July 2, 1996
Commissioners' Conference Room - 3:00 p.m.

Chair Bobby Green, Sr. presided with Ellie Dumdi and Jerry Rust (arrived at 3:32 p.m.) present. Steve Cornacchia and Cindy Weeldreyer excused. Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary.

Members of the Roads Advisory Committee present: Sky Chamard, Brian Churchill, Ken Engelman, Laura Olson, Tom Poage and Leo Stapleton. Jim Branch absent.

Green identified that he and Dumdi were acting as a subcommittee of the Board until the arrival of Rust.


Those present introduced themselves.



3. DISCUSSION/Road Fund Financial Plan-Review Options Recommended by the Finance and Audit Committee.

Ollie Snowden, County Engineer, provided a brief history of the planning to date, noting that the last effort on the projections was done by the Finance and Audit Committee. He reviewed the agenda spreadsheets, highlighting the projections for Operations, Maintenance and Preservation and for Modernization and Capital Projects contained in each of the two options (see material on file). Snowden noted a major change on page one of each option related to when "OMP" (Line 8) takes the cut. He also observed that page two under each option has further reductions on Line 10 (modernization staff expense), Line 12 (modernization/projects), Lines 14 and 15 (road partnership money), and Line 18 (EDAP).

Snowden stated that the projections have two key assumptions: 1) no new revenue and 2) the CIP as adopted remains unchanged. He noted that the object was to keep Line 25 as a positive figure.

Responding to Churchill, Snowden explained that if the timber guarantee goes away, the revenues would be based on the actual harvest; noting that there is the option after the fifth year of getting the higher of either the actual harvest or the guarantee.

Chamard stressed that Lane County has a good transportation system and needs assurance of maintenance. He expressed concern that these projections degrade the maintenance part of the system. Chamard indicated that the spreadsheets should be balanced by reducing capital projects and keeping maintenance on track. Snowden observed that staff has agreed to return to the Board regarding a better definition of "OMP" prior to the next budget cycle.

Olsen agreed with Chamard, asking if there is any possibility of getting O&C dollars. Snowden remarked that that is unlikely given the state of the General Fund.

With regard to road partnership funds, Snowden explained that both options are the same. Responding to Church, Snowden explained that Line 14 (category 1) distributes dollars based on the percentage of miles of city streets within each city, plus a base level; and that Line 15 (category 2) has two components: one based on the County’s overlay budget and one based on the County’s maintenance budget. He continued that that money is distributed to cities based on regional road miles within each city. Snowden observed that the formula goes back to original urban transition agreements in the early 80's. Tom Stinchfield explained also that the formula actually works on the amount of regional roads that a city maintains within their boundaries.

Rust arrived at 3:32 pm.

Responding to Olsen’s questions regarding assisted housing, Green explained that the figures in the options are lower than they have been during the last five years. He stated that the figures included would require priority planning by the Housing Policy Board. Also responding to Olsen, Rust remarked that theoretically the funds are for use countywide, but that the funds, as a practical matter, have generally been used mostly in Eugene/Springfield. Green reported that a rural representation component is being added to the Housing Policy Board.

Responding to Green, Jeff Towery, Cottage Grove City Manager, offered appreciation for the advance warning of the decrease in funds. Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, speaking about the notice of termination in the agreements, asked city officials present if it would be preferable to work on an amendment whereby the County has the option to send a notice of "modification of the amount of the payments" instead of notification of termination. The general response was the possibility of a "reopener" as opposed to termination.

Snowden explained to those present the upcoming performance audit of Public Works’ operations and the potential partnerships with ODOT. There was a suggestion that joint meetings with the cities in the fall could possibly be an opportunity to review urban transition agreements.

Church supported recognition that this is a working document.

Responding to Schulz’s question regarding the committee’s preference for a particular option, Church explained, with regard to the assumption that the CIP goes forward as it is, that the committee has a draft tool if it becomes necessary to prioritize those projects. There was consensus among the committee members present to support Option 2.

Les Clark, Veneta City Manager, and Jeff Towery, Cottage Grove City Manager, indicated they would prepare a draft of potential intergovernmental agreement changes to present at the next Regional Managers’ Group meeting.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

 Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices