February 21, 2001

following HACSA

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 6/13/01


Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, 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.












a.  ORDER 01-2-21-1/In the Matter of Recognizing the 40th Anniversary of the Lane Memorial Blood Bank.


Morrison read the resolution into the record.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-2-21-1.




VOTE: 5-0.


4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To be held after the meeting.




a.  REPORT AND DISCUSSION/Public Health Service Options. (To include school based clinic options).


Rob Rockstroh distributed Public Health Service Options. (Copy in file.)


Dwyer noted the handouts were incorrect.  He said he was instrumental in establishing a clinic in Springfield in 1988 and there was no mention of when it closed.


Rockstroh agreed about the omission and added that Springfield had been medically underserved in the past.


Rockstroh explained that the role of Public Health had been limited in the last few years due to cuts.  He said they work with communicable disease, teen pregnancy, WIC programming, family planning, tobacco prevention, breast and cervical cancer screening and environmental health. He said there is not a lot of money from the general fund, so when costs increase, staff is cut.


Green asked where the school-based clinics were in the co-chair’s budget.  He noted that $2.5 million was being eliminated from the governor’s budget and asked what that would mean for the school-based clinics.


Maxine Proskurowski, Supervisor, School Health Center, reported they receive funding for two health centers: North Eugene and South Eugene High Schools.  She noted they receive $53,940 for each center, which is 10 per cent of the overall budget for school-based health centers.  She stated that Governor Kitzhaber had eliminated that money from his budget and the Ways and Means co-chairs have given support for an add back.  She said at the end of the legislative session if there is money to be added back to the budget, it would be a high priority.  She explained the cuts would mean that they would have to close each of the health centers one and one-half days a week, or 2,000 less visits per year. She said they have a mission for the uninsured youth in the Eugene area to provide care for adolescents making independent behavior decisions in sexuality, relationships and substance use.


Dwyer stated the clinics play a vital role, providing a tremendous service to the kids who go to the school nurse.  He wanted the clinics to expand to a broader population.


Sorenson asked what could be done to keep the program.


Proskurowski responded she would appreciate the Board’s support in Salem. She reported on a conversation with Green and Dwyer, and believes in partnerships, being creative, and looking at different options.


Green noted the County’s role had been limited.  He added the County had been able to provide summer funding but the need was year-round because of loss of revenue from the state.  He asked what dollar amount was needed.


Proskurowski stated she put in a proposal with the Human Services Commission in December for $42,000.  She said the biggest hurdle facing the clinic is financial sustainability.


Dwyer said there was danger in expansion and he didn’t want to expand the services.  He said they have to determine how they are going to provide health care to a greater group of people who are medically underserved.  He said they have to set up a task force examining what it is possible with the greatest level of care with prevention in keeping people out of hospitals.


Morrison reminded Sorenson of the priorities in the legislature, including the local public health facilities.  She said the Board needed to stay focused on what they were doing.  She asked if it would be better to address the building facilities and their providers without being in competition.  Morrison noted there was consensus to have a task force.


Weeldreyer supported creating a task force that would bring specific recommendations to the Board.  She suggested that Dwyer be the liaison, coming back with recommendations.


Green noted there was a model but he wanted to focus on a school-based clinic that was already in place.  He had no objection to expanding services to needed families. 


Sorenson concurred with Dwyer’s suggestion of a task force.


Rockstroh was hesitant about a task force without finding out more about the federally qualified health center and how the money works.


Morrison wanted Rockstroh to research the information and communicate with Dwyer on a need to bring it to the Board


b.  UPDATE/OSU Extension Service.


Bo Freeman, OSU Extension Service, provided an update. He noted the Forestry Program was new across the state and they are one of the leaders on watershed and stewardship education. He said people will be trained and then will give back to the community.  He noted they were also looking into a new position for Lane County on forestry products.  He explained the governor’s budget did not look favorably on the OSU Extension Service so they didn’t know what the outcome will be. He noted the nutrition education program is getting more federal dollars and they  were opening the program on the coast.  He indicated there are livestock issues with the fairgrounds and hopefully they would get resolution on the 4H program.


Freeman said they had done a needs assessment, but they would be going to different locations in the communities.  He said they want local input from each city in the County.


Freeman noted they had presented a grant proposal to OSU for a new building and it was turned down.  He said they are looking at ways to revamp the building.




Policy and Procedures Standing Committee


a.  REPORT BACK AND ORDER 01-2-21-2/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 4 of Lane Manual to Establish a Video Lottery Allocation Policy, a Definition of Economic Development, and Criteria for Distribution of Video Lottery Revenue and Setting an Effective Date (LM 4.100).


Morrison  reported that during the past two budget cycles there had been discussion about video lottery disbursement.  She added that the Future Focus Task Force, (examining funding streams and financing) raised a question about video lottery funding and state definitions and how funding was disbursed within the County.  She noted that three questions were raised:  Was Lane County providing the correct mix of services at the present time?  Were there other services that Lane County should provide?  How should the County pay for them?  She said a group examined video lottery allocations and determined how ORS 461.547 defined how the dollars could be spent.


Tanya Heaton, Budget Analyst, explained the group first defined economic development, because in the review with County Counsel, it became apparent that video lottery dollars distributed by the state are distributed to the counties for economic development and those monies had different restrictions than lottery monies the state distributes itself.


Dwyer didn’t want anything to impact continuation.  He said there are departments counting on this money.  He asked if this had been sent out to the Management Team.


Heaton responded no, because it will be phased in over one year. 


Dwyer suggested putting a portion of the money toward rural economic development so when they bring back the RCIC, there would be funding.


Morrison noted in the past two budget cycles, there had been questions on how this money had been spent.  She said a citizen budget representative on the committee  had concerns about Lane County’s liability if it is challenged on how the dollars were spent, and if funding did fit into the criteria of economic development and/or education.  She added the committee completed the charge and the Board had the right to accept the recommendation.


Sorenson asked about the reason for this policy.


Van Vactor responded that the committee worked with County Counsel and there is a specific statutory scheme regulating the  flow of money.


Heaton noted this task force was established to determine guidelines.  She added that when requests came to the budget committee they had no guidelines, and through advice from County Counsel, the committee believed that some of uses were not economic development.


Dwyer said he had no problems with the definitions, but had problems with “shall” and not having everyone who might be impacted commenting.  He wanted to send this to department heads for comment.  He said there would be money for needs that might go unmet.


Sorenson asked if the portion of the money that is allocated to counties was subject to the constitutional restriction that it be used for the precise purposes as stated in the lottery constitutional amendment .


Heaton responded the money that comes to Lane County is different, it is a portion of the lottery pool and it is only video lottery money, 2.5% of the state’s money.  She continued that percentage is distributed to the County for economic development.  She noted the video lottery portion stated it is to be distributed to the counties (2.5%) for economic development.


Sorenson asked what would go away if this policy was developed.


Heaton said it was possible to phase this in over a one to two year period and use timber monies that were not available last year to assist the departments that might not qualify.  She explained the video lottery revenue would be around $800,000 and what was over that would be added to this amount.  She said the committee thought there was $565,000 of the current $1.5 million that was general allocation that fit the definition and $300,000 that might not or definitely did no fit the category.


Weeldreyer said this was a way to develop a policy so everyone knows the boundaries.  She said that Lane County, for the foreseeable future, will have budget problems and some of the revenue sources that pay for basic services are not located in the county.  She recommended programs to allow people to prosper economically.  She said none of the departments dependent on the money would be cut off July 1, 2001.


Morrison said this was an opportunity to determine how the dollars are spent.  She said the monies could increase if they leverage some dollars that would keep people in the area and increase  wages.


Sorenson said his interest would be increased if the language included a living wage.


Heaton explained the committee had a discussion over the term "jobs" and whether to use "family wage" or not.  She said the committee thought that in some rural areas even minimum wages were a great improvement.


Green supported having this document go to the management team for analysis.


MOTION: to send this to Management Team for discussion.




Dwyer requested a list of projects that used this funding since its inception in the community and in the private sector.


VOTE: 5-0.


b.  DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION/Specific Committee Assignment /Action.


Weeldreyer said the Policies and Procedures Committee reviewed the standing committees assigned by the Board. She noted one of the recommendations was removing the Sports Commission from the annual assignment of commissioners because it didn’t meet regularly.


With regard to the Economic Development Standing Committee, Weeldreyer said it was recommended that one rural and one metro commissioner be appointed.  She said the Board discussion suggested that whomever serves on the Lane Economic Committee be involved in economic development on a monthly basis, while the other member is the chair.  She said it would have more of a balance between rural and metro.


Dwyer said it was appropriate that one urban and one rural commissioner serve.  His concern was that they had $600,000 with no staff.  He didn’t want to do anything as a Board to disrupt continuity of  funding.


Weeldreyer noted the tourism council was done in partnership with CVALCO and staff from the Parks Department for tourism awards.  She said they recommended that the tourism council be removed from the annual list of committee assignments.  She said  the Rural Community Improvement Council did serve an important role as approved by the Board in the mid-90’s, with the adoption of the criteria for economic development lottery dollars.  She said they were recommending that both of those committees be continued.  She said she would meet with small city mayors to make sure if they reduce the members of RCIC from its original intention, they get better efficiency and recommend that the rural development coordinator position be refunded in next year’s budget to help staff it. She added they were recommending a change in the Lane Manual concerning RCIC because there hadn’t been a strong level of support, to modify it so that there was at least one rural commissioner who would serve.


With regard to the Traffic Safety Committee, Weeldreyer and Sorenson were planning to meet with Kevin Woodworth of the traffic team.  She asked to defer action on the traffic safety commission and bring it back.


With regard to the Building Appeals Advisory and Public Welfare, Dwyer said they were required by statute but never met.


Weeldreyer noted the Building Appeals Advisory would only meet when an appeal had been filed and because it met on an as needed basis they recommended that they would keep it and appoint members if an appeal was brought forward as needed.  She recommended removing it from the list.  She added they recommended the same for the Public Welfare Board.


MOTION: to serve a 60 days notice to abolish the Public Welfare Board and provide the public with an opportunity to comment if there was a reason for it to continue to exist.




Sorenson thought this was premature.  He wanted Rockstroh to present an oral report on  this committee in dealing with complaints.


Dwyer shared Sorenson’s concern.


Sorenson said there needed to be an independent place to register concerns.  He said it could be the Board of Commissioners with designation of the Board as the Public Welfare Board.


Rockstroh said this Public Welfare Board was not needed.  He didn't favor the County reviewing the State’s work because it wasn't appropriate.  He noted there are processes for complaints.


Vorhes said the motion could start the process, but it would need to come back to the Board with an order that would eliminate the committee.


VOTE: 5-0.


Concerning the Economic Standing Committee, Weeldreyer recalled the recommendation was to continue and have two commissioners assigned--one metro and one rural.  She suggested that on Policies and Procedures one of the commissioners would also serve on the Lane Economic Committee or the Regional Investment Board for continuity.


Green agreed with the recommendation.


Morrison suggested tabling the discussion until they discuss 6. a., as there was overlap and duplication.




a.  Announcements






a.  RESOLUTION AND ORDER 01-2-21-3/In the Matter of Accepting a Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant for $200,000, Creating Deputy District Attorney and Paralegal Positions, Increasing Revenues and Expenses in Fund 24, and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Grant Documents.


Doug Harcleroad, reported that this would be accepting $200,000 from the federal government and creating two positions. He added there was no general fund impact.


MOTION: to approve RESOLUTION AND ORDER 01-2-21-3.




VOTE: 5-0.




a. ORDER 01-2-21-4/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official's Reconsidered Decision Denying an Application for Rezoning Property from RR-5 to RR-2 (File PA 00-5618/Stewart).


Jerry Kendall, Land Management, reported the Board should elect to hear whether or not an appeal of a denial of a rezone of 22 ˝ acres from RR5 to a proposed RR2 should be heard. He noted the decision was denied, appealed, denied upon reconsideration, appealed again and the hearing official affirmed his denial on January 22, 2001.


Kendall noted there were many subjects of contention for this appeal including floodplain, effect on resource land, adequate water and storm water drainage. He added the items had been resolved except for the existing pattern development and density.  He noted that any zone change requires compliance with the Rural Comprehensive Plan, Goals 2, Policy 11 spelling out items to be considered.  He noted there was a 1988 Board Order to help determine existing development pattern and density.  He said what the hearings official did was note that there was a pocket of high-density parcels of an average size of .54 acres.  Kendall explained the hearings official noted the remainder of the study area of the subject property was contiguous, composed of an average of 9 parcels for 4.9 acres.  He said the next exception area east of the property has a 4.4 acre average.  He added the hearings official noted the entire study area pattern of development included the pocket on the west side of Mosby Creek Road and noted that granting of this rezoning would not fit in with the existing pattern of development that is high density development on the west side of Mosby Creek and a large parcel size on the east side of Mosby Creek.  He said in establishing criteria, they use Lane Code 14.600 to see if it is an issue of countywide significance.  He noted the subject property had no unique environmental resources and neither the planning director nor the hearings official recommend review of this appeal.  He said Land Management’s option is that the Board elect not to hear the appeal and expressly agree with how the hearings official read the Board’s 1988 order that dealt with guidelines for determining a pattern of development.  He added the Board could opt not to hear the appeal and remain silent or the Board could conduct an on-the-record appeal.


Weeldreyer stated she would support hearing the argument.


Dwyer stated he wouldn’t support hearing the argument. He added it wasn’t located within a designated community.


Sorenson asked what the difference was between Option 2 (to not hear the arguments on appeal) and not to hear arguments on the appeal and remain silent on the hearings official decision and interpretation.


Kendall responded if the Board chooses to affirm the hearings official decision, then LUBA would grant deference to the County as it is an interpretation of a County order.  He said if Option 2 was chosen, it would end the ability of this proposal to prevail even at the state level.  He noted if Option 3 was chosen, a remand would be probable.


Vorhes explained a question for LUBA would be whether they would defer to the County’s interpretation and the hearings official interpretation of that.  He said the option of expressly agreeing is a choice for the Board to either view the interpretation, and express an opinion or not.


MOTION: to approve  ORDER 01-2-21-4.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Weeldreyer said with the passage of Measure 50, Lane County’s ability to grow the general fund had been severely restricted. She noted what the applicant was requesting was not out of character. She wanted to hear both sides present arguments on why the hearings official would not look at other areas.


Kendall explained the hearings official looked at the entire study area.  Kendall added the hearings official noted that the average parcel size of the entire study area fell below the 3.5 acre average but also noted a pattern of development and to approve this application would change the pattern.


VOTE: 2-3 (Weeldreyer, Morrison, and Green dissenting.) MOTION FAILED.


MOTION: to approve Option 1, to hear the appeal on the record.


Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.


Dwyer said he would be oppose this.


Sorenson said the right decision for the Board is to not hear this and agree with the hearings official’s original decision.


VOTE: 3-2 (Dwyer, Sorenson dissenting).


b.  ORDER 01-2-21-5/In the Matter of Electing Whether or Not to Hear Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official’s Reconsidered Decision Denying an Application for Rezoning Property from RR-5 to RR-2 (File PA 00-5279/Halbert).


Jerry Kendall, Land Management, reported this was a report back to the Board on a matter they heard on September 27, 2000.  He said it was an appeal for a piece of property in the McKenzie drainage area, RR5 to RR2.  He noted it was an application where the former agent omitted to include vital information and the hearings official denied the application.  He added this was appealed and the requested information was still not provided and denied again.  He said it was appealed to the Board and the Board on September 27, 2000 proposed the motion after the new agent (Mr. Farthing) for the applicant could provide the missing information on access only.  He said on September 27, Kendall said this could be remanded back to the hearings official for provisions of that access.  He noted the order would remand this matter back to the hearings official, reopen it on the record and get it resolved.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-2-21-5.


Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


c. CONTINUED DISCUSSION/NINETEENTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance PA 1132/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised “Transportation Element” and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause.


MOTION: to approve a 19th Reading and Setting a 20th Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance PA 1132 on March 14, 2001.


Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, discussed page 3 of the January 31, 2001 cover memo.  He noted six items that were recommended unanimously by MPC for approval, represented a consensus on how to resolve some of the issues related to policies in the plan.   He added all of the other agencies (except for Eugene) had approved them as is.  He noted the City of Eugene still had issues with item b. and f.


With item b., Stinchfield said the recommendation from MPC was to resolve the issue about an I-5 study by putting it in Chapter 4, (Planning and Program Actions) that is in the text of the plan, but had not been adopted as a project.  He said Eugene’s proposal was an I-5 study going into the project list in Chapter 3.  He explained that staff reviewed that and if the Board wanted to put it into Chapter 3, they recommended putting it in as an ODOT study for $750,000 in the constrained project list.  He said the Eugene City Council wanted it to have the same status as other studies in the plan.


With item f., Stinchfield noted this related to a new policy on financing bike facilities that the City of Eugene had originally proposed as an addition to the policy list.  He said the language the Board had was the MPC recommendation and it removed the word “full” after the word “support.” He noted the City of Springfield wanted flexibility on how they spend their budget and did not support the word “full” and did not want to single out bicycles for full funding.


Stinchfield said the move into the Chapter 3 project list would mean that the $750,000 in the constrained list would be part of the fiscal constraint list for ODOT.  He added project changes were made that would need to balance ODOT’s revenue and expenditures in the plan.  He said by moving the study into Chapter 3, the staff recommendation would be that they would need to find $750,000 as well.


Sorenson asked if there was controversy associated with the items they discussed.


Stinchfield responded the two they were discussing did not have full agreement.


Green said it was his understanding the Willamette River Crossing areas couldn’t be excluded.  He said there needs to be a plan for getting cars across the river because traffic is getting worse.  He said for the finance policy, he would support Dwyer on if the City of Eugene wanted to have the word “full funding” for their projects.


Van Vactor said the issue of the word  “full” is significant.  He noted there was discussion about that MPC.  He added if the word stayed in even for the City of Eugene, one could make an argument that the bike path system had to be fully funded before other improvements are made and that could have consequences.


MOTION: to approve MPC’s recommendations for items a. through f.




VOTE: 5-0.


Stinchfield explained the status of the Willamette River crossing study was passed by the MPC with Commissioner Green dissenting.  Stinchfield said the recommendation was not including a study in the project list, as opposed to other versions of language that would put something onto the project list.  He noted when a federal study is done of a new facility, there are specific requirements about studying a range of alternatives.  He said a study option would be a  new river crossing but only within 1,000 feet of existing crossings which generated concern about federal highways.  He noted the consensus at MPC was when there is a political consensus and will to move forward with a study of a new crossing, it would be defined at that time.  He said there was not consensus, so he suggested leaving it out.


Stinchfield noted the Valley River Bridge project was a City of Eugene project for $20 million dollars.  He wondered who would pay for the study as they were not in support of this.


Morrison agreed that this needed to be in the plan.  She added the plan needed to move forward.


MOTION: to approve the MPC recommendation on the Willamette River crossing study.




Green said his voting would be in the spirit of moving this along.  He said it was unwise not to have a study included.  He added his vote would be one of reluctance.


VOTE: 4-0. (Sorenson left.)


With regard to the finance policy, Stinchfield stated there was a long discussion at MPC and the City of Eugene supported a version of a new finance policy setting priorities as laid out.  He said they had originally proposed the policy and LTD had originally expressed a preference for Option 5 on the policy and went along with no new policy.  He added that Springfield was adamant about not liking the policy and didn’t want it.  He noted the issue was tabled, no action and no agreement reached.  He asked the Board if they had support for a particular option.


MOTION: to support a no change for the finance policies, that would mirror Springfield’s position.




VOTE: 4-0 (Sorenson left).


Morrison asked what happened with the new policy that Eugene wanted to add.


Stinchfield responded he wasn’t sure.  He said ultimately they have to have TransPlan adopted by all the agencies as agreement on the elements that are going to be specifically adopted as Metro Plan amendments. (Goals, policies and project lists.)  He said they don’t have an agreement or an updated plan.  He noted if there is an impasse, they could take a version of the TransPlan to the LCOG Board and MPC to get it approved to satisfy the federal government and let the statewide land use part continue.


Schwetz noted that the way they are adopting TransPlan is from a state perspective, and the TPR is what they are working with allows for local governments to adopt a local plan consistent with a regional plan.  He said that Springfield was ready to adopt TransPlan as it had been reviewed as their local TSP.  He said it would also allow the City of Eugene to add whatever is  needed.


Weeldreyer asked if the County had any political capital with the City of Eugene on the West Eugene Parkway that could be brought to the table as a result of a partnership on local projects.


Van Vactor said the Board is a full and equal partner with the City of Eugene on this.  He said the Board needed to approach the City of Eugene with equal status.


Stinchfield noted the West Eugene Parkway’s status in the project list needed to be resolved.  He said that the Eugene City Council hadn’t stated what they wanted to do with the project list related to the West Eugene Parkway.


Stinchfield noted what MPC would be discussing in March was the fiscal constraint on the plan.  He said there is a need to take out some ODOT projects.  He explained they couldn’t claim the $17 million as TransPlan revenue if the West Eugene Parkway goes away.




A. Approval of Minutes

January 24, 2001, Regular Meeting, 10:00 a.m.

January 24, 2001, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.


B. Management Services


1) ORDER 01-2-21-6/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Siuslaw National Forest to Allow Construction and Public Use of a Forest Service Hiking Trail Through County Owned Property Identified as Map    18-12-34-24 Tax Lots 100-900 and 1100-1400 (Located in Glenada).


C. Public Safety


1) ORDER 01-2-21-7/In the Matter of Amending an Intergovernmental Agreement with Marion County in the Amount of $48,563 for the Jail Co-Occurring Diversion Project and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute the Amendment.


D. Public Works


1) ORDER 01-2-21-8/In the Matter of Awarding a Three Year Requirements Contract to Pacific Petroleum Corp. for the Purchase of Cardlock Fuel and Fueling Services in Eugene, Contract No. RFP 00/01 FS-01.


2) ORDER 01-2-21-9/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to DeWald Northwest Co. for Purchase of Twelve (12) 45 Cubic Yard Dropboxes and Two (2) 26 Cubic Yard Dropboxes in the Amount of $76,566 and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract (WM 00/01-2).


3) ORDER 01-2-21-10/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing for the Purpose of Hearing Objections to Final Assessments for Coburg Road (County Road Number 1043) Between Mile Post 3.27 and Mile Post 4.48 (Public Hearing:  March 21, 2001, 1:30 p.m., Harris Hall Main Floor).


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.


Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.










There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting at 12:30 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary