BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’
January 19, 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.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION/In the Matter of Serving the One-Year Notice of Termination of the Two Urban Transition Agreements for Land Use and Building Permit Authority Inside the Urban Growth Boundary of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained that this is a follow up to a meeting the Board had on November 9 and directed staff to prepare this informational hearing. He recalled the Board of Commissioners in 1985 recognized the cities of Eugene and Springfield as the principle and logical providers of urban services within their respective urban growth boundaries, with the understanding that ultimately the lands outside the city limits (that were inside the Metro Plan urban growth boundary) would develop to urban densities. He said the County agreed to transfer the permitting services provided in the metro area and delegated it to administrative authority for processing, planning and building permits for each of the two cities within the urban growth boundaries. He said there is a concern of perception of disenfranchisement among Lane County residents who rely on building and land use services provided by the cities in which they cannot vote. He said responsiveness to citizen’ s concerns by the cities seems to be a significant issue and was presented as one of the five top issues of County concern throughout the Joint Elected Officials’ discussions within the past few years. He said the County presented those to the Joint Elected Officials and they established a subcommittee that resulted in June 2009 recommending and incorporating the County’s larger five policy issues into the efforts Eugene and Springfield were undertaking to implement HB3337.
Howe noted the combined land area of the Eugene and Springfield urban growth boundary is approximately 11,000 acres or 17 square miles. He said there are 11,000 parcels on the Eugene side and another 4,500 parcels on the Springfield side. He indicated there are 31,000 people outside of the city limits of Springfield and Eugene but within the UGB of the Metro Plan. He explained that reassuming the planning and building authority within that urban growth area would involve several actions. He said they would need to notify the cities and provide twelve months advanced written notification of the intent to terminate. He noted after the official notification to the cities has been sent, they would need to embark on a public information campaign, notifying the public of the pending service provider change. He said the costs would be between $10,000 and $12,000. He indicated that it would compel a series of Metro Plan policy amendments and would commit a .75 to 1 FTE and another cost of $92,000 to $123,000. He said they would need to obtain 15,000 property records the cities have and the costs associated of getting them back would be from $10,000 to $20,000, along with the training of the staff to learn the Springfield and Eugene codes. He estimated staff training would be 1 FTE and it requires another .2 FTE, existing staff person at another cost of about $120,000 to $130,000.
Howe said staff recommends making changes to Chapter 10 that are applicable to the small cities and incorporate the provisions of the Eugene and Springfield codes so they would have one new up-to-date Chapter 10 that would work in all urban growth boundary areas outside of the city limits. He indicated the costs would be from $50,000 to $184,000. He reported the annual work load of the planning and building department would increase from 400 to 600 permits. He added that would increase the customer base by 31,000 and it would be another 2,500 information requests per year. He indicated that they would have to hire additional staff, a building inspector, a Land Management technician and a planner. He reported the costs would be approximately $290,000. He stated the onetime first year cost for this termination agreement would be about $500,000 to $750,000 and the annual cost thereafter would be $300,000. He said they are all costs associated with providing information services because 90 percent development triggers annexation and the revenue of the permits would go to the city upon annexation and not to the County. He said implementing substantial changes to the Metro Plan would require that one or more joint management agreements would need to be put in place between the County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. He said they currently have one that is working.
Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.
Bob Getty, River Road area, said in 1964 and in1971 he and his wife purchased two lots adjacent to each other in the subdivision of Odell Estates. He indicated it has all services needed for a regular subdivision. He said they built a home on one of the lots and their intent when they purchased the second lot was to use it as a garden play yard for the family until their children moved away from home. He said they wanted to sell their home and partition the lot and maybe build a smaller home on the second lot or sell it so they would have options. He recalled at the time of the purchases there was no requirement for them to annex to the city of Eugene. He said two years ago the city told them they must annex to the city in order to partition the lot or obtain a building permit, but they cannot now annex, so they cannot issue a building permit or allow partition of the lot. He indicated the city gave the reason they couldn’t because of a state law passed in 2007 that no longer allows them to island annex. He stated they now have a lot they cannot build upon or partition. He added that it cannot be sold. He indicated that neither of their lots are contiguous to any other city property. He said prior to 2007 the city required annexation before a property owner could obtain permits to build or partition a lot and annexed properties through forced island annexation in the River Road area. He hoped the County would take back issuing permits so lot owners like them who live in the County can obtain permits to move ahead with their plans.
Carleen Reilly, Eugene, said three years ago she joined the River Road Community Organization Board. She said she was a member of Envision Eugene to consider the urban growth boundary and the need to accommodate 34,000 new residents. She hoped they can rebuild their commercial areas with vibrant businesses to provide the goods and services their neighborhood needs. She said they need transportation services including public transit to make roads safer and to reduce air pollution. She said they want to accommodate the new neighbors with appropriately priced housing. She stated they want the government agencies to be streamlined and to be cost effective. She wanted to reduce confusion about who does what and have representation where their decisions are being made. She added they want refinement plans with quality urban planning services so residents and builders will know the rules and reduce conflict.
Dave Van Sickle, Eugene, recalled that last month he challenged the Board about the state ORS that requires annexation upon a building permit . He stated that he hasn’t seen it yet. He said the Metro Plan is not a state law. He said the plan could be changed. He asked where the law is. He stated this issue has been bounced around for many years. He thought if the Board terminates the IGA, the cost to the County would be approximately $700,000 to reinstitute the permit program and $300,000 annually thereafter. He asked what it would cost to amend the IGA, removing the requirement of annexation upon issuance of a building permit with everything else staying the same.
DeWayne Colombe, Eugene, said he has lived in the area since 1970. He stated they need the strength of the community. He recalled that the city of Eugene was allocating money for the Parks District. He said they need to figure out who will take the blame.
Jerry Finigan, Eugene, said the issue of governance and the city of Eugene is under growth management Number 11, transfer of control of building and land use to the city. He thought they needed to provide a citizen recourse. He stated there is currently no recourse except for an expensive lawsuit. He said the city’s policy of urban services delivery is naive. He commented that it is the death by 1,000 cuts of their service districts. He stated they need to amend the Metro Plan to replace the words “should consider transition policies” to “be required”. He stated the idea of simply trying to find funding will not work, they have to have some kind of policy that provides for a transition of these issues.
Kate Kelly, River Road, commented that the River Road area is a patchwork quilt of County and city. She stated they need cohesion. When she became aware of voluntarily annexation, she was chagrined to find out that if people want to improve their properties, they were voluntarily annexed into the city of Eugene. She said that meant the city was bleeding their tax base away from the County. She stated she was frustrated to be bound by rules they had no say in creating and have no say in voting on. She wanted to maintain the wonderful quality they have in River Road. She added that they have to take care of the natural things that are already there instead of reinventing mother nature.
Kate Perle, Santa Clara, stated she is an unincorporated resident whose house is inside the urban growth boundary. She has lived there for the past 19 years. She commented that her perspective on how she looks at her community being Santa Clara and the city of Eugene is an important part of how she problem solves. She added a lot of it has to do with food security, farmland preservation and how that integrates with urbanization. She indicated that a large part of Santa Clara Community Organization is outside of the UGB, but inside the Metro Plan up to the river. She noted more people in the organization are represented by the County. She stated there needs to be an effort from County and city government to create a cohesive plan to preserve agricultural land around the periphery around the UGB. She added that whether the County or city does that, it is best to do it in cooperation in creating a sustainable community into the future. She thought moving the Metro Plan boundary back to coincide with the UGB makes sense. She wanted to work on the IGA’s and figure out a way they can work together. She fully supported the Board asserting themselves to represent the constituents inside the UGB. She didn’t think fully annexing into the city of Eugene serves anyone and they can’t do it alone.
Kelly Burke, Santa Clara, said she is on the Board and supports preserving prime farmland in Santa Clara when they consider expanding the urban growth boundary. She thinks they under estimate the lands and in the future they will be missing them if they see them as a place for more urban development. She was also concerned about waterways.
Peter Thurston, Santa Clara, recalled in 2007 the Board made a grant for the Spring Creek Neighbors dealing with plantings along Spring Creek. He said it originates in the middle of Santa Clara and flows to the Willamette River. He said the city of Eugene contributed to the process of restoring native plants and getting rid of evasive species along Spring Creek. He said they barely touched the beginning of a process that is a more native state and getting rid of evasive plants. He noted that 90 percent of the waterway is on private property and with public resources, they couldn’t address some areas. He thought they could address that the Long Tom Watershed is the legal area defined by the state and County code as covering the Santa Clara River Road area in terms of drainage. He asked the Board for help in the planning process that recognizes it is an urban area. He stated that it needs to retain the natural features that take of the environment.
Ed McMahon, Santa Clara, indicated the River Road Santa Clara Neighborhood Association is embarking on a plan that could bring solutions to a lot of the problems that were heard. He asked that they have a collaboration between the city of Eugene, the County and the neighborhood associations. He believed if they all sat down at the table with the right intent, that they could find the right solutions for the problems that have been presented. He recalled it had been hard in the past with the some of the bickering that had gone on between the County and the city. He stated he also represents the Home Builders Association. He thought it would be ridiculous for the County to try to take on the permitting activity with the increased cost in their economic situation. He stated that the majority of the industry is pleased with the permitting process the city of Eugene currently has. He always respected what the Eugene and Springfield Fire Departments have done. He asked if they could have a regional permitting activity that would give the individuals applying for the permit more clarity.
Dale Wynin, River Road Park and Recreation, said the goal of the River Road and Park Recreation District is to allow the park district to maintain and continue the quality of the Parks they have been doing. He asked if there was a way to sustain what they have been doing.
Lori Huntberger, stated she moved into the community six months ago. She said she pays city taxes yet it is the County all round them. She thought the city of Eugene should support the Parks District like they used to. She also stated there are issues with safety. She thought biking should be looked at in connecting their area with the main area.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing.
Stewart stated that he doesn’t think terminating the agreements gets them to solving the problems and the concerns they have heard from the citizens. He thought there could be a collaborative group put together including representatives from the city, county, the different neighborhood groups and the Park District. He said people know what they want but he wanted to see if they could create a plan that could respect and serve their needs. He thought that could be a way to move forward to solve problems.
Leiken said they have a Metro Plan because for all these years Eugene and Springfield had one contiguous urban growth boundary. He said most cities have comp plans, but they have the Metro Plan and one urban growth boundary. He said they realize it will be cost prohibitive to go down that way. He said HB3337 came before them and got a fix. He recalled the past couple of years there were Joint Elected Officials meetings and he thought they were moving in the right direction to address the issues. He recalled they looked at overarching policies that addressed regional issues. He thought having a joint meeting was a great idea. He said they will find the solutions from the group. He added that staff at Lane County is just as frustrated as many of the residents because of how the Metro Plan is defined. He agreed with Stewart that terminating the 190 Agreements does not make a lot of sense, especially with the budget constraints. He added all that it is going to do is saddle the County with more expense. He said there will be no revenue coming in, there will be money going out. He liked the idea of working together to collaborate to find solutions. He added they could put language in the Metro Plan to solve issues.
Bozievich agreed with Leiken and Stewart that it was premature to terminate the 190 Agreements at this time. He said they don’t have the resources to do the planning amendments or to manage the areas right now. He said the intent of the termination was to try to force the city’s hand and to come to some agreement. He doesn’t see the need to be heavy handed. He said they need to work cooperatively with the neighborhoods to address the issues. He said if they give a one year notice, the cities can accept the notice at any time during the one year period. He said they would then be responsible for the jurisdiction. He stated that they have to pay attention to protect the services that exist like the special districts. He commented that the park districts are gems. He thought maybe they could have a regional parks district. He thought this was the beginning of a conversation that will end 35 years of issues between the city, County, River Road and Santa Clara. He thought they can move forward from this point to resolve some issues. He hoped they could change some language in the 190 Agreements and the Metro Plan to protect people’s rights to use their property.
Sorenson was told that planning from the County would cost more than the planning from the city of Eugene. He was reluctant to terminate the agreements if they give the notice because it could occur right away. He said there wouldn’t be time to get the new plan up and running. He thinks when they see areas of government that are inefficient and there is duplication, they should look at avoiding that. He thought looking at a metropolitan wide service is the best way to go. He doesn’t think the Board is ready to terminate the agreements, unless they have a better alternative.
Handy said they are all in agreement that something needs to be done. He thinks it is the time for collaboration to take place. He said they have to include the water, parks and fire districts. He said it takes a willingness for everyone to participate at the table. He asked if the city of Eugene responded to a letter the County sent to them.
Richardson said the letter was written by Administrator Spartz. She said she will check on the letter or she will call John Ruiz at the city to see if there is a response.
Stewart reiterated there is no support to move forward with ending the urban transition agreements. He wanted Howe to put together a collaboration or work group to produce some results to help citizens with what they need. He asked Howe to come back to the Board with a proposal on how they move forward with a collaborative process.
12. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
a. DISCUSSION/Justice Courts.
Richardson recalled that this has come before the Board several times. She said in February 2010 Justice Sinclair announced she would be retiring and the Board asked at that time to evaluate what they want to do with the Justice Courts. She noted they have three Justice Courts and the money they bring in every year has been going down. She said the last time they were before the Board, County Administrator Spartz made a recommendation to combine Florence with Central Lane. She said there were issues and it was sent back for evaluation. She has reviewed the various options and finances to figure out how they can keep the courts running but not get to a point where the general fund is funding the courts. She originally recommended eliminating two of the courts and have Upper Willamette end up taking all of Lane County except for Eugene. She said it would have eliminated all services in Florence and Oakridge. She said there was a request by Judge Cable and by other people in the Florence area to consider keeping it open for civil and criminal work. She had conversations with Judge Cable and she now recommends Option 6. She explained that would be to combine Upper Willamette and Central Lane, have Judge Carl assume the responsibilities for that combined district, keep Florence operating, but the Sheriff’s Office would discontinue siting their cases into Florence. She added that Florence would remain open doing civil matters. She thought they could still save money by utilizing Judge Cable and Judge Carl. She said they would eliminate the lease in Oakridge and there would be cost savings. She said if the Board follows her recommendation, she will come back with a board order making changes for the Upper Willamette District, from Oakridge to Central Lane. She asked for direction today.
Judge Cindy Cable thought Option 6 was a workable one. She said it would also allow for coverage in case of vacations or illness.
Stewart was supportive of Option 6.
Handy asked where the savings are in the current fiscal year and savings going forward.
Richardson responded that in this fiscal year they won’t see much savings. She indicated that they will be modifying staff so there will be some cost savings. She added that they have seen the cost savings by not paying for Justice Sinclair. She said eliminating that position saves over $50,000. She added that starting July 1 they will have another $50,000 for savings in not having the lease in Oakridge. She believed by centralizing and streamlining the process, they will see an increase in their fines and fines collected.
Judge Cary Carl, Upper Willamette, said there have been considerations throughout this process. He asked as part of this package they are attempting to put together if they could factor in jail beds for the Central Lane Justice Court so he will have the ability to sanction people to incarceration. He said the city of Oakridge has hired their own prosecutor and they have jail beds. He stated that increases compliance. He didn’t know what happens at Central Lane Justice Court. He urged the Board to allow them to consider jail beds, even if they are rented from the city of Springfield because it will increase compliance in the long run and in the short run increase the revenue to the County.
Bozievich stated his support for Option 6. He thought it was a creative way of dealing with an issue and trying to keep the people in Florence from having to make a 140 mile trip. He thought it was important to keep Florence open. He asked Richardson to ask about the cost of reserving beds on an annual basis if they only need three beds for the Justice Courts to site into.
Richardson agreed jail beds were a good idea. She indicated that they have an agreement between the Lane County Jail and the Springfield Jail about how many people can be lodged. She will review that for an agreement. She said she will talk with the Springfield City Manager to see if they can trade pro tem time.
MOTION: to ask the County Administrator to prepare a board order for Option 6 for the Justice Courts.
Bozievich MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.
b. REPORT BACK/Potential Current Year Cost Savings Cuts.
Richardson recalled that last week direction came from the Board to come back with potential cost savings they could implement in the current fiscal year. She indicated there were five items she was asked to look into. She noted they are still putting all the information together and she can gave the information to the Board. She said they were asked to look at the adds for the FY 10/11 budget that occurred last year. She said they added an H&HS Prevention Specialist position; an intake supervision person for DYS; additional office support for Intergovernmental Relations Office and the Public Information Officer out of County Administration; $450,000 to Elections to purchase election equipment and $20,000 to HR for a survey they were going to do. She added there was a total of $200,000 allocated to Children and Families for the Family Relief Nursery and CASA; ICLEI dues; $372,000 to the Traffic Team in the Sheriff’s Department; HSC funding in the amount of $130,000; an Animal Services Behavior and Training Coordinator for LCAS and $1,000 to Big Daddy Greenhouse for Food for Lane County. She said if they could eliminate some of the positions, there is a savings of $500,000 to $600,000. She indicated that an option for CASA and Relief Nursery Contract is to indicate that they are not going to discontinue the contracts in this fiscal year, but it won’t be included in the base budget for next year. She said the savings would still be about $500,000 if the contract was to continue and to eliminate the rest of the cuts. She noted for the Behavior and Training Coordinator for H& HS, that the department would find other money. She said they would rather do something with another staff position than eliminate that one for the current year because it has been more beneficial. She said the numbers are good today and if they go longer, they lose some of the savings. She added if they cut these adds, it would affect the base next year.
With regard to vacancies, Richardson said last Wednesday they pulled a list of all the vacancies that existed at that time. She commented that doing a complete freeze would not be workable for the County. She noted with every position that becomes vacant, they try to decide how they can best fill it given the fiscal uncertainty they are having. She didn’t want to do an across the board freeze because many positions are not in the general fund and many are revenue generating positions. She indicated that when they look at vacancies, her continued recommendation is to look at the positions and what can be done.
With regard to looking at non-reps and compensation, she said they have 206 people who work for Lane County who are non-represented and of those 121 are supervisors and managers. She recalled in 2007 there was a class and comp study and it indicated that their managers at that point were under the median range for being compensated. She added that since 2007 the non-represented employees are the only ones who have not received a cost of living increase, while all of the represented employees have. She indicated that now they are between 15 percent and 20 percent below market for the coming year. She added that they also have Admin Pro and Prosecuting Attorneys who are in the same payment bands with non-represented employees. She said if they made changes to the County Counsel, there would be a payment inequity for the people who are in the same band, doing the same work. She said if they look at changing health insurance plans for that small group of employees, smaller pools result in higher costs and if they tried to implement health insurance plans, they would see no cost savings. She added that Wells Fargo recommended no changes in mid plan. She indicated that they have pay compression issues in several departments where the managers make less money than they people they are supervising and they cannot get people to promote up to supervisors because they quit getting overtime and they lose the money they would be getting. She commented that historically in Lane County non-represented employees have been the first to get pay cuts. She added that morale for supervisors (because of the compression issues and no COLA’s for the last for years) is very low. She indicated the non-represented employees are older as a group and discriminating against older employees introduces risk. She added there is legislation that lengthens the timeline for claims of discrimination. She recommended not doing anything with non-represented employees’ pay or benefits at this time.
Richardson was asked if the departments could increase their lapse by an additional three percent. She said the topic was eventually dropped and the cost savings they looked at back then wouldn’t be there again. She said some departments are able to implement the three percent lapse. She indicated that they would end up seeing about $640,000 in savings if they had the departments implement the cost savings that they had originally identified. She recommended having the departments implement those savings that would bring in a little over $1 million or $1.5 million this year in savings.
Richardson was requested to look at not just the Constituent Services Assistants, but assistants to department directors. She said the Constituent Service Assistants are specifically tasked to help the individual commissioners with constituent support and assistance. She said if those were eliminated at this time, there would be about a $75,000 for this current fiscal year. She added that there would be another $172,000 for the next fiscal year. She reported on other assistants throughout the County. She said someone has the do the work of all the support personnel because they are required processes. She added the portion they are doing in support of the department head or elected official is so small it would not change the FTE amount. She didn’t recommend eliminating those positions and she wanted to leave the Constituent Services Assistants up to the Board. She said they would see a $75,000 cost savings for this year.
Richardson recommended moving forward with the items they had identified for the lapse and to eliminate the monetary amounts remaining for the adds where they haven’t yet spent all the savings.
Stewart was supportive of the recommendations. He wanted to see these in writing as to what the savings would be and the impacts. He agreed to keep the current contract with CASA and the Relief Nursery if possible. He was supportive of the lapse. He doesn’t support the Constituent Services Assistants and would be agreeable to cutting those positions, but he wasn’t interested in cutting other positions.
Bozievich echoed Stewart comments. He wanted to review the facts instead of voting on a verbal report. He agreed to let the contracts finish this year and not build them into the budget for 11/12. He agreed with a chill versus a freeze with the vacancies and with leaving the non-reps alone with the exception of the Board. He thought they should review their compensation to share in the pain. He had asked whether they could pay their six percent pick up on PERS or a contribution toward their health insurance premium. He thought they should lead by example. He also approved of looking at the lapse. He commented that a savings of $1 million to $1.2 million will soften the $8.8 million next year. He agreed with Stewart to pull back on the Constituent Service Assistants and if they are going to add it, to do it as part of the next budget process. He thought instead of five part-time commissioner assistants, to have one or two FTE, where it would cost them less.
Leiken wanted to review this before he makes any decision. He thought it was a good start.
Richardson said she can tell the departments to continue to do what they have been doing with the lapse until they get complete direction from the Board. She thought they only changes they will see between now and in two weeks is where they have a person in the position, there will be less cost savings.
Sorenson wanted to know what the current estimate is from Christine Moody, Budget and Finance Manager, about what the general fund deficit will be. He thought they should wait until the formal budget process before they make any changes.
Richardson said the last time they did the forecast, they had a $8.8 million deficit. She said if they identify some cost savings this fiscal year, it adjusts the forecasts. She added when she does a proposed budget, she won’t be cutting as many budget items as she normally would.
Handy thought the Budget Committee could talk about adding things back. He was supportive of keeping things in the base budget and then if the Budget Committee wants to pull them, they would have the option. He was not supportive of an approach where indications to Richardson become a direction that she is taking with the base budget. He said if there are savings in the near term without jeopardizing those things coming forward in a base budget then he would be willing to look at it, otherwise he would not support that approach. He said when they are talking about sharing the pain, they should look at it across the organization, not just in County Administration. He wanted to see the numbers with all the positions and percentages so he can review them. He wanted AFSCME to be part of the conversation in a timely way so their ideas can be addressed.
Richardson stated she received the summary from AFSCME yesterday. She stated that AFSCME doesn’t believe the County has a deficit problem. She said they offered to leave AFSCME vacant positions open, which is what they do anyway. She indicated there were about 50 positions to be left open. She said they suggested health care, but there wasn’t a health care option mentioned. She mentioned that they wanted to look at the reserves again.
Stewart stated that Lane County doesn’t have a budget problem for 10/11. He thought AFSCME represented that fact correctly.
Richardson said what AFSCME missed is that they do leave vacant positions open, but some of that has already been counted in the lapse. She said it showed that AFSCME was willing to discuss the bigger ticket items like health care.
Stewart reiterated that there was interest in seeing detailed information on Item 1, with the adds. He heard three commissioners who were not interested in considering the contracts and cutting those into the next budget process. He also indicated they wanted more detailed information on Item 5.
Handy stated that he was hearing different things. He will not be supportive of cutting the baseline of the $130,000 to the Human Service Commission. He stated the biggest priority to the Board is to make sure they look out for children, families, Veterans and the ones who are the most vulnerable in the community. He said it is important to him and the constituents that it remain in the budget.
Bozievich indicated his objective is to maintain the contracts until the end of this fiscal year because the cost savings were minimal and to not include them in the base budget and to put it back as an add if that is what they decide their priorities are for spending. He said the reason they were doing this exercise is to reduce the base budget for next year and to pull some of the adds from the past 18 months that was new spending and take it out of the base budget. He wanted to put new money back in as a conscious decision to not have it automatically roll in. He said they need to discuss these contracts with the entire budget because it was added in as new spending.
Richardson said she will tell everyone to maintain status quo until they get direction from the Board. She added they might see a little less cost savings.
Handy wanted the Human Services Commission to be included in the County Administrator’s budget and not have it disappear with the option to show up later.
13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
14. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 3:55 p.m.