BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' WORK SESSION 

September 25, 2001

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 3/20/02

 

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 COMMENTS

 

None.

 

3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

To take place after the meeting.

 

4. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. DISCUSSION/Public Safety Coordinating Council.

 

Morrison and Myra Wall, LCOG, gave an oral presentation regarding Senate Bill 1145. (Copy in file). 

 

b. ORDER 01-9-25-1/In the Matter of Amending Order No. 01-3-14-1 to Clarify the Charge for the Redistricting Task Force.

 

Morrison explained that at their meeting last week, Weeldreyer, Sorenson and Dwyer thought there needed to be better clarification of the original board order on what the committee’s task as appointed by the Board.  She noted the Board Order would address concerns regarding the committee’s charge.  She noted the charge to the task force was revised as follows:  “The task force is charged with the task of redistricting the five commissioner districts of Lane County, making recommendations and providing multiple options about such reapportionment to the Board by October 22, 2001.”

 

Annette Newingham, Elections, noted that two scenarios were established and direction given to Claire Van Bloem, LCOG, who is in the process of doing two maps.  She said they would be presented to the subcommittee in the next meeting.  She noted there would be a minor amount of money that might go over what the Board had initially established.

 

Sorenson asked if the task force made a decision to have a five per cent variance in the districts. 

 

Newingham stated they discussed the issue and they would have a five percent working figure, but the group had the intention of getting it closer to zero. 

 

Sorenson asked how they were going to make the districts equal in population.

 

Newingham said the task force has the direction to accomplish that.

 

Sorenson wanted to make sure that every map complied with the overall policy direction to get to zero as much as possible.

 

Dwyer noted the goal of redistricting is to equalize the districts in a ten-year cycle. 

 

Wilson commented if the Board wanted to revise their direction to the committee, she urged using the words “as close as possible,” because directing something to be equal was almost impossible.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 01-9-25-1.

 

Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Sorenson commented with the wording of the amendment in the order, that the task force would be providing multiple options regarding reapportionment.  He asked how the task force would advance their proposed multiple options.

 

Newingham responded in the past they never had multiple options that had been presented to the Board.  She noted it was up to the Board as to how they want to proceed.  She stated the charter deadline is November 22 and there needed to be two public hearings.

 

Wilson explained that one of the difficulties is that the ordinance that would be adopted is adopting a legal description.  She said someone would have to write a legal description for each district.  She added the more tweaking and changes, the more difficult it becomes.

 

VOTE: 5-0. 

 

5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

None.

 

6. MANAGEMENT SERVICES

 

a. PRESENTATION/NACo Award for Diversity Training.

 

Morrison explained that Lane County submitted an entry this year for diversity training.  She added their program called Working Better Together, is the concept for 25 diversity employee trainers.  She noted the design of the training program was shown by the County’s Diversity Implementation Plan that mandated that all County employees receive comprehensive diversity training.  She said this year there were 30 applications to the National Association of Counties, with one applicant selected.  She noted that this year the Honorable Mention for the 2001 Multi Cultural Diversity Award went to Lane County for working better together, a diversity-training program in recognition for its outstanding efforts promoting multi-cultural diversity awareness.

 

Morrison presented the award to Laura Yergan on behalf of Lane County.

 

7. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. REPORT BACK/Comparative Analysis of On-Staff Engineer vs. Outside Contract for Services.

 

Ken Kohl, Waste Management, reported that at the Board’s request, he evaluated the cost that Waste Management has for contracting out for engineering and technical services, in comparison to hiring county staff.  He said he went back and examined a year’s worth of invoices from their consultants and broke them down into labor and reimbursable expenses.  He reported those would be similar whether they used county staff or not.  He looked at the labor component by the consultant and services were broken down into structural engineers, geotechnical engineers, biologists, civil engineers and geologists.  He added with the exception of the civil engineers and the geologists, none of the hours billed exceed more than one-half FTE.  With regard to the civil engineering services, Kohl said there was over 1 FTE and it was evenly divided between junior and senior level staff that resulted in one-half FTE each.  He noted the geologists’ services were over 2 FTE, with 1½ related to the remedial investigation and feasibility study.  He added it didn’t appear that there was one discipline and/or classification that was more than a half of a FTE.  He didn’t think it was justified to hire county staff to fill those services.

 

Dwyer didn’t agree with Kohl’s analysis.  He thought it should have been an outside analysis. 

 

Weeldreyer was not in agreement with Dwyer’s analysis.  She said from the information provided, there was not enough work at any one discipline to pay for a full-time engineer. 

 

Sorenson asked what efficiencies they could get in working with Marion Counties, or other counties that have the same problems that Lane County has regarding engineers.  He thought other counties could divide the cost.

 

Kohl asked if the other agencies should hire staff together to provide those services.  He didn’t know how it could work.

 

Sorenson responded it could save money and get them the expertise they needed.  He suggested they be hired by Lane County and the services could be provided at other counties at less than what they are currently paying, bringing savings to Lane County taxpayers and the neighboring communities.

 

Kohl didn’t think they could hire someone and contract that person out to other agencies.  He didn’t think they could hire someone cheaper than they could hiring consultants.  He added there would be a long-term implementation issue in trying to negotiate agreements with other agencies.  He stated in the short term, the current contract they have with a consultant expires at the end of this year.  He wanted an RFP to get them through the next year.

 

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, explained there is an overlap between what engineering does and waste management’s needs in selected areas.  He asked if the Board wanted them to go back and analyze whether it would make sense to hire a biologist on Lane County staff to provide services both to engineering and waste management.

 

Weeldreyer suggested Snowden do exploratory discussions among public works directors where counties put in money to hire a consultant.

 

Dwyer said they should make inquiries about consultants.

 

Morrison said there was agreement to give Snowden direction to pursue additional information that might result in financial savings for the County to come back to the Board in December.

 

b.  DISCUSSION/Status Report and Draft List of Modernization Projects for Possible Funding Under HB 2142.

 

Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, passed out a draft of the countywide priority listing and the three letters he had received regarding HB 2142. (Copy in file).  He noted this was a work session in preparation for a public hearing and deliberation for October 3, 2001, at 1:30 p.m.

 

Sorenson asked why the West Eugene Parkway was not on the list.

 

Stinchfield responded that on September 13, 2001, the MPC took action on their priorities, listed under the metro column.  He said the process for MPC is for honoring their list for metro and combining it with County.  He said it is not on the metro list because the issues about funding are unresolved.  He noted only the first phase was in the TransPlan document.  He said the West Eugene Parkway could be listed as a potential STIP project as a placeholder. 

 

Stinchfield noted one of the criteria for the projects is readiness.  He said they are saying to be viable, they have to be ready to go.  He added most projects could meet the readiness criteria. 

 

Sorenson asked how many projects would be built within the next two years.

 

Stinchfield replied none of them on the modernization list.  He stated they previously sent a letter to the state on district highway and bridge preservation.  He said the preservation projects would be the first to go.  He noted the basic requirement of the program is that all the projects (if they are funded) needed to be completed by 2008.

 

Stinchfield explained Highway 101, Sixth Street to Eighth Street, is a project that is discussed in both Florence letters and they are trying to understand what the status is.  He noted it was a project relating to downtown design and pedestrian crossing.  He said there are some problems with access management involved.  He said it was included in the downtown plan.  He noted the project met the readiness and TSP criteria.  He said the Florence City Council did not adopt the TSP, it had been submitted as part of a periodic review package.  He noted there were discussions of the project on Highway 101 in the draft plan.  He stated ODOT had technical issues with it and there is a proposal to have light bars in the crosswalk that crosses Highway 101 which would need specific permits from the state traffic engineer.

 

With regard to Highway 58 at Fish Hatchery Road, Stinchfield said originally the idea was to do turning lanes at both the Fish Hatchery Road and at the Industrial Parkway.  He said when they put the list together, they were under the impression that the Industrial Parkway turn lane could be handled as part of a preservation project.  He noted that wouldn’t work and the turn lane at Industrial Parkway has to go back onto the list.  

 

Stinchfield noted at MPC there was discussion about the Beltline, I-5 project and it is an issue the Board should be aware of.  He said ODOT staff were looking at ways to break the project into phases.  He stated there might be $70 million available for modernizations for the region and this project would take half of it.  He said that Green and Mayor Torrey raised questions about the viability of getting that much funding and what the strategy would be if the money were not available.  He added that Beltline Phase 3 was another priority and that is a viable project as the environmental work is complete.  He added they were still discussing the Creswell Bike Pedestrian Bridge with ODOT as it could be a stand-alone project.  He said he would be back to the Board to discuss the STIP portion in October.

 

Weeldreyer asked if the I-5, 30th Avenue project had come off the list.

 

Stinchfield explained they took it off because it is on the future list in TransPlan and not in a constrained plan.  He noted when ODOT looked at project needs for the urban area, there were freeway projects they had identified, but most were not in the constrained list at TransPlan and they weren’t eligible to move forward to a funding category.

 

Dwyer asked about the Pioneer Parkway project and why the price went up.

He asked if they considered the acquisition of the right of way of the bus rapid transit that would go with the link.

 

Nick Arnis, City of Springfield, responded the cost of the project went up because they figured the cost of the boundaries of Harlow Road, to Beltline.

 

Dwyer wanted the reflection shown.

 

Stinchfield said he could change the limits.

 

Arnis explained Arlie Company owns the property, and they are purchasing other properties in the area.  He noted that LTD needs to do an alternative analysis, running through the right of way that was purchased.  He noted allowances would have to be made for BRT.

 

c. ORDER 01-9-25-2/In the Matter of Modifying the Project Design Concept for Improvement of Marcola Road, MP 5.81 to MP 11.75 and Amending Order 99-6-22-2.

 

Stinchfield reported there was a petition submitted from residents and other users of the gas stations in Marcola on August 15.  He noted staff was directed to come back with some options to address the petitions.  He said the petitions requested that the Marcola project design be changed so the gas station in Marcola could continue to operate.  He added since that time they had developed three options.  He noted the drawings in the packet showed the original design and alternatives.  He said the original design included standard urban curb returns and sidewalk and wheelchair ramp construction at Marcola and Savage Street.  He explained that Alternative A eliminated the curb and sidewalk on the whole frontage that would eliminate the problem for the gas pumps but would create a gap in the new sidewalk system.  He said Alternatives B and C are variations on a way to provide a sidewalk facility and still allow the gas pumps to operate.  He said Alternative B truncates the sidewalk but gets the sidewalk along the frontage of the gas station and creates a ramp so wheelchairs or pedestrians could cross Savage and continue on the sidewalk and it allows the use of the inside pump lane next to the building and eliminates the use of the pump lane on the roadside.  He said that Alternative C shifts the alignment away from the gas station and that would allow both sides of the pump to be used, but creates some other impacts.  He stated staff’s recommendation was to go with Alternative B and the order in front of the Board modifies the original Board Order on the design to make that happen.

 

MOTION: to approve Alternative B for ORDER 01-9-25-2.

 

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Stinchfield explained one of the reasons they would want to issue a facility permit is that it does include a standard hold harmless clause for Lane County.

 

8.  REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS

 

None.

 

9.  COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

None.

 

10. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:30 a.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

 

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices