May 9, 2001

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 11/6/01


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








Rob Castleberry, 87601 Franklin Boulevard, was concerned about the health of his neighbors regarding the cell phone towers.  He said a cell phone tower was proposed in his neighborhood and he believed the County should be cautious in allowing cell towers so close to residential houses.


Mona Linstromberg, 87140 Territorial Highway, Veneta, thanked the Board for responding to her after last week’s public comment period.  She was committed to fight the proposed siting of the transmission tower in their neighborhood and hoped to see guidelines and regulations established on a county level.


Bob Fenstamacher, 3505 Spring Boulevard, Eugene, stated he was President of Ecosort.  He noted they supported regulations for the MRF.  He added there must be modifications to those that had been proposed.  He said dirt taken out of the industrial waste used for land reclamation should be included in the recyclables.


Merle Irvine, General Manager, Ecosort, 3535 E. 17th, supported the adoption of an ordinance regulating the MRF’s, but he had some issues.  He noted that Ecosort’s recovery rate is less than originally projected and they had met or exceeded the projected recovery of 11,000 tons per year.  He was concerned about the staff’s proposal to eliminate fines and material from a recovery rate formula, even if that material was recovered from mixed solid waste and is used for a land reclamation project.  He was also concerned about the automatic ramp up of the recovery rate over the next  2 ½ years from 25% to 30%.  He added in order to meet that increasing rate, they would be forced to stop marginal loads coming into the facility.


John Hire, General Manager, Sanipac,  was concerned about the issue and financial difficulty for Ecosort.  He said Ecosort was important to Sanipac as it had allowed Sanipac to do things surrounding the recycling programs.  He agreed with Ken Sandusky that the MRF’s need to be regulated.  He asked the Board to consider Ecosort’s recommendations and concerns.


Ken Lanfaer – Public Works, City of Florence,  250 Highway 101, reported the City Council of Florence (at their regular meeting) discussed and considered the Roads Advisory Committee’s proposal for a new capital projects program.  He said the City Council gave it a unanimous endorsement.


Jeffrey Jones, stated he was putting the County on notice for a tort claim.  He said there has been speeding in his neighborhood and animals had been killed.  He added the County has a road cutting through the center of his property.  He wanted a speed bump installed but there was objection from Public Works.


Ed Daniels, 24008 Subtle Road, Veneta, objected to some of the monies that the County had given to cities as the cities give their employees an equal (if not greater) cost of living wage than the employees at Lane County had received.  He wanted to make sure the Lane County employees were taken care of first.


Brian Bayles, 88604, Oak Hills Cemetery Road, stated he was the president of McKenzie Recycling.  He had concerns with percentage rates to calculate recovery rate.  He stated there should be measures by tons instead of what waste could be recovered.  He noted it would cut the recovery rate from Lane County and they would have to turn away loads.  He said the Board needed a viable figure to allow the MRF’s to function and keep them honest.  He said that a benchmark is needed that everyone could live with.


3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place after the meeting.




a. ORDER 01-5-9-1/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 3 of Lane Manual to Change the End of Terms for the Public Safety Coordinating Council (LM 3.522).


Wilson reported this was a minor change to move the end of the term for PSCC members from August to December and it is more consistent with the elected officials.


Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. ORDER 01-5-9-2/In the Matter of Appointing Six Members to the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC).


Morrison said this was to fill vacancies that existed and for changes in the city councils.  She noted the seat previously held by Maureen Weathers would be replaced by Sid Leiken.  She said Leiken had recommended the appointment from Springfield to be Lyle Hatfield.  She added there was a vacancy created by the resignation of Ed McClusky and the LCOG Board recommended Ken Larson.  She noted the PSCC Policy Committee recommended Bill Morrisette as an ex officio member, with Grant Nelson, representing the Community Corrections by mandated statute. Mayor Torrey had recommended Nancy Nathanson and Wayne Low would replace Bob Fiske as the Rural School Superintendent, recommended by the school’s superintendent committee.


Sorenson noted that Nathanson’s name was spelled wrong on the Board Order.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-5-9-2.




VOTE: 5-0.




a. Announcements


Van Vactor announced they had hired a firm to assist in recruiting candidates for the Director of Youth Services as well as Public Works.  He stated they would be having interviews on May 23.  He noted that Morrison and Green were on the interview panel.  He asked the remainder of the Board if they were able to participate in presentations.


Sorenson asked why the Board was involved. 


Van Vactor said that the Director of Youth Services was viewed as a leadership position and the last time the director was recruited, the Board actively participated.


Sorenson noted if it was a Board decision then they should do it, but if it was not a Board decision, then the County Administrator should do it.  He was willing to go along and make it a Board decision.  He said according to the charter, the Board doesn’t make this decision.


Van Vactor responded the charter places the Board with administrative authority.


Green disagreed with Sorenson.  Green said he was asked to participate as a part of a process so the County Administrator could make a reasonable decision.


Dwyer said this should be a decision by Van Vactor.  He said he wasn’t involved in the hiring process.  He said he didn’t want to give his opinion on a presentation when most of the work that goes on in the juvenile justice system is behind the scenes.


Weeldreyer said there was a valuable role for the Board to play in the assessment.  She applauded Van Vactor in allowing the Board to make a shared decision.  She disagreed with Sorenson and encouraged the whole Board to participate in the process.


Morrison said the decision would have a long-term impact on Lane County and any input should be valued with the decision that Van Vactor makes.  She thought it was important that there is a broad process.


MOTION: to move that the Board ask the County Administrator to forward three to five names of candidates for the position of the Director of Youth Services and that the Board interview those candidates and make a decision on who is most appropriate.


Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Green was not in support of the motion.  He said the person hired does not work for the Board, they would work with the Board.


Dwyer said that Van Vactor is paid to make decisions regarding administration.  He wanted Van Vactor to make the decision.  He didn’t want to be involved.


Weeldreyer was not in support of the motion.


VOTE: 2-3 (Weeldreyer, Morrison and Green dissenting). Motion fails.




a. ORDER 01-5-9-3/In the Matter of Authorizing the Department of Youth Services to Develop and Submit a Letter of Intent to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for Up to $250,000 for the First Year of the Multi-Year Project, Reclaiming Futures.


Lynn Schroeder, Department of Youth Services, explained two motions, the reclaiming the futures initiative that is through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and grants the foundation will distribute.  She noted there are three phases, one is for planning for $250,000 for the first year, implementation for the second phase for $250,000 for an additional four years.  She added the third phase and assessment and treatment enhancements, is for $500,000 for three years of enhancement projects.


Schroeder noted the evaluation component of the grant would be funded by the foundation and the first step was to submit a letter of intent that is due May 18.  She said the motion is for permission to submit this letter of intent.  She noted the purpose of the grant is to build community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency by developing the infrastructure to deliver comprehensive care within the juvenile justice system and substance abuse intervention.  She said the use of the grant funds is to create an infrastructure.  She added other uses include development of comprehensive care, providing staff to support the partnership, conducting systems service analysis and management information service capacity.  She explained that funds might not be used for traditional drug and alcohol intervention programs.  She said they were looking for improvement in availability and coordination with other services to expand what they are doing.


Schroeder said they would put as much as possible into service enhancement and possibly funding a position in the department that would coordinate the program and help with staff training on a strength-based approach on MST.  She added this funding would extend possibly longer-term than some of the grants they had.  She noted in planning on how they expend funds through the governor’s crime prevention funds, they make decisions through the PSCC subcommittees and Oregon Youth Authority to direct the funds to the effective programs.


Dwyer said they are overplanning.  He wanted the planning money going into direct services to measure the outcome for Lane County.  He stated these funds are temporary and there is no obligation by Lane County to continue.  He also wanted actual costs reimbursed from the indirect or some assurances that Lane County wouldn’t have to bear the costs.


Schroeder responded they didn’t need the $250,000 for the first year of planning because they were ready to go into implementation.  She noted they were aware of the transient funds.


Schroeder asked the Board to issue an order allowing them to proceed and if the grant was awarded, the Board could decide pro or con.


Green said he would support the order. 


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-5-9-3.


Green MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. ORDER 01-5-9-4/In the Matter of Authorizing the Department of Youth Services to Develop and Submit a Grant Application to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) for Up to $400,000 for the First Year of the Targeted Initiative Capacity Expansion Cooperative Agreements to Meet Emerging and Urgent Mental Health Service Needs of Communities.


Schroeder explained they were partnering this grant with Mental Health for $400,000 a year for three years.  It includes direct, indirect and $40,000 for evaluation.  She noted the application was due on May 21.  She said this was to support the expansion of service for evidence-based interventions.  She added  they build on the strengths of the juveniles to help functioning, decrease recidivism, and  allow outreach to families and community stakeholders. 


Schroeder said the funds will build infrastructure, service delivery and outreach.  She noted the target population was juvenile offenders.  She added this would be an opportunity to partner with Mental Health to better meet the needs of the youth and work with their families.


Dwyer said all his concerns about the Robert Wood Johnson application apply to this grant.  He said it was good to deal with the mental health aspect.


Green concurred with Dwyer on need.  He asked about evaluation.


Linda Wagner, Department of Youth Services, responded they are developing an evaluation.


Morrison noted that each year was contingent upon federal appropriations. 


Green reiterated there was no guarantee in any appropriation from the federal government.  He stated they didn’t have to apply for the grants and could  take it out of the general fund.  He supported it because it met targeted goals.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-5-9-4.




VOTE: 5-0.




a. ORDER 01-5-9-5/In the Matter of Adopting the Public Works Five-Year Capital Improvement Program FY 01/02-FY 05/06.


Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported the packet had a board order with an attached draft CIP.  He noted the CIP didn’t reflect the changes the Board made last week or the recommendations they were making.  He said that yesterday afternoon, Mike Russell delivered a revised draft executive summary.


Snowden noted on page 4, they moved the Delta Beltline interchange from Fiscal 01 /02 to Fiscal 02 /03.  He said they deleted Game Farm Road south that was in 05 /06.  He said they rolled the Jasper Road extension phases 1 (Main Street to 58th) because they were not going to get the contract this fiscal year.


Snowden noted on page 6, Marcola Road (Sunderman to Shadows Drive), that there was a more recent estimate of $2.5 million.  He said that Seavey Way was the Frank Parish Bridge into the Buford Recreation area and that wouldn’t  contract this fiscal year.


With regard to page 7, Snowden recommended that they advance the Division Avenue special study because the Division Avenue bridge could affect the Delta Beltline operation.  He added they thought there was benefit for doing this next year before a decision on Delta/Beltline.  He said they had added Pioneer Parkway Extension under payments to other governmental agencies in 03/04 for $1.9 million.  He noted for the Westfir rest area project, they were giving $62,000 to Willamette National Forest and they may have a contract by the end of this fiscal year.  He stated they added $1 million in 05/06 for assisted housing roads, and rolled Game Farm south into the projects for development. 


Snowden said these were the recommended updates plus the direction from the Board.  He noted one other project that wasn’t listed was the Zone 3 and 4 consolidation.  He said that was listed in their budget and the capital project list  on the consent calendar today.  He recommended the Board adopt the order referring to Exhibit A as amended by this document.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-5-9-5, referred to Exhibit A as amended by this document.




VOTE: 5-0.


b. REPORT BACK/Special Assessment Program - Operational History and Possible Future Hardship Programs.


Don Maddox, Public Works, reported that on March 21, staff was asked to report back regarding possible hardship programs in their special assessment programs.  He said that staff did the analysis in the Board packet.


Maddox said they did an analysis of their special assessment projects since 1996  for reference.  He noted the findings were that the average assessments per parcel for those projects was $2,526 and the original assessment totals not paid off are 17%.  He said a large majority of the assessees pay off the special assessments upon initial billing.  He added the percentage of assessment deferred due to not taking direct access, was 24% and of that, 30% of those originally deferred were outstanding.  He noted there may be unknown individual hardships.


Maddox explained they did a survey of other hardship programs and Benton, Clackamas, Linn, Marion, Washington Counties and the City of Springfield did not have deferrals or hardship programs, other than the State of Oregon Senior Citizen Deferral program.  He noted that Lane County does not have a hardship program other than the State of Oregon Senior Citizen program.  He said the City of Eugene had been more active and currently has five programs, two limited to  sewer assessment.  He said the City of Eugene had an income subsidy program for street and alley improvement special assessments.  He explained if a homeowner who occupies the property meets certain income criteria, the city may pick up a portion from 83.3% to 33.3% of the assessment.


Maddox noted their findings suggested using a deferral, another interest rate reduction, extensions of payment terms, or a portion of a specific assessment.  He said they  would assess eligibility, age, income and occupancy of the property.  He said it would take substantial staff time to research and develop the program and after it was initiated, the estimated operating costs would be $30 to $40 per year per account.


Dwyer said they need to follow the lead of the City of Eugene for hardships related to roads.  He said they have to move forward to make the programs that work for the City of Eugene that are income based, work for Lane County.


Sorenson requested that, after the budget was completed, to have the City of Eugene help the County  set this up.


Morrison said an option was to bring it to Finance and Audit and then back to the Board with a recommendation.


Green was interested in the City of Eugene’s costs as well as other cities.  He agreed with Dwyer and Sorenson on sending it to Finance and Audit to come back with several proposals.


MOTION: have Finance and Audit review all aspects of this program and report back to the Board.




VOTE: 5-0.


c.ORDER 01-5-9-6/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute Agreements for the County/City Road Partnership With Each City in Lane County.


Snowden noted the agenda packet recommended a one-year agreement at $2.5 million with the 12 cities in Lane County for this city/county road partnership program.  He also attached a draft agreement.  He noted that there was an agreement with Eugene and Springfield in 1996 that was amended in 1998 and the small cities had a separate agreement in 1998 and in 2000 they amended that with the 1996 agreement.  He said there had been discussion about how the money was expended.  He said John Goodson had requested that cities over $5,000 provide to the County copies of a report that each submitted to ODOT each year.  He said it was a possibility that the monies the cities receive could be co-mingled with the road fund.


Morrison said the cities could provide the information about where they were planning on spending the dollars so the Board could justify the money being spent properly.  She noted they hadn’t received 50% of participation from the smaller cities, but it was a requirement of the agreement with the cities.


Green asked if the City of Eugene had used the dollars to give their employees and public work staff raises.


Snowden stated the City of Eugene has choices as to how it uses its money and one choice could have been to forego raises, and spend the money on potholes.  He added the cities don’t keep a separate accounting, it is co-mingled with the rest of their road fund.


Green wasn’t interested in sending the cities’ funding with strings attached, but he expected if the County asked for specific information that would be provided. 


Sorenson noted in the proposed agreement there was a reporting requirement due January 1 to submit a detailed annual accounting of how the FY 2001 funds were used.  He asked if there was a reporting requirement for funding Lane County would give after July 1, 2001.


Snowden stated he would use the same report that Goodson developed.  He said they were asking that by the end of this calendar year all cities submit a detailed accounting of how they spent last year’s money.


Weeldreyer supported Mayor Torrey’s idea that after the budget session, discussing the continuation of the city/county partnership with the new money and discussing how the county might provide in-kind design services.  She supported Snowden's  recommendations on this item.


MOTION: to support Mayor Torrey’s idea that after the budget session is over, meeting to discuss continuation of the city/county partnership with the new money and discussing about how the County might be able to provide in-kind design services, and supporting Snowden’s recommendations on this item.


Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.


Dwyer was in support of this


VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).


d. DISCUSSION AND ACTION/Selection Criteria for the Capital Project Partnership Program.


Snowden explained the Board packet requested that the Board approve the Capital Project Partnership criteria recommended by the Roads Advisory Committee.  He added the Board needed to give direction to the Roads Advisory Committee.  He suggested asking the Roads Advisory Committee to develop an application process, then solicit proposals from the cities and ODOT and put them into a project list for the Board.  


Snowden said the Roads Advisory Committee met to work on criteria and then met with representatives of ODOT and the cities on April 18 and subsequent to that, the committee approved the list that was included in the packet (Criteria for Capital Project Partnership program.). 


He said it was broken down into required and evaluative criteria.  He explained: 1) The facility has to be a public road as defined by ORS and Lane Code.  2) City, County and ODOT facilities are eligible that were on other agency systems. 3) Applicable road authorities give consent to the proposal. 4) Projects proposed under this program should be under contract within the program life. 5) Funding strategies should not displace ODOT or local funding.  He said they wanted to make sure that if the County was getting  money for an ODOT project, ODOT doesn’t adjust its STIP money to take money out of District 5, putting it into some other district. 6) Proposal provides a means for an acceptable level of accountability. 7) The County reserves the right of first refusal to perform engineering contract administration and inspection.  He wasn’t sure all the work could be performed in-house but they could do a couple of large projects. 


Snowden explained the Board would determine how much money to put into the program.  He said a separate program could be established to accelerate culverts that are barriers for fish passage under County roads.  He thought the amount would be closer to $10 million.  He said the Board had to let the Roads Committee know whether they would do project solicitations once a year or less.  He recommended less frequently.  He suggested instead of picking a number, to give the Roads Committee a range and have them put a project list together.  When they come back, the Board could decide how large the program would be.


Dwyer wanted to find a more objective way to determine some of the criteria.  He said they have the evaluation criteria but they don’t know the scoring and it could be more objective.


Snowden responded this was the criteria the committee chose  and they chose not to develop point scores and leave it more subjective.


Leo Stapleton, Chair, Roads Advisory Committee, said this was brought to them by the cities.  He noted they listened to their needs and that is how they came up with the scoring.  He added the meeting with the cities went well, although they only had four cities attending.


Morrison noted the Cities of Springfield and Florence favored the program.


Stapleton said they decided to go for what was best for Lane County overall.


MOTION: to move approval of the prepared criteria.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0. (Weeldreyer did not vote).


Snowden noted by moving ahead, the Board would say that projects on the state  and city system are a higher priority than the projects for the County.


Dwyer said it was a way to ensure that Lane County has work for its people and is in the loop for the design.  He said it was a good start.


MOTION: to allocate the $10 million initially pursuant to their conversation about the annual money and how it is to be expended.  Also, to come back in six months for another round and wait two years to see what had developed before  taking more expenditures from that fund.




VOTE: 4-0.


e. ORDER 01-5-9-7/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 60 of Lane Manual to Establish Recovery Standards for Material Recovery Facilities  (MRF) and Revise the MRF Fees [LM 60.875(2)(j) and (6)(g)], Effective July 1, 2001.


Ken Sandusky, Waste Management, reported this involved whether or not Lane County should amend Lane Manual to create economic incentives for material recovery facilities (MRF's) to achieve greater recycling recovery.  He said their largest company Ecosort, had been in business for four years and they have a track record of showing a trend of decreasing recycling recovery and increasing disposal at discounted disposal rates.  He noted that Ecosort had recovered a smaller percentage of material for recycling in each previous year.  He said that was significant because what MRF’s recover for recycling, Lane County counts for state mandated recycling recovery rate.  He said that Ecosort’s mission was different than Lane County’s, as they want a return on their investment. 


Sandusky said that Lane Manual should be amended based on the accommodations they had made to support MRF efforts.  He said Lane County had to decide whether they would support MRF’s, knowing the impact to the solid waste fund would be $1.8 million per year or oppose it. He said what was best for the community was increased recycling recovery, not what was the best for the solid waste fund.  He said they formed a solid waste executive group and recommended meeting the revenue shortfall by increasing public disposal fees, eliminating some services and cutting 9.5 waste management staff positions.  He noted the Board reviewed those decisions and approved them.  He said that the County and customers made sacrifices so that MRF’s could be supported.  He noted that given the past history, they have the right to change how they do business with the MRF’s.  He noted they are vulnerable with the present situation and no standards.  He hoped he would have been able to develop a plan where everyone agreed, but that was not the case.  He added they had proposed a reasonable compromise and urged the Board to consider adopting the changes to Lane Manual.  He noted the proposal was reviewed by the Finance and Audit Committee and was recommended.  He added the Resource Recovery Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and it received their endorsement.  He requested that these recommended changes are approved and implemented effective July 1, 2001.


Dwyer asked what happens if MRF’s go away.


Sandusky said it would shorten the life of their landfill, but Waste Management would take the money that they were now getting with discounts and replace the recovery.


Dwyer said the people in the County would end up making up the costs.


Sandusky said what they were asking the companies to do was meet a 25% recycling recovery benchmark to remain revenue neutral.


Sorenson wanted the highest possible recovery rate.  He didn’t agree with lowering standards and didn’t want to have the recovery rates go away.  He wanted more work either through the Finance and Audit Committee or through the Resource Advisory Committee.


Morrison wanted a compromise with the current MRF’s and Lane County.


Green suggested a small group work toward a compromise.  He said if Lane County was not losing money and if cost avoidance was the issue that would need to be discussed.


Sandusky responded he would get together with the MRF operators and initiate further discussion, but whatever they come up with, the companies would like the rate to be lower.


Van Vactor suggested that Sandusky meet with the providers  he report back to either the Resource Advisory Committee or Finance and Audit for a recommendation.


Dwyer believes there should be a periodic audit for cost avoidance and to see if they are making a good faith effort.


MOTION: To ask Ken Sandusky to meet with the MRF operators and report back to the Finance and Audit Committee and the Resource Advisory Committee.  Those groups could take action as they see fit.


Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.


Dwyer suggested this item be brought back after the budget process in July.




A. Approval of Minutes


B. Health and Human Services


1)RESOLUTION ORDER 01-5-9-8/In the Matter of Appropriating an Additional $19,166 in Revenues and Expenditures in Fund 286 in the Department of Health and Human Services (34) for Services to Individuals with Mental or Emotional Difficulties (FAGA 20-001), (RGAS 45, 49, 50, and 53).


C. Management Services


1) ORDER 01-5-9-9/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to R. Derek Jaros and Marc E. Setchko (Map    19-01-13-00-00200, Near 41223 West Boundary Road, Lowell).


D. Public Works


1) ORDER 01-5-9-10/In the Matter of Approving the Lane County List of Public Improvements for FY 01/02.


2) ORDER 01-5-9-11/In the Matter of Relinquishment of a County-Owned Drainage Easement Adjacent to Centennial Boulevard to the City of Eugene Under ORS 271.330.


3) ORDER 01-5-9-12/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Moyer Street (County Road No. 1999) (17-05-18-34).


Morrison requested that item W8d1 be pulled.


MOTION: to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar.




VOTE: 4-0.


Morrison said there were projects on the board order she was concerned about.


Van Vactor asked County counsel what the statute meant.


Kardell stated the statute stated they had to submit to the Bureau of Labor and Industries 30 days prior to adopting a budget a list of projects that the Board believes will be funded in the budget period.  He added that most municipalities view it as broader than what might be covered by the list.  He said the purpose of the list was to put contractors and others on notice of the kinds of projects that might be listed and if they exceeded $125,000 (whether Lane County builds them or use outside labor) that this began that process.


Green said this is information Lane County was required to provide to the state.  He didn’t feel committed to any of the projects just because they were on the list.  He suggested obtaining language that would reflect the Board’s true intentions and, if it is a wish list, that should be stated.  He said the items on the list were deliberated and considered and planned for funding.


Van Vactor explained the statute was passed for the contractors originally and the only agency that did any public improvements was Public Works.  They assumed the responsibility for getting it processed.  He noted departments submitting things via e-mail, and everyone in the organization understood that each had to go through their appropriate approval process before they are authorized.


Dwyer wanted the order shortened to reflect what the Board had actually approved.  He asked about the law regarding to an exception of this rule after the 30 days was expired.


Kardell responded the statute noted the list as a public record and may be revised periodically by the agency,


Dwyer said he wanted a real list of what the facilities and the government expected as the projects are approved.  He said they would revise the list.


MOTION:  to move that this list reflects what the Board had considered to so that it realistically reflects what their expectations were regarding capital improvements and that any improvement that should be added after this list expires be  amended to the list according to the statutes and delete the “last ordered.”  He noted that Exhibit A was not part of the order.

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Van Vactor noted they would strike Zone 3 and 4.


Dwyer stated that anything that either facilities or what the Board hadn’t discussed or approved should not be reflected in this document.


Green said they were making more of this than they should.


Van Vactor suggested making a list that included everything above facilities.  He added if any departments wanted to add anything, they would have to bring it back to the Board for consideration.


Snowden explained the purpose of this exercise was to allow AGC to monitor what was contracted out by counties, school districts and cities.


VOTE: 3-1 (Green dissenting).




a. ORDER 01-5-9-13/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign  a Revised Revenue Contract with the Oregon Commission on Children and Families for Title XIX Medicaid Reimbursement Funds Not to Exceed $550,000 and Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations by $200,000 in the Department of Children and Families (3232) for FY 00-01.


Pat Rogers, Children and Families, reported they have a contract with the State Commission on Children and Families for Medicaid revenue reimbursement.  She noted there was an original board order that set a cap at $350,000.  She added the state had indicated that Lane County would exceed the cap by approximately $200,000 and they have to sign a revised contract to increase the cap set by the state.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-5-9-13.


Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Green asked if Lane County’s responding to the state was different than the other 15 counties that had to do this.


Rogers said there wasn’t. She noted the formula came from the federal government.


Green asked what would happen if they didn’t do this.


Pam Strimling, Children and Families, responded it was already computed into the budget by the legislature and the money from Medicaid is part of what they receive.  If they don’t do it, they would receive less money.


Morrison was concerned with how the monitoring took place at the local and state level.


Dwyer asked how they were assured that the services billed were not reimbursed under other titles and other federal programs.  He asked if there were double billings who was responsible for repayment.


Strimling responded they don’t bill in any other manner to Medicaid.  She said if they were billing wrong it would come out of their budget that was state funded.


VOTE: 5-0.




a. ORDER 01-5-9-14/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute a Five Year Lease Renewal Agreement with McKenzie Enterprises, Inc. for an Expense of $297,960 for Space for the Central Lane Justice Court Located at 220 Fifth Street, Springfield.


Jeff Turk, Management Services, noted this was a renewal of the lease agreement for the Central Lane Justice Court in Springfield.  He noted the current lease agreement expires June 30, 2001.  He added the property owner, McKenzie Enterprises wanted a five-year agreement, proposing a rent increase to $4,870 per month for the first three years and after that an increase to $5,110 for the ensuing two years.  He noted McKenzie Enterprises expressed a willingness to sell the property to the County.  He said the assessed value of the property is approximately $1 million and that would be a starting point for a sale.


Dwyer said it would be in Lane County’s best interest to look at purchasing.  He wanted to enter into a smaller term lease with an option to buy or extend while they do the research for the actual purchase.  He wanted an appraisal done.


Morrison said in the long term it would be advantageous for Lane County to purchase the building.


Van Vactor noted it would be advantageous for Lane County to acquire the building.  He said they had to make sure there was money to make repairs and pay for the maintenance of the building.


Morrison noted there was potential to actually generate more income that could offset Lane County’s monthly payments if they were to purchase the building.


Turk asked the Board to approve entering into the lease agreement.  He said they could negotiate an option to purchase.  He suggested having the option of the right of first refusal.


MOTION:  to move to take a short term lease with an appraisal for the market value of the building and the right of first refusal and what that right was based on.

Van Vactor suggested a six-month extension of the current lease while they were negotiating.  He requested an independent appraisal.


Dwyer  wanted that included in his motion.


Morrison requested that Turk supply the Board with the information discussed and they could make a recommendation to see if they want to  have a full appraisal.  She said in the interim they want a six month extension on the lease


MOTION: to move to direct Jeff Turk to come back to the Board in e-mail as to what the assessed value is, what the analysis is with the income coming in from the building and to extend the current lease for six months and a price quote on the appraisal, to come back to the Board in 30 days.

Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0 (Weeldreyer not present).


b. ORDER 01-5-9-15/In the Matter of Accepting a Proposal From City Center Parking for LCP 2000-07-R and Award of a Three-Year Materials and Services Contract for Parking Management Services to City Center Parking.


Chuck Wallace, Purchasing Manager, recalled that last year he brought forward a recommendation to award the parking contract to City Center Parking.  He said the Board overturned his recommendation and awarded it to Diamond.  He added at the same time, City Center Parking protested and it went to the County Administrator.  He noted the County Administrator reviewed it and ruled that all awards should be rejected and have this item go out for bid again.  He had the recommendation of the of the evaluation committee.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-5-9-15.




Morrison stated she would not support this as she noted that Diamond Parking came out ahead of City Center Parking.


VOTE: 3-1 (Morrison dissenting.  Weeldreyer not present).



Morrison announced she received a copy of the Senate concurrent resolution regarding Lane County’s 150th Anniversary.





There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices