minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

December 9, 1998


Harris Hall Main Floor - 9:00 a.m.


Commissioner Steve Cornacchia presided with Commissioners Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.








Marston Morgan stated he was in support of traffic calming. He said Commissioner Weeldreyer invited him to testify after he raised an issue about the traffic on Mosby Creek Rd. He stated he has had eight years of traffic calming experience in the Middle East. He said after discussing this with Weeldreyer, the County Traffic Engineer came down to Mosby Creek Rd. to do a traffic count in front of his house. He said it was the first time he ran into the Basic Rule. He submitted a four page report. (Copy in file.) He said in order to reduce speeds on Mosby Creek Rd., the Basic Rule is counter productive. He said 2/3 of the traffic on the road exceeds the speed limit. He added the most serious problem for him is the noise that is generated by the traffic. He said the noise shouldn't exceed 60 decibels and it is more than twice that on Mosby Creek Rd. He said traffic calming is the way around the more direct route of reducing the speed limit. He recommended speed bumps and covered bridges as means for traffic calming. He urged the Board to consider a traffic calming program with the provision that it should be done on a multi-disciplinary basis. He said a qualitative aspect is needed in developing the standards for making traffic calming work.


A gentleman named S.R. stated on the way into town, he passed several sections of the McKenzie Highway where the posted speed limited of 45 was lower than the speed limit on Goodpasture Road. (Which is a County maintained rural residential road running past his home and through a moderately inhabited residential area). He asked the Board to request from ODOT that they take a look at Goodpasture Road between the McKenzie Highway and Milepost 5, to see if it is appropriate to post a speed limit that is less than 55 miles per hour.




To take place at the 1:30 p.m. meeting.




a. UPDATE Facilities Capital Improvements Projects.


David Suchart, Management Services, reported the Juvenile Justice Center is moving along well. He said the windows are going in and they are starting to work on the interior walls. He added they are a little bit ahead of schedule, past the 50% mark in the construction and the planning that has gone into this with the engineers, planners and architects. He said the Adult Correction Center is now on schedule and under budget. He said with regard to the Public Service Building, the framing for the lift is in and the wheelchair lifts are ready to be put in place. He said they can't be put into place until the state elevator inspector inspects them on December 17, and the plan is on the night of December 18, to rearrange the building and on December 21, people will begin entering the courts through the front entry by Harris Hall. He said they have not been as successful with completion of the roofing on the building. He said they are still having problems in the garden area that is over a critical operation of the building, the RIS section (computers, servers, disk drives and equipment) and the balconies outside of the building. He added there are problems in the penthouse area where the vents are bringing water back. He said there have been several meetings with the contractor and architect to try and deal with the problems.


Van Vactor said there was major roof work done in 1997, with the final portion (the rock garden) to be completed in the summer of 1998, but the project was not worked on. He wanted to know why this was the case.


Mike Noack, Project Manger, Two G Construction, responded that at the time he was working on two other projects and was unavailable. He said he designated another person to start the project. He said work wasn't begun until August because he was working without a contract at the time, and the contract to work on the project wasn't signed until August 18. He added Umpqua Roofing would not order any of the materials until the contract was signed. He said they were onsite to do the work on September 28. He said they had done everything in good faith to complete the project and it was not started earlier because of those reasons.


Van Vactor asked if Noack was aware that the region's computer system was underneath the rock garden.


Noack replied he was aware of the fact.


Van Vactor asked Noack if he was aware that plastic needs to be put over the computer equipment in the event the rain gets through and could potentially ruin multi-millions of dollars worth of computer equipment and could jeopardize the information system the County has for the Public Safety System.


Noach stated he was aware of the fact, made an investigation of the area and removed some pavers in the plaza area. He said they discovered that whenever the landscape engineer had provided an irrigation system for that area, inadvertent cuts were made into the membrane, that have been uncovered. He said they have made steps to rewaterproof that area. He said the leaks may be related to the masonry wall on the northwest corner. He said they are hoping to find the leaks this week. He said what causes the leaks to reoccur include the possibility of gaps in the caulking, and if it is not related to that problem, it may be a problem with the concrete walls that goes straight up and have cracks in them. He said it is possible that water may be getting through the cracks below the membrane. He said he hopes caulking in the gaps corrected the problem.


Bill Seider, Architect, reported that there are roofing problems on a building this complex. He said the first step is to take care of the roof membrane, the flashing and roof drainage. He noted that over the administration building there was a windstorm that blew hard rain vertically and there are some flashing leaks coming in through the vertical wall. He stated there is a two year warranty on the roofing project so issues that do come up can be taken care of.


Cornacchia agreed with Van Vactor and his frustration over the roof. He said the Board has responsibilities to public. He added the roof project did not provide a moisture proof roof and is unacceptable.


Van Vactor stated he had pictures taken of the computer room. He said it was his understanding that the contractual specifications on the roof that was installed were to be at an angle so the water would run off. He said they have discovered the water is pooling. He asked why the roof wasn't built to the architect's specifications.


Noack replied it was a difficult question to answer. He said it was a gray area that was not noted correctly on the drawings. He said the plans called for a 1/8 inch slope that was supposed to be incorporated into a tapered system. He said the building had a negative slope and the 1/8 inch did not take care of the depressions in the existing concrete system.


Cornacchia asked Van Vactor if the County was going to get a roof project they expected for the amount of money that was spent.


Van Vactor responded not at the present time. He said it should be the expectation that there will be no more County dollars spent.


Suchart stated he will continue to work with the gentlemen until the roof problem is completed, although he said he couldn't guarantee when that would be. He thought that by presenting the roofers to the Board to respond to questions, they would see that the frustration was not just his, but also the Board's and the citizens of Lane County.


5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place in the afternoon.




Legislative Standing Committee:




Green stated he would support the recommendation that is in front of the Board. He said the federal priorities are armory construction, decoupling of federal forest land revenues and Congressman DeFazio's Juvenile Act. He said the state priorities are the AOC priorities, maintaining existing programs and revenues and continuing to seek state funding and support for juvenile justice as well as economic development. He stated these were the priorities for the 1999 legislative session.


Van Vactor added there may be an additional legislative priority with regard to the changing statute for PERS.


Sorenson stated he agreed with Van Vactor about potential impact of the PERS issue. He said he has attended advisory committee meetings and this topic has come up in every meeting he has attended. He it is important to focus on these priorities to get the message to the legislators.


Green stated it was good advice from Sorenson to have a focus and also have built in emerging issues. He said they do plan on raising this with the delegation on Monday, and he will get a copy of House Bill 3349 to see exactly how the legislators voted on it. He said with regard to PERS, the County planned for the increase but was not prepared for the tremendous amount.


MOTION: to approve the recommendation to the Legislative Committee.


Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Finance and Audit Standing Committee:


b. ORDER 98-12-9-1 Approving an Employment Contract with the County Administrator.


c. ORDER 98-12-9-2 Approving an Employment Contract with County Counsel.


Green reported that the Finance and Audit Committee (by a direct request from the Board of Commissioners on October 14), was given the assignment to review the contract of the County Administrator and County Counsel. He said they sought the advice of outside legal counsel based upon Lane County's legal counsel's recommendation. He said the committee was advised of the risk and pros and cons of entering into an employment contract. He said what is in front of the Board is the best recommendation as a committee for the contracts of County Administrator and County Counsel. He added the contracts contain for "just cause," not "at will" like other employees. He added these two positions are critical to the organization in the Board's direct relationship with staff. He said the positions require complete understanding, mutual trust and provide much security. He said the recommendation from the Finance and Audit Committee is to approve the proposal as it stands for both County Counsel and County Administrator.


Weeldreyer stated to date the County had not had a contract with legal counsel. She said having a multi-year contract with the County Administrator is a way of honoring a high quality, high caliber professional for the day to day running of the organization. She added the outside counsel made suggestions that are reflected in the cover memo.


Cornacchia stated the basic concept is that this contract allows for the Board to be arbitrary, and in the event that action is taken, the County Administrator would receive a severance package so he is not left in a less companionate employment environment. He said the Board has two choices, they can operate under the "just cause" component of the contract or they can be arbitrary and if there is a termination, the administrator would be left without a negative financial impact. He added there is an inconsistency in the contract about "just cause."


Van Vactor stated if the administrator does not perform the duties, that the position can be terminated for just cause. He said if the administrator is told about opportunities for improvement, and improvement is not made, then the position should be terminated for just cause.


Cornacchia said "just cause" is appropriate and unsatisfactory performance with no severance package is something he is uncomfortable with. He added if something is done to injure the people of the County, the job should be lost immediately with no severance package. He said if it is a difference of opinion or becomes subjective, there needs to be some protection for the employee. He said he wants to see the paragraphs separate with "just cause" as is, but some severance package for unsatisfactory performance.


Van Vactor stated he preferred a notice of deficiencies and then an opportunity to cure. He added if performance hasn't come up, then termination should take place without severance.


Weeldreyer stated as per outside counsel, all appointed department heads serve "at will" and it is unusual for an organization (like Lane County) to have a position that is so critical to the function of the Board to not have that person serve at will.


Cornacchia stated "just cause" will remain in the contract, but as it is defined by "Wrongful act involving morale turpitude or commission of an illegal act." He added there would be a second paragraph that would talk about performance and it would be an opportunity to cure. He said a third paragraph would be total arbitrary. He added he sees contractual and decency issues that make sense need to be cleaned up so all three scenarios give the board all the flexibility it needs to operate as a jurisdiction, limiting the Board in its treatment of an individual.


Green moved approval of the ORDERS 98-12-9-1 and 98-12-9-2 with the recommended amendments; "just cause" remain as it is defined, a new paragraph on the performance issue with the opportunity to cure or correct, and provide the Board with the total arbitrary decision making and dismissal with compensation, with a time to be determined by the Board at that time.


Weeldreyer SECONDED.


Sorenson stated he had asked a number of questions, and they were not answered so he will be voting no.


Green stated he had provided information regarding salary to Sorenson. He added they were also recommending the cost of living adjustment along with other items that were listed in the packet. He said the only blank that was listed was the specific salary dollar amount. He said for Van Vactor that amount is $103,272 for County Administrator (including a 2% cost of living increase) and for County Counsel, $88,004 (including a 2% cost of living increase).


Sorenson wanted to get comparative information about County Counsel and County Administrator pay. He said the assumption in the contract is for them to receive a cost of living adjustment comparable to other county employees in Lane County. He wanted to know what comparable county administrators and county counsels are paid.


Green responded the Finance and Audit Committee reviewed the information and were provided with the data. He said a comparison of salaries was done throughout the state and in Colorado. He said the information was provided and Van Vactor is no where near the highest paid nor near the bottom, but in the middle. He said the Finance and Audit Committee could get him specific information and it is not hidden. He said the Finance and Audit Committee received the assignment on October 14, met three weeks later and there was ample opportunity to bring concerns to the committee.
Sorenson wanted to know what the Board was voting on regarding the just cause provision.


Cornacchia replied that just cause was the two actions. He said paragraph one will be just cause and paragraph two will be a performance paragraph that will provide an opportunity to cure, paragraph 3 will be about arbitrary termination with the severance package that is there.


Van Vactor stated if the language was unacceptable with Sorenson, he had no problem bringing it back for the next meeting.


Cornacchia asked Suchart to bring the order back with the same materials but new paragraph language.


Green stated he was withdrawing his motion since it will be pulled to next week. He acknowledged that the Finance and Audit Committee had met their charge in terms of direction. He added there is always the possibility that new questions will come up and that is why the committee meets to sort out the issues in advance. He said he hopes the direction comes back to the present Board before the end of the year.


d. ORDER 98-12-9-3 Amending Chapter 3 of the Lane Manual to Revise Provisions Regarding the Position of County Counsel. (Pulled.)




a. Announcements


Will take place in the afternoon session.


b. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 98-12-9-4 Supporting the Organization and Implementation of the Flexible Lane Regional Partnership.


Jim Zelenka, Lane Council of Governments, stated he received questions and will respond to them. He said he received a question dealing with identifying Lane Economic Committee as the appropriate administrative structure for the new partnership and if the committee is able to set priorities and administer funds for the rural distressed communities. He responded that the proposal to be considered today is to support the recognition of the flexible Lane Regional Partnership by the state and to initiate efforts to take the transition efforts toward forming a partnership. He said it is not the partnership itself, it is the transition efforts to form a partnership. He added in the Agenda Memorandum, it does not state that the Lane Economic Committee is to be the appropriate administrative structure, there is reference to the Lane Economic Committee in the context of the recommendation about using Lane Council of Governments to be the initial core base to form the partnership discussion.


Cornacchia questioned if he was under a time frame with the state even though they were not prepared to carry it out.


Zelenka stated the concept is being implemented to date.


Cornacchia stated that as the money is available, decisions have to be made and money has to be passed through and monitored, and nothing is set up yet.


Zelenka said that is what this effort is aimed at doing. He said it is necessary to be prepared and take the steps to be proactive so Lane County communities can take advantage of the regional investment monies that will be forthcoming and to begin the process of working with the State Community Solutions Team effort. He said one of the outcomes of the program will be monies to spend.


Cornacchia wanted to know who will run the committee, do the job the Board is supposed to do to effect state policy and when will the decision be made.


Zelenka said the proposal is to initiate a process to bring together the Lane co-partners (that began meeting in April) to come up with an acceptable system that will become a presentation to the Board.


Dumdi reported the legislature will be dealing with this after January 1999. She said they are responding to the directives handed to the Board from the governor's office and Community Solutions Team and from the State Economic Development Commission to find a new and better way to do regional strategies. She added regional strategies are being restructured and the legislature will have the final word. She said the Board is presenting its proposal for Lane County's configuration of regional strategies. She thought it was going to continue with a four county region (that had worked well the past five years) but there were other people that decided it was not in their best interest and now Lane County is proposing a different direction. She added they are looking for approval in that direction and that will be submitted to the state and the legislature will make the final decision.


Weeldreyer said that before the Board today is the follow-up to a meeting that members of the County had when they were at the State Economic Development Conference in Medford in October. She said the traditional four counties (Linn, Lincoln, Lane, and Benton) noted that Lane County has historically been a single County region. She added the governor's office wants to establish partnerships, get articles agreed upon and move ahead as the new framework for how the reorganized Economic and Community Development Department is going to be able to disseminate money. She said money has been given to Linn, Benton and Lincoln counties to explore their partnership and Lane County would like the same resources, to be able to explore the existing partnerships with other counties and demonstrate the legitimacy in requesting single county status for a regional partnership. She added many partners in Lane County sit on the Lane Council of Government Board. She said they met with the Board and told them they would come back after a state ruling as to whether or not Lane County could be a single county region. She said the resources need to be obtained and a meeting set up with the co-partners and Lane County. She said they can put together a formal proposal that can be given to the Community Solutions Team for how they will move forward in managing the resources that will come as a new Regional Strategies Program.


Tanya Heaton, Budget Analyst, stated her main concern is the Order reads: "Lane County supports the proposal of the Lane County Partners to organize and implement the flexible Lane Regional Partnership as developed by the Lane County Co-Partners during the April 16 and June 9 meeting." She said the agenda says: "The June 9 meeting reviewed and supported the proposal which included using LCOG as the existing regional organization representing us and that the Lane Economic Committee with its significant private sector representation from which to create the appropriate administrative structure." She said the Order says that the Board is agreeing with the June 9 meeting, of which there are no minutes, no list of who attended and no hard copy of the proposal. She added the Order is written so it covers several things, not only a single county region, but supporting the proposal that no one has a copy of.


Dumdi stated the purpose is to get the single county region and related County partnerships with neighboring counties approved by the Board and then move forward. She said that was the indication from Bill Scott, director of OEDD that the proposal needs to be made because the state legislature has indicated they don't want to see single county regions, but Lane County is in an unique situation and they are willing to consider that.


Zelenka stated he was talking about a process where all the partners can agree on what the appropriate administrative structure should be.


Cornacchia suggested that Zelenka take the resolution, sit with staff and prepare a Resolution and Order that makes sense to a layman. He said his concern is if Lane County is going to represent themselves as being unique geographically and socioeconomically because of state acknowledged signification and professionalism in how things are being done. He said his understanding is that these questions will be answered in the exercise that is being proposed. He recommended that Zelenka change the order so it is more reflective of the needs of the Board. He said the Board is still willing to move forward as a single region.


Mike Burton, Regional Development Officer for the Oregon Economic Development Department, stated they are not looking for a formal action at this point. He said there is an initiation on the table to regions. He said Lane County needs to decide whether they want to be a region. He said if resources are needed to help with organization, there are resources available. He said it is not a formal discussion at this point. He said they are willing to work through a process and are willing to help pay for it. He added a formal order is not necessary and if Lane County and the other jurisdictions are interested in pursuing this, a letter to that effect would be sufficient. He added Lane County is unique, large in area and population and can justify being a region.


Cornacchia stated if it is important for Lane County to be a single County, there should be a complete argument prepared for that, talking about why and how to be successful in accomplishing that. He recommended that Dumdi and Weeldreyer draft such a letter to Mike Burton stating that Lane County wants to be a region, here are the reasons why and Lane County needs help in setting up the structure. He said the file note needs to be kept because in the expenditures of the state funds, (if they are forthcoming), the questions need to be answered. He asked Zelenka to meet with Weeldreyer and Dumdi some time this week to move it forward.




a. ORDER 98-12-9-5 Awarding Tourism Special Project Grants for 1999 and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Agreements.


Will take place in afternoon session.


b. DISCUSSION AND ACTION Considering Adopting Procedures for the Establishment of a Traffic Calming Program for County Roads.


Ed Chastain, Public Works, reported that traffic calming is a combination of physical measures to reduce the negative impact of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve the conditions for non-motorized traffic. He said he has outlined three different types of traffic calming programs and has given five alternatives based on the three programs presented. He said the first program deals with citizen radar groups in a cooperative effort with the Sheriff's Office. He said radar equipment would be lent to neighborhood groups who would collect speed information, the information would be given to the sheriff's Office and a letter would be sent to the offending driver. He added a warning letter would explain there was a certain posted speed and they were observed going above the posted speed limit and what the value of the citation would have been. He said there are two benefits to this, the offending party is put on notice and it gives the people with the radar the opportunity know what the speed of the vehicle is.


Chastain said the second program would be based on the use of radar reader boards. He said for the program they would obtain several trailer mounted radar units that have a display. He added the units can be used to do studies. (There is a computer in it that collects information so before and after studies can be conducted to measure the effectiveness of the units.) He said the educational benefit to the motorist is that their speed is displayed to them with the posted speed.


Chastain stated the third program is based on a Clackamas County Program and it is primarily involving more capital solutions to the traffic calming program. He said he sees the use of the CIP process, projects would be identified, investigations would be done, data would be collected, there would be a number of public hearings and they would come up with an alternative that would be implemented on a trial basis. He added if it was successful, the structures would be built that would be needed to implement that. He mentioned another option, not going into the traffic calming arena. He said his personal choice is alternative 3, which combines that alternative with the acquisition of some radar reader boards. He said with photoradar, an officer needs to be in the van and when the photograph is taken, the citation is supposed to be issued to the driver of the vehicle. He added when going through the photographs, the driver may be a female and the car is registered to a male, they automatically throw those out. He said there is some problem with the system but Portland is using it.


Sorenson reported only two cities are allowed to use it, not counties. He added it is having a positive impact on the traffic safety, compliance in paying fines and the speed goes down in the area.


Dumdi stated she liked the proposal that Mr. Morgan brought to the Board in the morning. She added she has questioned the use of the Basic Rule when they are out on the rural roads because they are not long straight highways. She said whatever can be done to get the traffic calmed down she would support.


Green stated he would favor the citizen radar group along with the speed display. He said it is effective for those who want to obey the law. He said he is looking for the ownership of the residents as they are going to the Board for help. He said to try to get the citizens to go out with a radar gun in conjunction with the speed display sign.


Weeldreyer said in the staff recommendation there is not a mention of involving the CIP process. She wondered why alternative 1 was recommended without the trailer mounted radar.


Chastain replied it was Ollie Snowden's recommendation, because he thought getting the people who were concerned about speeding involved in the solution process would be beneficial and having the people who are speeding get a notice in the mail.


Snowden stated he was concerned the Board would just go for the reader boards and didn't think they would have a lasting effect, but combining the two would be fine with him.


Cornacchia cautioned it depended on what the Board wants to do either as a comprehensive approach or an interim approach. He said if the Board is serious about this, to start talking about design features like speed bumps and if they are giving direction today, it needs to be placed in context of the result. He said if it is just an interim, the recommendations made by staff are appropriate and if that is not what is expected, it needs to be taken into a budgetary exercise, general fund and CIP and put it in perspective and priority.


Snowden stated most traffic calming exercises focus on urban situations. He said the information in the report shows chicanes and the speed bumps. He said they are urban applications that deal with volume and speed. He said the complaints they have heard have been in rural situations and that is harder to deal with.


John Goodson, Public Works, added that if there is interest on the Board with photoradar, it would require a change in legislation.


Dumdi moved that the Board implement alternative C 3 and propose that in future design concepts they look at traffic calming within those designs and to refer the photoradar issue to the state legislature.


Weeldreyer SECONDED.


Cornacchia questioned the amount of budgetary authority that would be put into the motion. He said there should be no motions today, but to come back to the Board with a comprehensive program of what will be done in a budgetary exercise. He suggested that the Board by consensus say they are supportive of Option 3, staff come back to the Board with a budgetary proposal to effect the recommendation 3.


Green stated he was going for something low cost with a lot of citizen involvement and not make it a very large expenditure.


Chastain stated in speaking with Sgt. Benoit when he was in charge of the traffic team, he would be able to obtain the radar guns for free and volunteers would be used to do the administrative letter writing.


Cornacchia questioned Chastain if the Board went with Option 3, if it would be at no cost.


Chastain stated the trailers involve money, they could be rented and the purchase price is $10,000 a piece. He said four would be the minimum to obtain. He added within four weeks he would be able to come back to the Board with a recommendation at the first meeting in February.


Sorenson stated frustration in delaying this as the guns are available and there are groups of people that want to use them. He said to try to get something now instead of waiting.


Weeldreyer was in agreement to having this come back to the Board in February because the direction last week was they were also going to put into it requesting authority to post lower speed zones on lower volume roads and keep them in tandem as a package. She said she wants to see this project move forward, but also get signs posted so there is something out there that citizens can point to as a way of educating their neighbors about the way speed is being taken care of in Lane County.


Cornacchia requested that the motions and second be dropped and a new motion be created. He said the motion only said to do Option 3.


Weeldreyer moved that the Board direct Public Works and Public Safety staff to begin planning for implementation of a traffic calming program utilizing citizen radar groups and trailer mounted radar speed reader boards with budgetary information and that they further direct Public Works staff to work with legal counsel to get the authority that is needed to post speed zones on low volume or non-hard surface county roads and to come back to the Board in February with a status report on that direction.




Chastain stated in dealing with the speed zones and low volume roads, something can be implemented faster if the Board chooses. He said there are three areas from the Board that they need direction and they could move forward with that. He said the first is if the way the Lane Manual proposal reads now it delegates authority to the director of Public Works or his designee, if the Board is comfortable with the delegation, that is the first issue. He said the second issue is whether or not the Board wants to establish an appeal process and the third is whether or not they want to charge a fee for the service. He said with these issues, the Board wouldn't have to wait until February.


Cornacchia said he is ready to move to a vote and would not be supporting the motion because he doesn't think this is a way to do things. He said if it is so important, it is important to do it right. He said he was not willing as chair to go through the three issues that was brought up by Chastain at the level they need to be dealt into.


Weeldreyer clarified that her intent was to not require them to wait until February to come back. She said her motion allows for them to come back soon with the three items for Board direction.


Dumdi stated that because this deals with broad areas of the County, it might not be bad for the Roads Advisory Committee to look at that this for part of the process.


Green questioned what the budget expenditure would be for the motion.


Chastain replied it is a function of how many trailers need to be acquired as they are $10,000 a piece.


Snowden stated they can proceed with the sheriff on the neighborhood traffic watch. He said they will put some type of budget estimate together for trailers and a time line for that. He added for speed zoning, nothing will happen between now and the time the Board meets again because they have done what they can without further policy direction from the Board on the three issues that Chastain put together.


Weeldreyer stated if it needed to be in the motion that the item on speed zoning comes back to the Board before February, she would be willing to amend the motion to make sure that happens. She said the planning process was broad enough that there are many steps involved and in February there would be a comprehensive report back to the Board on the status of the planning efforts towards implementation.


VOTE: 2-3 (Dumdi, Cornacchia, Green dissenting).


Green suggested Public Works return in February with a comprehensive approach to resolving this issue.


Cornacchia stated the Commissioners would like to have authority right away and put radar guns in people's hands. He added the Commissioners want trailer mounted radar units. He asked Public Works to come back with an effective program that would meet the needs expressed and how much it will cost. He also said to line up the three authority issues and have them read with choices in February.


There was consensus by the Board on Cornacchia's request.


Commissioner Cornacchia recessed the meeting to return at 11:15 a.m.


c. ORDER 98-12-9-6/In the Matter of Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield Regarding the Transfer of Jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield.


Mike Copley, reported there was a new version with a minor change when it was signed by the City of Eugene on Monday night. He distributed copies. (Copy in file.) He said the change was made to Attachment A, having to do with when interest began to accrue in the financial transaction between Springfield and Eugene. He said it was made to be the effective date of agreement, rather than the prior statement which was the effective date of the transfer. He recommended approval.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 98-12-9-6.


Weeldreyer MOVED, Dumdi SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Commissioner Cornacchia recessed the meeting to return at 1:30 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary


go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices