BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

August 24, 1994

9:00 a.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

 

Chair Jerry Rust presided with Marie Frazier and Jack Roberts present.  Ellie Dumdi excused.  Steve Cornacchia arrived at 9:10 a.m.  Beth McAllister, Recording Secretary.

 

Rust opened the meeting for public comment.

 

1. PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Donna Riddle, 1238 Crest Drive, Eugene 97405, stated represented White Bird and the Community Health Dental Coalition.  She reported that these organizations had been working for the last three years to establish a low cost dental clinic in the community, and that a facility had been obtained.  She stated that, due to cost overruns, White Bird is requesting the waiver of up to 180 cu. yds. of dump fees from the County in connection with the remodeling of the facility.

 

Roberts stated he was supportive of waiving the fee for this issue, and added that he believed the Solid Waste Division has a waiver policy that would negate approaching the Commissioners for items such as this.  Frazier and Rust concurred with Roberts.  Rust emphasized the importance of establishing a dental clinic for low income people in the county. 

 

Rust stated that the consensus among the Commissioners present was to waive fees for up to 180 cu. yds. of material generated by remodeling for the low income dental clinic.

 

Rust closed the meeting to public comment.

 

2. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

None.

 

3. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. DISCUSSION/Rural Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review.

 

Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, introduced this item by noting that the memorandum prepared by Craig Starr, Public Works Manager Officer, defined the predicament of overloading County staff in order to accommodate the Rural Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review.  (See material on file.)

 

Cornacchia entered the meeting at 9:10 a.m.

 

Jim Mann, Planning Supervisor, Public Works, provided a background of the rural comprehensive plan periodic review and requested direction from the Board for authorization to proceed to the first phase, which is the evaluation.  Mann declared that the evaluation is the key to the whole periodic review process and explained that it involves citizen participation and interaction with state agencies to determine the mandated review requirements.  Mann emphasized that a thorough analysis is extremely important at this phase and that staffing challenges are presented in meeting the requirements of the review while providing quality customer service.  Continuing, Mann indicated that after the evaluation process a work program will be initiated, which will again require additional staff resources.  Concluding, Mann re-emphasized the crucial nature of the evaluation phase which will determine additional funding from outside sources for the work to follow. 

 

Rust declared that this process was done in 1984, and now, in 1994, it appears as if nothing had changed.  In reply, Van Vactor stated that the plan had undergone several court challenges which involved lengthy judicial proceedings, and that it did not achieve official acknowledgement until 1988.  Van Vactor added that there was still potential for further delay; but this would have to occur politically, i.e.; with the Governor, the Chair of the DLCD and the chair of the commission.  Cornacchia opined that if the County wants to claim that lack of staffing precludes the period review, now is the best time to do so.  Cornacchia expressed doubt that the evaluation would reveal a large amount of work that needed to be done.  He stated that he was against a "fishing expedition" by staff to find work.  Cornacchia added that it was his belief that staff assignments should be prioritized according to resources, no matter how the work arrives, and that unmandated work should be forestalled.  Cornacchia declared that he was "not interested in reallocating or taking resources from something else in the County and applying it to this effort."  Rust stated that he would appreciate a meeting with the County's legislative delegation to further negotiate the review process, and that a soon-to-be-hired land management director should be involved in this issue.  Roberts agreed with Cornacchia that a later postponement in light of declining revenues does not make sense.  He also agreed with Rust on the necessity of accommodating a newly-hired land management director.  Roberts stated that he hoped the next legislative session would make changes in this mandate, and in view of the above items, a year's delay could be of tremendous value.  Frazier concurred with Roberts on the value of waiting a year, but emphasized that there should be a better evaluation of what actually needs to done before the process is undertaken.  She stated that these objectives should occur simultaneously.  Frazier asked staff if rural issues involving County residents are monitored so that those issues may be addressed during the review.  Mann replied that that was true, although a general approach is used.  Van Vactor commented that, in accordance with the recent audit of Land Management, it appeared to him that some "mixed signals" were being sent from the Board regarding a minimalist vs. all-inclusive approach by Land Management staff; and that this position should be clarified when the Board returns with its final direction.   

 

Rust declared that the Board is ready go forward with the evaluation and to schedule a meeting with some of the County's legislative delegation to provide them with insights into the County's funding issues.  Also, that staff should begin some preliminary evaluation.  Mann asked if this meant a "full blown periodic review evaluation." Rust indicated that it did not, but that a grants should be sought for funding of the review.

 

Craig Starr arrived late from another meeting.  He stated that it was his wish that the County pursue a grant application from the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to undertake the evaluation; and that this should be an incremental process dependent upon available funding.  Roberts asked what the effect of receiving a grant would be on the request for a postponement.  Starr stated that the evaluation step should not have an affect on DLCD enforcement action, but that acceptance of funding should not be contingent upon the assumption that a postponement would not be sought. 

 

Cornacchia stated that the emphasis should be on getting a delay, and if a delay is not granted, then financial assistance is needed.  Roberts stated that Cornacchia's statement was consistent with his goals.  Rust and Frazier agreed that Cornacchia's statement reflected their wishes.  

 

4. OTHER BUSINESS

 

a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 6-94/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 2 of Lane Code To Add Provisions for the Subdivision Plat Approval by the Chair or Vice Chair of the Board, Lane County 2.060, and Declaring an Emergency (Second Reading and Public Hearing 9/13/94).

 

MOTION:  Approval, Rust MOVED, Frazier SECONDED.  VOTE:  4-0.

 

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.  

 

 

Beth McAllister, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices