BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
June 26, 2001
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., and Peter Sorenson present. Cindy Weeldreyer was present via telephone. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
James Mattiace, 3490 Chambers, Eugene, said that House Bill 2744 was a bad bill and that the Commission on Children and Families had voted that a letter be sent to the governor. He said if the Board voted for sending this letter, they would make it clear that Lane County had the right to choose a wage standard higher than the State minimum wage. He said HB 2744 would take that away from Lane County. He stated if they donít allow families to have living wage jobs, other problems in the area would not be solved.
Morrison was interested but said they already had priorities.
Dwyer was in favor of sending the letter. He said this could be brought up under Commissioners Business.
Sorenson suggested sending the letter.
Weeldreyer stated the majority of the participants at the Children and Families meeting voted to send the letter, but she and Green were in the minority.
Dwyer wanted the letter coming from the Board to make a record of where the Board was. He will bring this up tomorrow under Commissioners Business.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
5. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 01-6-26-1/In the Matter of Accepting Amendment 1 to the Oregon Department of Corrections Intergovernmental Agreement 2037; Approving a Community Corrections Plan for the 2001-2003 Biennium in the Amount of $18,734,252; Awarding Subcontracts with Sponsors, Inc. in the Amount of $1,027,554; Addiction Counseling and Education Services (ACES), Inc. in the Amount of $326,907 and Lane Council of Governments in the Amount of $376,160; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Documents.
Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, explained they had to do this quickly because if the plan were not in by the end of the month, it would delay payments to the County by several months.
Sorenson asked why they were putting 80% of the money into the criminal justice side of the Public Safety system when alternative programs work.
Rockstroh replied that alternatives were good but by law they had to supervise felons. He said the way the budget was, it was questionable whether he could continue supervising domestic violence misdemeanors. He said they have to get people out of the jails and into parole and probation and treatment, but there is not enough money.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-6-26-1.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Sorenson stated he would be voting against this as 80% is going to programs outside of drug counseling with inmates released into the community. He was concerned about the public safety impact.
Dwyer asked what would happen if the Board didnít adopt the order.
Rockstroh responded Lane County would not get paid.
Green supported the motion. He said it was up to the Board to provide the best job with the money.
Weeldreyer concurred with Green. She said getting the Forest Work Camp running is an incentive for people who are in the main jail to make positive choices to be transferred to the Forest Work Camp. She added it was something the citizens wanted and it leverages federal dollars. She supported the motion.
Morrison agreed with Green and Weeldreyer. She said the Board had to go forward to provide a system that would work.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
6. PUBLIC WORKS
a. REPORT BACK/Moto-Cross.
Rich Fay, Parks, reported the Board asked Parks to cooperate with various land managers and user groups, exploring pro-active solutions for the off highway vehicle problems. He stated there were meetings with the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, the Oregon Dunes, and Parks staff. (Weeldreyer was also involved).
Terry Eccles, All Terrain Vehicle Coordinator, Oregon State Parks, stated the meetings they had progressed in dealing with the issue. He presented a video on the ATV program.
Phil George, Recreational Marketers, discussed a potential feasibility study for Lane County. He noted that off highway recreation is only acceptable if it is socially, educationally and economically beneficial to local communities. He said Oregon Parks and Recreation had contacted them regarding noise, trespass, littering, firearms, sanitation and other environmental issues. He noted the problems were associated with unmanaged and unregulated off highway vehicle usage. He proposed requesting a matching grant from the Oregon ATV Allocation Committee to conduct a feasibility study addressing the issues, developing options or solutions to the problems regarding off road vehicles.
George said there is an issue about at-risk youth and how this could be used as an alternative. He said they would be studying communication, cooperation and education for all recreational users, landowners and Lane County government. He said grants for funding alternatives would be researched. He said they would be available to provide assistance in obtaining available grants and funding options.
Dwyer asked why state parks was not contributing.
George responded state parks would be providing matching amounts.
Dwyer asked Fay where Parks would get $80,000.
Fay said this was the first time that he was aware of this and wasnít able to provide that information.
Weeldreyer noted at the last meeting that they discussed in-kind contributions.
Dwyer asked where the private sector was and if there was a risk associated with business. He stated that ATVís were expensive vehicles and not many families could afford them. He noted Lane County was in a tight budget crunch and didnít think that this item was important.
Weeldreyer stated ATV use would continue and grow because it is becoming a family oriented sport. She noted the study would be funded through the state ATV allocation that comes from fees users pay. She said most of the $80,000 is GIS information to get the site recommendation that would come from that data. She said the in-kind contribution was staff time for producing the maps. She hoped the Board would allow the process to go forward.
Green said he would like to see this go forward but noted that this was the first time that Fay saw the dollar amount.
Sorenson asked who was paying for the feasibility study.
George responded the state.
Sorenson asked if the Parks Advisory commented on this proposal.
Fay responded this had been brought up in a Parks Manager report but not as an action to proceed. He added there were no comments that came out of the report.
Sorenson asked if the Parks Advisory Committee was aware that Lane County would be required to put up an $80,000 in-kind contribution to match the possible grant from the state.
Fay stated they werenít, as he didnít know the total amount. He was aware of the in-kind match and staff time. He noted there would be a Parks Advisory Committee meeting on July 9 and they could work together to identify a match.
George noted the critical factor was the July 10 deadline. He added they have to have a letter of intent in to apply for the grant.
Wilson asked what competitive process was used to select Regional Marketers to do the feasibility study.
Eccels responded this was a group that was a non-profit and had done this work before. He said there were no competitive bids. He noted the grant was important because the state would solicit those funds and regional marketers would be managing the program through the grant process and applying for the grants.
Dwyer commented the process was incorrect, as there was no competitive process. He added it was an agenda item as a report back and it became a request for money with a deadline, with no itemization, but going on faith. He wanted to know what other projects would not be completed because this would need to be focused on. He also wanted to know why this proposal was not brought to the Parks Advisory Committee in detail. He said he would be voting against going forward.
Green asked to see a mathematical approach. He thought there could be better ways to spend the money.
George explained the difficulty in assigning the values would be dependent on the available land and the zoning and requirements to meet this goal. He added it would be difficult to determine money because they didnít have the data until the feasibility study would be completed for developing a park. He stated that Lane County would have to match a portion of the $80,000.
Dwyer requested a report together with letters from the Forest Services, BLM and people from the ATV clubs listing of what they expect from Lane County followed by a report back to the Board. He said if it didnít happen by July 10, it should be brought back for the next grant round.
Morrison concurred with Dwyer.
Green wanted something done. He concurred with the other Board members that they need more information. He wanted to know the implications of this commitment.
Eccels explained if the Board didnít go forward, that January would be the next to time to apply for the grant, but that they would lose an important season of information gathering.
Weeldreyer asked if it were possible to seek private sponsorship for Lane Countyís match, and if it could be prior to the deadline of submitting the grant application.
Morrison asked if the commitment from private sources meant cash in hand or a letter.
Weeldreyer responded since there was no dollar amount, (because the potential sites had yet to be identified) it would be a letter of intent up to a certain amount to $80,000, then determining how much the other agencies would be willing to contribute.
Dwyer resented the process as it turned into a request for money without appropriate information.
Sorenson said they would have a greater chance with the Board if they applied for this in a timely fashion with more information in January.
Morrison said they would be willing to revisit this at a future time with more information and clarification about the $80,000 and Lane Countyís commitment. She was in support of the user group. She added they have to make it workable for everyone. She recommended bringing this back in a timely fashion (and bringing this to the Parks Advisory Committee) so they could meet a January grant deadline.
b. DISCUSSION/Review of the Oregon Administrative Rules 660-023-0180 Per≠taining to Goal 5 Mineral and Aggregate Resources.
Morrison announced the Board would be conducting Public Hearings on the Eugene Sand and Gravel application on August 7, 8 and 9.
Tom Lanfear, Land Management, reported the state had established 19 planning goals (of which Goal 5 deals with natural resources including mineral and aggregate) and the Lane County Goal 5 program consists of an inventory of significant sites, policies and two zones to implement the plan designation. He noted the sand and gravel rock products zone deals with resources in the flat lands. He added the quarry-mining zone governs the hard rock quarries. He noted the state had adopted Goal 5 administrative rules for evaluating the resources and the conflicts with adjacent uses and to protect the resource once it is determined that it is significant.
Lanfear explained Lane County is required to act on applications submitted by an applicant. He said in response to a specific application to a specific site, they have to use the Goal 5 rule in conjunction with their other plan amendment procedures and requirements to determine whether mining is allowed at a particular site. He said the rule goes through six evaluation steps to determine whether the site is significant and whether mining should be allowed. He discussed the different steps of the rule.
Lanfear noted if the applicant turns in enough information for evaluation, they would then move to Step 2 and evaluate whether the resource was considered significant by the State. If not, then the application process stops and the application would be denied. He said if it would be considered a significant resource, it would be moved to Step 3, where they would evaluate the potential conflicts with adjacent uses and determine if those conflicts could be minimized. He added if they could be minimized, they would move to Step 5 for conflicts arising out of adjacent uses to the resource. He said if the conflicts could not be minimized from mining to adjacent uses, they would move to Step 4 where there would be an ESEE analysis to determine the choices. He said there are decisions whether to allow the conflict use, to authorize the mining, or to strike down in-between the conflicting uses.
Dwyer asked what happened when one state goal conflicted with another state goal.
Lanfear responded the Board would be required to address all the goals through the plan amendment process. The Goal 5 Rule contains specific references to several other goals and its provisions are focusing on conflicts balancing between farmland (Goal 3) and resource (Goal 5).
Sorenson asked who made the decision on whether the information was adequate.
Lanfear said that staff and the Planning Commission looks at applications and by the time it went to the Board there would be adequate information, but the Board is the decision maker.
Sorenson asked what guidance the Board had if the application was not adequate.
Lanfear explained the state rules contain specific requirements for information to be submitted, including the quantity, quality and location of the resource, traffic assessment (within one mile of the entrance to the site), proposals to minimize conflicts with uses within a 1500 foot impact area and a site plan indicating location, hours of operation and other pertinent information regarding the mining on site. He recommended that they address any impacts that go beyond the 1500-foot limit, and if there are conflicts that could not be minimized, an ESEE analysis would need to be done.
Morrison requested a copy of this presentation for all of the Board members.
Dwyer thought this was being handled properly. He said they have to make sure they weigh the ESEE beyond the 1500 feet and do everything necessary so that the resource outweighs the negative consequences.
Lanfear explained that once this gets to Step 2 (with information on quality and quantity of the resource), they may find they have good farm soil on top of good gravel, and the rule says that if 35% of the mining area consisting of Class 1 soils, then they donít mine the land. He said if the soil is made up of a combination of Class 1 and Class 2 soils in the same ratio, the gravel has to exceed 60 feet in width/depth.
Lanfear said if the Board decides that a site has a significant resource, then they go to Step 3, looking at the conflicts from the mining to the adjacent properties. He said the rule states starting at 1500 feet from the mining site, unless there is factual information that shows that a conflict extends beyond that, and then the impact area would be extended to cover the area.
Green asked if there were quality of life standards.
Lanfear said the conflicts the Board evaluates are in categories. He said they might not even get to look at the quality of life issues. He noted the rule lets them look at discharges (dust, noise or anything else) that would fit under discharge.
Sorenson asked what would happen if there were a conflict where a standard had not been established.
Lanfear responded the criteria calls for the decision-maker to determine whether a conflict had been reduced to a level where it was no longer significant.
Dwyer asked if Step 4 happened automatically.
Lanfear said if the Board found even one conflict that could not be minimized to be no longer significant, it would have to be addressed.
Lanfear said in Step 3 the Board evaluates conflicts due to discharges (noise and dust) and conflicts with roads (a mile from the entrance to the site, unless they need to go farther to an arterial). He said the conflict review would be limited to site distances, road capacity, cross section elements, horizontal and vertical alignments and similar items in the Transportation Plan. He said conflicts with other Goal 5 resource sites in the impact area have to be on an acknowledged inventory list, so they are limited to only the inventoried items currently in the Rural Comprehensive Plan. He said that would include everything in Goal 5 (wetlands, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, scenic waterways, recreation trails, natural areas, wilderness areas, energy sources, and cultural historical sites.) He added if it was within a distance of a site that causes a conflict, then the conflicts have to be addressed.
Morrison asked how complete the inventory was.
Lanfear stated the inventory was completed in 1984 and some parts had not been updated.
With regard to conflicts with agricultural practices, Lanfear explained they have to use a different standard, looking at whether the conflict would force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm use, and whether it would significantly increase the cost. He added there was no standard. He said the focus of this step is to look at what happens while the mining is occurring on-site and the conflicts that are being created. He added the impacts are on surrounding lands and it doesn't appear that they get to look at farm activity on the subject property itself.
Lanfear noted at the end of Step 3, the Board determines whether the conflicts could be minimized through the imposition of clear and objective standards (conditions on the approval). He said the Board could require limits in hours of operation, if noise is addressed that could be set. He said if they could not minimize any conflict, then that conflict has to be brought forward to Step 4 for that analysis of the consequences (ESEE analysis). He added if they had been minimized, then the Board would move ahead to Step 5.
With regard to Step 4, Lanfear reported they hadnít seen many applications under this. He said it would be the applicantís responsibility to prepare the ESEE analysis for the Board's review, they would be looking at what the consequences were in each of the four areas from allowing the use, allowing the conflict to exist, or limiting the proposal in some way or disallowing the proposal. He said it was up to the Board to decide whether to allow the conflict to fully occur, to limit the proposal to minimize the conflict to some extent or to not allow the use. He noted the Board would use everything in the plan to make the evaluation.
With regard to Step 5, Lanfear said the step envisions looking at the surrounding uses with resources that are significant, figuring out all of the conflicts that could be minimized, from mining to the adjacent land. He said they would look at the conflicts that might arise from the adjacent lands to the sand and gravel sites and if the Board finds conflicts there that that would need to be minimized. He said if the County had addressed Goal 5 as a whole, they may have established an overlay zone that could be applied to surrounding properties that may limit houses from being put within a certain distance of a mining site.
Lanfear said that Step 6 assumes there is a significant resource, conflicts had been minimized from the mining, they had minimized conflicts from other uses to the mining and they would develop a program to allow mining of the resource. He said the Board would be required to amend the plan to adopt the mining program for that site. He said the Board would need to adopt clear and objective standards to make sure the conflicts are minimized and they would need to adopt the reclamation plan that is proposed so it could be determined what the post mining would be. He added this would be where the Board would adopt ordinances or regulations on adjacent properties if there were conflicts that needed to be minimized toward the mining site.
Lanfear explained there had been case law determining that Goal 12 does apply in this process, transportation issues and the rule specifically calls for Goal 15 (Willamette Greenway Goal) as being applicable. He added it calls for the Coastal Goals 16 to 19. He said it is silent on the rest of the goals. He noted there had been a past LUBA decision that stated all of the goals applied.
Lanfear stated he would visit each commissioner separately and deliver documents that are in the record and there will be a full record placed in County Administration.
6. PUBLIC WORKS
c. REPORT BACK/Proposed Land Management Division Activities Reporting/Follow-Up to the Internal Auditor's Recommendations.
Morrison reported after the Board had a discussion about this, she and John Cole, Land Management, met to review areas that had been in the auditorís report about the land use compliance.
Cole explained the Board of Commissioners reviewed and adopted a review performance audit by Dean Stephens in May and that report contained a number of recommendations. He noted that one recommendation (a more methodical approach to staff handling and constituent issues) came to their division through the Board of County Commissioners. He gave a demonstration of a spreadsheet, used by staff to record when a request comes in through a commissioner to either answer a constituentís question or to respond to a complaint a constituent had brought to the Board involving the Land Management division.
Cole stated the proposal was to have this spreadsheet on the K drive. He noted this was not intended to take the place of a phone call to staff as a place to keep track of general questions the Board might have about division rules. He said the focus would be on constituent questions and they would be giving information on how they responded.
Cole provided a draft memo to staff (copy in file) that described what his expectations are. He indicated that his department would try to respond to all inquiries within 24 hours. He suggested trying this out for three months, then he would provide a prototype of a quarterly report and statistics.
Sorenson wanted to try it. He said if this was a way of expediting citizenís concerns (and they could get a track mechanisms that would work well) it would be the way to go.
Morrison said this was a way for preventing things from falling through the cracks.
Dwyer said it was a good pilot project.
Morrison was supportive of this and would aggressively use it. She said Cole would come back at the end of August to discuss lobby operations in the division.
7. REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS
8. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session. at 12:10 p.m.