BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

REGULAR MEETING

December 12, 2001

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall, Main Floor

APPROVED 1/22/02

 

Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

None.

 

#2. PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 01-12-12-1/In the Matter of Adopting the FY 2001-02 Supplemental Budget #1, Making, Reducing, and Transferring Appropriations.

 

Dave Garnick, Senior Budget Analyst, brought forward (as required by state budget law) a supplemental budget adjustment to account for things that were unanticipated or unforeseen when the original budget was created.  He added they also have some reductions which required a public hearing.  He stated they published the advertisement in the Register Guard on September 6, and there was only one fund in which there is a change greater than 10 percent.  That is in the parks and open spaces fund, due to a $200,000 Title III project.  He noted most projects were related to Title III projects and funding for LCPOA.  He added on page 1 of Attachment A, for the Justice Court in the Central Lane Court, there had been an increase of cases.  He recommended appropriating some court fine revenue to give them an extra help position in the interim, until they could find a more permanent solution.

 

Commissioner Morrison opened up the Public Hearing.  There being no one signed up to speak, she closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-1.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0 (Green out of room).

 

#3. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Eric Gossler,1150 Weaver Road, Thurston, stated he has 150 acres on the McKenzie.  He said the river in their area is moving and the movement would affect all of lower Thurston and East Springfield.  He noted there were Corps of Engineer projects and he wanted to maintain and enhance them.  He wanted to bring this to the Board because it doesn’t just affect his property, but the community as a whole.

 

Green noted that this was a state and federal issue and the county has little responsibility.

 

Dwyer stated the County didn’t have capacity or the resources to fix it.  He wanted the Corps to find a solution that would keep the river on its course.  He was concerned that they are going to fix the dam at Walterville, raising the level of the river beyond the Goodpasture Bridge so they could get more power.  He said that had an impact on the thrust of the river.  He said EWEB and the state had to be part of the solution.

 

Rod Wade, EWEB, stated he was in support of the Prairie Road agenda item. He said by doing the project, it would enable EWEB to maintain an existing 12 inch water main that runs from Carol Avenue to Enid on the west side of the road.  He said if they did not have to relocate the water main, it would save about $125,000.  He supported the modification.

 

Bill Rinney, Thurston Road, stated he had a similar situation as Eric Gossler. He said the situation had reached an emergency level.  He said they met with the Corps of Engineers in Portland who had written a letter on the situation.  He said the letter describes in detail the history of the revetments and flooding in the Thurston area.  He noted that there are emergency funds available in Portland, but the Corps of Engineers needed local approval.

 

Lee Hart, 8944 Thurston Road, Springfield, stated he worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to get the revetments.  He said it was supposed to protect the area below from where it was built.  He furnished the right of way to the Corps of Engineers and they still have it.  He added the Corps agreed when they built the revetment that they would take care of it.

 

Del Matthews, 38127 McKenzie Highway, stated Steve Purchase of the Army Corps of Engineers in Portland was in charge of permits.  Mr. Purchase indicated they were ready to go.  He said there were federal funds for an emergency.

 

Roy Bates, 7346 Thurston, stated he was in the danger zone and would appreciate any help.

 

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

None.

 

5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. ORDER 01-12-12-2/In the Matter of Assigning Healthy Start Responsibility to Comply with 2001 Oregon Laws Chapter 276.

 

Jeff Towery, Budget Analyst, said that HB 2644 was passed during the last legislative session and it indicated that a local commission on Children and Families could not provide any direct services.  He said the important issue was to comply with the law.  He noted it didn’t reflect on the department staff or the program related to Healthy Start,  it was an issue of complying with the statute. He said only two counties would be directly affected by this statute, Lane and Umatilla County.

 

Towery explained that currently Children and Families receive about $3.7 million from the state and that is currently at risk.  He said the state’s position on the matter is that there couldn’t be a direct line of supervision from the local commission on children and families to any direct service.  Currently the department director holds supervisory authority over all department employees as well as staffing the commission.  That is what creates the direct line.

 

Towery stated he reviewed all the programs within the department and his analysis is that Healthy Start is the only program subject to the conditions of the statute. He noted they receive $1.9 million in revenue for the Healthy Start program and it employees 6 2/3 FTE.

 

Towery stated they identified and analyzed five options.  He said the first option was to transfer the Healthy Start program to the Health and Human Services Department.  He said that option would meet the statutory requirements and create the least risk of violation.  He added it also avoids the labor and processes identified in the staff report.  He said it is a short time frame and it might provide some enhanced coordination with Health and Human Services.  He said the cons to this option would be related to work load and costs in the potential split of a position.  He said there is an issue of transferring a program to another department and other department philosophies may become involved.

 

Towery noted the second option is to reassign the commission’s coordinator functions to another staff person.  He said currently, the department director acts as the coordinator for the commission.  Under this option, those job responsibilities would be transferred to another staff person in the department.  He noted it seemed to be a less disruptive option and the department would stay whole.  He said in county counsel’s option, this option didn’t meet the intent of the statute.  He added transferring job responsibilities would initiate two reclassification examinations by human resources.  He noted that during the course of the reclassification study, the department director’s position could be downgraded as a result of loss of job responsibilities.

 

Towery stated he met with the Commission on Children and Families on November 19 and they had focused on Options 1 and 2.  He added on November 28 they met and unanimously recommended that the Board consider Option 2, satisfying the legal requirements and causing the least disruption of service to the program recipients and staff.  He said the commission didn’t have the benefit of legal counsel’s advice.  He noted this was a short-term fix.  There was also a long-term issue related to the organization of the department and where it sits within the County.

 

Wilson explained the legislative change stating local commissions could not provide direct services that would be effective January 1. She stated the Commission on  Children and Families had proposed a rule that was to be adopted on December 7.  She added the administrative rule defines direct services and it includes the management, administrative or fiscal responsibility of programs that have direct contact.  She recommended direction to the department staff to seek a change in that administrative rule.  She said the lowest risk option would be to contract Healthy Start out of the organization.  She said the next least risk option is to put Healthy Start in a different department.

 

Green requested to keep this simple.

 

Van Vactor stated what the Board needed to do was assign this matter to Health and Human Services.

 

Sorenson asked Pat Rogers, Director, Children and Families, which option was recommended to  implement the legislature’s change.

 

Rogers responded that staff recommended (and the commission reviewed) Option 2 as a short term compliance with 2644, with a more in-depth look at the longer term, including the Healthy Start program.  She said Option 2 was an acceptable option  on a short-term basis.  She said she could support Option 1.

 

Sorenson asked if the state law change said Lane County couldn’t provide direct services, then why did the administration have to transfer from Department of Children and Families to the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

Rockstroh responded there was nothing wrong with Healthy Start, it was a natural part of public health and it makes sense.  He agreed on Option 1.  He said he had no intention of adding any administration charges. He said he has control but he recommended transferring the positions.  He said for the short term it would be transferring the programmatic service delivery, not monitoring the contract for this year.

 

Rogers concurred with Wilson that, given the local interpretation of direct services, one of the roles as a commission is that the money comes to them and they subcontract that money out to providers and other departments.  She said in doing that they have an obligation to oversee those dollars, and ensure those programs are following mandates.

 

MOTION: to accept the recommendation of the amended version of ORDER 01-12-12-2 where it states further order that the County Department of Children and Families staff is authorized to seek a change in the Administrative Rule, definition of direct services and to provide greater clarity of the legislative intent and accept Option 1 that would provide for the contracting of the program but not necessary the administrative and oversight function.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

b. ORDER 01-12-12-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the Transfer of Spending Authority to the Lane County Sheriff's Office of Lane County Reserve Funds to Provide Emergency Planning Functions to Enhance Lane County Emergency Operations Plan Specific to Terrorism, Bio-Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Amount of $53,269.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-3.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED

 

Sorenson asked if there was a way to have a mid-course correction for the remainder of the fiscal year so the reserves would be intact by the end of the fiscal year.

 

Van Vactor stated they could ask the departments to do an increase to 2 ½% for the lapse or monitor this through the fiscal year to see how they would be with expenditures.  If there are not sufficient funds at the end of the fiscal year, a supplemental budget could transfer funds at that time.  He stated the Sheriff’s Department could not absorb $53,269.

 

Sorenson said he would be in favor of approving the order, but he was looking to the future to let the Sheriff’s Office know the rarity and seriousness of dipping into the reserves.

 

Wilson noted as part of the supplemental budget, the board made the appropriation of moving the funds.

 

Dwyer stated this was legitimate and he had no problem dipping into the reserve because the program is important.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

c. Evaluation of County Administrator

 

Morrison stated in this past year, Van Vactor had taken on the implementation of the Strategic Plan.  She said he was continuing to show improvement, especially with outreach in the community.

 

Dwyer stated he found Van Vactor responsive and overall he did a fine job.

 

Sorenson agreed Van Vactor was doing a fine job as County Administrator.  He concurred with Morrison on the Strategic Plan.  He didn’t think that Van Vactor needed to attend all Board meetings as that would free up time for him.

 

Green stated Van Vactor’s experience and level of expertise is valuable at Board meetings. He noted there was a high level of respect for Van Vactor throughout the organization and in the community.  He gave Van Vactor high marks for organization and improvement around diversity.  He gave Van Vactor a nine rating and stated Van Vactor had improved from last year.

 

Weeldreyer stated she had a challenge this year because she was not in the building.  She waited until everybody weighed-in before she scored Van Vactor.  She echoed what had been said. She scored him high overall, but said he could communicate better with the commissioners.

 

d. ORDER 01-12-12-4/In the Matter of Renewing the Employment Contract With the County Administrator.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-4.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Van Vactor stated he worked hard this year with the Management Team.  He said he improved relationships because of additional staff in County Administration.  He said that staff worked very hard.  He praised Zoe Gilstrap for helping him.

 

6. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. ORDER 01-12-12-5/In the Matter of Awarding a Requirements Contract to EGR & Associates for Solid Waste Engineering and Technical Services and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract.

 

Ken Kohl, Waste Management, asked the Board to review their engineering services contract.  He explained they solicited proposals, issued an RFP and received three proposals.  He said the evaluation committee evaluated and scored them.  He said they selected two firms for interviewing and based on the interviews and review of the proposals, recommended the Board award the contract to EGR & Associates.

 

Sorenson asked why they recommended EGR when Teal Engineering had a higher score.

 

Kohl considered the scores as equal.  He said he was more comfortable with EGR’s expertise with the groundwater impact.

 

Sorenson asked why Kohl recommended EGR get the job.

 

Kohl responded that EGR’s team would provide better service with the feasibility study.

 

Sorenson stated that EGR testifies in front of the Board.  He asked what conflict of interest or other restrictions arose because they work for Lane County.

 

Wilson responded, none.

 

Dwyer stated they tried doing joint engineering at the AOC level but it wouldn’t work.  He stated this was the public’s money.  He wanted to make sure they would use guidance with the contract.

 

Kohl said his job is to make sure they don’t do things that are not reasonable or not required.

 

Van Vactor noted the size of the contract for Lane County government was very large.  He asked Kohl to develop ideas for a less expensive or non-traditional way of doing this.  Van Vactor would rather have it done in house.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-5, incorporating what Van Vactor had said about Ken Kohl developing alternatives as part of this motion.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Sorenson thought this was a bad idea and it should be sent to the advisory committee.  He was surprised they couldn’t find expertise elsewhere.  He said there had been a substantial change in the economic environment for this profession in that the construction and building industry has been going through a drop in their activity.  He believed they could get the services at a lower price.

 

Dwyer asked why they had to go for two years and $2 million.  He asked if they could do it for one year at $1 million.

 

Kohl responded it was not a blank check.  He said they have to submit a proposal.  He will evaluate it to make sure it is reasonable, and it goes to the County Administrator for his signature.  He explained the $2 million was what Waste Management thought they would spend during the life of the contract.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

b. ORDER 01-12-12-6/In the Matter of Amending the Project Design Concept for Improvement of Prairie Road, MP 1.59 to MP 2.03, Approved by Board Order 1-5-16-1, at the Request of the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), and Authorize the County Administrator to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement With EWEB.

 

Sonny Chickering, Public Works, brought back a design concept in this matter.  He noted in May, the Board had approved a design concept for the Prairie Road project.  He said they had received a request from EWEB for a modification to the design concept.  He said the request was considered by their staff and they have a proposal which would allow the roadway to be modified, thus preventing relocation of the entire 12 inch water main.  He said they hoped to avoid relocation costs for power poles.  He said they would be looking at significant savings for EWEB if the modified design were approved.

 

Chickering noted they had narrowed the travel lanes, center turn lane and sidewalks and most of the shift had been applied to one side of the road and the center line had moved 1½ feet.  He added in order to make the change in the field, they have to get a design exception from the Board on sidewalk width at a retaining wall that was just constructed.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-6.

 

Green MOVED, Weeldreyer MOVED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

c. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1167/Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from “Rural” to “Commercial”, Rezone that Land from “RR-5/Rural Residential” to “CR/ Rural Commercial”; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 00-6460; Fruichantie).

 

MOTION: to approve the First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance PA 1167 for January 9, 2002 in Harris Hall at 1:30 p.m.

 

Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

d. SEVENTH READING AND SETTING EIGHTH READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 5-00/Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt a Revised and Updated Version of the Eugene Land Use Regulations for Application to the Urbanizable Lands Within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

 

Celia Barry, reiterated that the City of Eugene adopted this on August 1, 2001, applying inside the city limits and the County must also adopt it for it to apply outside of the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary.  She noted this last came before the Board on May 30 and they wanted a resolution of Ballot Measure 7 issues.  She noted that since then, the City of Eugene had moved with minor amendments to address unintended consequences and typographical errors.  She said it also included amendments to provide for County road improvements when there is a large-scale commercial development when it is adjacent to County roads. She said the City had adopted all the amendments and the Lane County Planning Commission had participated in a joint public hearing with the Eugene Planning Commission in September and recommended approval of all the amendments.  She said the next step would be for the Board to have a public hearing.  They were asking to move the Seventh Reading and set an Eighth Reading and Public Hearing for January 16.

 

Morrison commented she had a problem with the way this was put together and was still concerned about Ballot Measure 7.

 

Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes noted there was no risk of Ballot Measure 7 with regard to the regulations until they adopt this.  He noted once they adopt it, they have delegated Ballot Measure 7 claims processing to the City for that area and have an amendment to the  agreement on urban transition that makes the City responsible for defending Ballot Measure 7 claims.  He added until the regulations are actually adopted, Measure 7 claims would not be made under those regulations.

 

Dwyer stated moving the reading closer to have a public hearing didn’t mean they would take action until they resolve the conflicts around Ballot Measure 7.

 

MOTION: to approve  a Seventh Reading and Setting an Eighth Reading and Public Hearing for January 16, 2002, at 1:30 p.m. for Ordinance 5-00.

 

Barry noted the City Council acted on two amendments that weren’t included in the packet.

 

Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

Green included the amendments A 1 and A 2 to his motion.

 

Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

e. ORDER 01-12-12-7/In the Matter of Denying a Request to Amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan as Proposed by Ordinance PA 1159 (File PA 98-5351; White)

 

Jerry Kendall, Land Management, explained this matter came before the Board in a Public Hearing last spring and this order attempts to reach closure on this issue.   He added the Board took tentative action unanimously to deny this action.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-7.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *

 

A. Approval of Minutes:

May 14, 2001, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.

October 3, 2001, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

November 6, 2001, Work Session, Following Public Hearing

 

B. County Administration

 

1) ORDER 01-12-12-8/In the Matter of Approving Findings Regarding Compliance with the Provisions of P.L. 106-393 Title III.

 

C. Public Works

 

1) ORDER 01-12-12-9/In the Matter of Vacating the Northerly Exterior Boundary Line, the Westerly Exterior Boundary Line, and a Portion of the South Exterior Boundary Line of Lot 1 Hodsdon-Powell Subdivision, as Platted and Recorded in File 72, Slide 131, Lane County, Oregon Plat Records, and Located in the Vicinity of Hodsdonsdale Road, Westerly of Gimpl Hill Road, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (18-04-08 & 09).

 

2) ORDER 01-12-12-10/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Tanya Lane (County Road No. 2119) (17-05-29-2).

 

3) ORDER 01-12-12-11/In the Matter of Approving a List of Projects for the Capital Project Partnership (CaPP) and Modifying the FY 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to Include These CaPP Projects (NBA & P.M. 11/6/01 & 11/28/01).

 

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * * 

 

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

8. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 

a. ORDER 01-12-12-12/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to Fill a Vacancy to the Health Advisory Committee.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-12, approving Dentist Keith McGillvary.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

9. COMMISSIONERS ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Sorenson stated last Thursday there was a Strategic Planning event at Wheeler Pavilion.  He said it was well organized.

 

Dwyer announced this was the last public meeting before the election of the new chair.  He thanked Morrison for all of her hard work.

 

Weeldreyer stated she attended the Oregon Telecommunications Counsel meeting.  She stated she participated in the Veteran’s Holiday Dinner.  She added she continues to facilitate the emergency situation in Thurston.  She noted Friday is the next meeting of the Economic Development Standing Committee.

 

Morrison reminded the Board that they were doing the time capsule at the State of the County and to make sure they had the items ready by December 27.  She announced the District 5 meeting had been set for December 27 in the BCC at 9:00 a.m.

 

Green stated he would be meeting with Governor Kitzhaber on December 21 for the Juvenile Crime and Prevention Committee.  He noted the Board inspected the jails of Florence and Junction City and both passed.  He sent well wishes to Chief Cahill of Junction City.

 

10. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

ORDER 01-12-12-16/Declaring an Emergency and Requesting Technical Assistance from the State of Oregon to Deal with the Potential Flooding Problem in the Thurston Community

 

Weeldreyer said she learned from Army Corp Emergency Management Director, Les Miller, that the Board had to declare an emergency so that this matter will go to the state.  She noted this happened in Pleasant Hill in 1996.  She said Ike Jenson reported a letter came from the Office of Emergency Management declaring the state would not accept this as an emergency situation.

 

Wilson discussed E-mail from Joseph Murray at the Office of Emergency Management.  He had concerns about whether this was within the County’s capacity to manage.  She noted a general policy on the request for the governor to declare an emergency is that local jurisdictions should handle the emergency first until it is beyond their capacity.  She added once it is beyond our capacity the Board would request a declaration of an emergency.  She said if the Board wanted the governor to declare an emergency, discussion had to take place on the record as what the capacity would be to manage the situation.  She said this was not an active flood, but a threatened flood and it still qualifies under a nature of an emergency under the statute.

 

Weeldreyer asked if taking this action today would activate an interagency technical team, including a professor from Oregon State in the civil engineering department

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-12-12-16.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Wilson stated that Lane County was not in the business of managing state water resources and doesn’t have legal authority.  She determined that Lane County didn’t have the authority or the resources to respond.

 

Sorenson suggested that language be in the order that Lane County didn’t have the resources.

 

Wilson stated they could add to the order that the commissioners had determined an emergency is occurring, and Lane County didn’t have the authority or resources to respond.

 

Ike Jenson, Lane County Emergency Management, stated the state would ask if Lane County had the financial ability to partner with the two property owners and other government agencies to hire contractors to do this study for technical assistance to determine the best ways to deal with this.

 

Van Vactor stated the Board had to declare an emergency.

 

Dwyer stated they didn’t want to study this, but wanted to declare an emergency so the state and federal government could step in and utilize the emergency resources.  He asked if they had the ability to fix this in an emergency.

 

Jenson responded in the definition of an emergency, this didn’t exist.

 

Van Vactor noted the Board  has a contingency fund of $25,000.

 

Dwyer stated this was a $2 million project and the answer is that Lane County doesn’t have the resources.

 

Green didn’t want the property owners to pay for this.  He said this had to be on the record that the County doesn’t have the wherewithal to do it and advance this to the state and eventually give it to the Corps of Engineers.

 

Sorenson suggested the City of Springfield help out as another solution.  They approved the encroachment into the Levi Landing area and the threat is to residents in that area.

 

Weeldreyer said the step of needing technical assistance to determinate what the river would do is something that exceeds Lane County’s resource. She noted Lane County couldn’t ask the Corps of Engineers, it was up to the state.  She said the purpose was  for her to get clear direction from the Board to continue the coordination level with the interagencies that have infrastructure.  She added that this is potentially in a floodway.  She wanted a community meeting in January with the experts giving testimony of what the river might do.

 

Morrison noted there was an amendment to the order.

 

Wilson stated she would write into the top of page 2, determining that they do not have the authority or local resources to respond to the situation.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 11:55 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary