status of the work. He wanted to see an analysis of the FTE from a previous work plan and to adjust the current FTE to get more projects onto the list. He supported item 3. He wanted to distinguish between the floodplain and drinking water issue. He supported merging number 3 with number 22 and the FTE established with the floodplain issue. He wanted to keep number 23 in the work plan, leverage EWEB resources and to have a hearing. He recommended merging number 19 into number 1. He thought number 13 with the watershed was important and wanted to see how staff could balance some of the FTE even if it is minimal. He stated it is an item that leverages money for the watershed enhancement projects. He wanted options to keep home occupations on the list with a minimal FTE or incorporate that somewhere else.
Bozievich stated they are looking at a $7.7 million deficit and extremely limited resources. He said they have to look at the priority list through a filter of what will help Lane County’s economy. He indicated it was the number one issue he heard when he was campaigning. He noted the list of projects 1 to 9 were satisfactory to him. With regard to items 10 and 11, he said they have economic impact for economic development for the County and they are a high priority. He wanted staff to reconsider the Florence 2030 plan from last year. He believed there was an error made that will end up being appealed and they can save the city of Florence and Lane County resources in not having to deal with the appeals process if they can bring it back as a Board item. He thought they were going in the wrong direction with item 24. He said they put a large amount of staff time into it. He thought they were all ready to drop it because it was the wrong direction. He said number 14 needs to stay on the priority list. He didn’t think that numbers 22 and 23 would help the economy of Lane County. He wanted to let EWEB do educational outreach and look at different processes. He thought in a few years if they have more resources they could take this on again, involving a process that involves stakeholders from the start. He commented that going back for another public hearing process was a mistake as was terminating the urban transition agreements. He said they need to think about short term expenditures that will have the most impact to the economy. He didn’t think it was the time to jump into a long term planning issue of watershed protection. He was in agreement to approve items 1 to 9, 10, 11 and 14 as the priorities to address long term planning in the Land Management Division.
MOTION: to move forward on items 1 to 9 for the Long Range Work Plan, also including items 10, 11 and 14.
Leiken, MOVED, Bozievich SECONDED.
Leiken said his suggestion for tabling the public hearing is not for taking it off for good, but to table it for now. He wanted to make sure that EWEB has meetings with the residents to put together stakeholders groups and get information out before it comes back. He didn’t think it was something that was needed to be done immediately. He wanted to make sure the people who live up the McKenzie are part of the stakeholder groups involved in the decision making and that their concerns will be addressed before it ever comes to the Board of Commissioners for a hearing. He wanted to make sure they do this in a pragmatic form.
Handy was disappointed that the Board majority was not interested in getting more information. He said he had a request for staff to try to re-work the FTE’s to integrate different items to get more bang for the buck. He was disappointed that number 13 was not on the list about watershed enhancement projects and opportunity to leverage OWEB funding for their watershed councils who do good work for the community. He agreed the biggest priority is economic development but the County’s job is also to preserve farm and forest land and their resources for future generations so they have sustainable development. He didn’t see that taking place with the motion on the table.
Bozievich said they are facing a limited amount of resources and he struggled with a third item. He indicated that items 10 and 11 were his top priorities, as they were with the Planning Commission’s top priorities for option projects. He said if he could add another project, it would be the land use compatibility review of the watershed. He said there were a lot of reasons to move forward with the priority list they have, as it was close to the priority list put together by the Planning Commission. He didn’t see a reason to put this off any longer.
Leiken agreed the land use compatibility review was also an important project. He asked when the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment on the Springfield side is completed if they can move FTE around.
Howe responded that if they find efficiencies, or something takes less time or there is a change in circumstances, they will come back to the Board to look at the priorities again.
Sorenson was concerned about putting an FTE number in. He asked about the Land Management Budget with FTE’s.
Richardson said Land Management Division is not sustained by the general fund. She said although they have to go through the same budgeting process the rest of the County is going through, the impacts with the general fund don’t impact them. She recalled they had significant layoffs a few years ago because they weren’t able to keep themselves self-sustained. She noted the number of FTE in their department is relative to how much money they are bringing in to do the work.
Leiken said the whole issue is to get a focus on what Lane County can do to open up for business and to see new business coming in. He wanted to focus where Land Management could be sustainable into the future. He commented that if Lane County is not going to put themselves in a top position to attract business, then they will have Metro in Portland who will want the projects. He wanted to put Lane County in a top position so when businesses come here they are receptive. He added without focus or the dollars generated, they won’t have much to offer. He commented that for him it is more about focus than pet projects.
VOTE: 3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).
b. FIFTH READING AND DELIBERATIONS/Ordinance No. PA 1272/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (Transplan) to Adjust the Planning Period from Year 2015 to Year 2027, to Remove Completed Projects from the Projects List, to Make Related Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan, and Adopting a Severability Clause. (NBA & PM 10/27/2010, 8/18/2010, 7/7/2010, 6/17/2010)
Lydia McKinney, Public Works, explained that this is a housekeeping amendment. She indicated that they provided an attachment to address the two questions that came from the Board at the Fourth Reading (Copy in file). She recommended the Board adopt the ordinance.
MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No PA 1272.
Leiken MOVED, Bozievich SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-2 (Handy, Sorenson dissenting).
9. DISCUSSION/BRIEFING/City of Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update
10. COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS
Leiken announced that tonight the Springfield Chamber of Commerce will be holding Business after Hours at the Red Cross. He reported tomorrow he will be attending MPC.
Bozievich reported that he spent his Saturday in Florence at a Legislative Town Hall. He said there were legislators in attendance. He indicated they reported on the financial issues the state is dealing with. He indicated that the state will have to make significant cuts to programs at the County that are pass through programs. He announced tomorrow he will be holding his first Community Conversations in Veneta, Noti and Walton and next week he will be having meetings in Florence and Mapleton. He indicated that he will be holding meetings in the future in the Santa Clara and Junction City areas. He noted Highway 36 from Triangle Lake to Florence has a lot of closed down industrial properties. He said they need to get those areas inventoried to market them for redevelopment. He thought it could be a major positive impact to the rural areas. He reported the Siuslaw and Blachly Triangle School Districts are dealing with extreme budget problems because they are losing student FTE. He indicated that young families have nowhere to get employed in those districts and are moving away.
Stewart reported the agenda team will be scheduling tours this summer by the private timber companies to give a day tour on private timberland. He added that it has been requested by the Bureau of Land Management to have a day tour of some of their management lands and a tour to the Forest Service Properties at the Experimental Forest up the McKenzie. He announced the United Front trip will start on February 28 and run to March 4. He reported the NACo Legislation Conference starts the following week. He noted the National Forest and Counties School Coalition has a fly in scheduled for March 8, 9 and 10. He asked if any commissioner was going to attend any events.
Sorenson stated he couldn’t attend the United Front or the NACo meetings in Washington D.C. this year.
Handy said given the environment about earmarks in Washington, D.C. there has been a question about the focus or related value of a United Front trip this year. He wanted a legislative update.
Stewart recalled that Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, gave a report at the last meeting about this issue. He said it was reported by Cuyler that the focus will be more on policy issues the federal government can deal with and help the County and not focus on monetary asks through earmarks. Stewart thought it would be more valuable for him to be in attendance at the Forest Counties and Schools Coalition fly in for the reauthorization and attend some of the NACo conference. He didn’t want to duplicate efforts. He indicated that Cuyler will be the only County employee leading the United Front effort.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
(Commissioners' Conference Room)
Per ORS 192.660(2)(h) for pending litigation issues.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:30 a.m.