April 18, 1995
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' WORK SESSION
Commissioners' Conference Room - 9:00 a.m.
Chair Ellie Dumdi presided with Steve Cornacchia, Bobby Green, Sr., Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Two items of Emergency Business were identified. Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, indicated that he would like to have a brief discussion today, under County Administration Announcements, regarding some of the implications of mothballing the Forest Work Camp.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
To be held later in the meeting.
4. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORAL REPORT/Indirect Charge Study.
David Suchart, Performance Auditor, introduced this item, noting that the Finance and Audit Committee believed it was important for the whole Board to hear about the study regarding indirect charges: how it works, implications, benefits and negatives. He introduced Bob Chandler, Ed Perry and Erin Payton from the David M. Griffith Company.
Ed Perry provided some background of the company. He observed that cost allocation work is an accounting exercise and is an important exercise on the rational distribution of costs. He described the methods for actual calculations. Payton reviewed the mechanics using overhead projection (which followed the handout that was distributed - see material on file). It was noted that direct costs typically come directly from an operating department, i.e. salaries, etc. and that indirect arises from two levels: countywide, i.e. payroll, personnel, data processing and also from within departments, i.e. support staff. She summarized that direct costs plus indirect costs equal total cost. Payton stated that indirect costs are determined by identifying the total cost of a support service and allocating it to all users of the service. Perry provided an example of what a county-wide cost plan looks like, referring to a study for Clackamas County.
Dumdi questioned how this plan would differ from the present indirect system used by the county. Suchart remarked that this would provide a more consistent system. Cornacchia noted the need to rationalize the expense of engaging with an outside entity to refine a function that is already being accomplished, showing what value is added to the general fund. Suchart noted that the County has not always consistently done this within departments. Garnick stated that the problem is that with the current system, costs are approximately $4 million, while the current indirect system is only bringing in about $2 million. He added that the method currently being used does not accurately indicate all of the costs and meet all of the needs. Perry observed that it is a good idea to have technical expertise come in annually to make sure an organization is doing all that can be done. Garnick indicated that staff does not have the knowledge/resource to complete this kind of study. Schulz noted that the current method was developed by Coopers and Lybrand when County was "flush" and that full cost recovery was never the goal. He remarked that currently only about $800,000 is applied to the road fund, observing that this study would break down their costs. Schulz also stated that he is not sure that grants have been fully explored for grant eligibility for indirect. With regard to Public Safety, Perry noted that if County costs are not identified, they can't be put into federal jail rate calculations.
Van Vactor indicated that the cost of this study is approximately $19,000, which includes software later. He stated that that amount could come out of this year's budget. Van Vactor stated that he strongly recommends that the Board proceed with this study. Rust, Weeldreyer and Green expressed interest in the study. With a majority agreeing, Van Vactor stated that staff would go forward, with no Order necessary. Green and Cornacchia asked for follow up/ benchmarks. Rust remarked that this system is on the cutting edge of financial accountability, noting that he wants a system that fairly allocates costs throughout all programs. Van Vactor remarked that the results could be incorporated into the FY96-97 budget to see true costs of operations. Suchart indicated that Finance and Audit will track/report.
b. ORDER 95-4-18-1/In the Matter of Accepting the Proposal From Coopers and Lybrand to Provide Audit Services to Lane County Covering the Three Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1997, With an Option to Renew for Two Additional Years.
Suchart briefly reviewed this item. Green indicated that he didn't get the feeling that Coopers & Lybrand was complacent. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Green MOVED, Rust SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To be held April 19.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor stated that the discussion regarding Forest Work Camp closure implications would be held later in the meeting.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/History of County-City Road Partnership Program.
Van Vactor distributed copies of a letter, written by Senator Peter Sorenson and Representative Kitty Piercy, to Attorney General Ted Kulongoski, regarding the transferring of ownership of county roads. John Goodson, Public Works Director, reviewed his agenda memorandum (see material on file). He observed the 1987 agreements with Eugene and Springfield regarding roads transition, noting that agreements with the other small cities were formed the following year. Goodson stated that the key features of the roads agreements with Eugene and Springfield are that the city accepts jurisdiction of all roads within the city limits and they annually request jurisdiction of roads for areas annexed the prior year. He added that the County agrees to surrender roads to the city and make annual payments to the cities based on a 3-part formula. Goodson distributed a handout detailing the actual FY94-95 county payments to cities and a handout regarding the City of Eugene's 1992 actual cost allocation of urban transition funds from the county. Cornacchia remarked that Eugene says that urban transition has been a financial loser for them. He indicated that the driving force for urban transition is based on the premise that the efficient delivery of government services within urban areas is most effectively achieved by consolidating all services under a single jurisdiction. Cornacchia noted that Lane County has unilaterally increased the amount that goes into the Road Partnership pot. He asked whether that has been translated into actual amendment to the agreement and whether the amount could be decreased. Teresa Wilson, County Counsel, recalled that there was an amendment reflecting the increase, noting that she would have to look it up prior to the CIP hearing. Goodson recommended approval of the next item.
b. DELIBERATIONS AND FINAL ORDER 95-4-18-2/In the Matter of the Surrender of Seven County Roads or Portions Thereof to the City of Eugene.
Bob Ezell, Surveyor, reported that the only change since the last discussion on this item is that the 150 days has expired, so staff has fixed the Order to allow the County to offer the roads to the City. Regarding the stub street off of Labona Street, Ezell reported that the constituent was correct - it was misplotted on the map and has been corrected. Cornacchia referred to the map, asking about the jurisdiction of the portions of Irving Road to the west of the black mark. Ezell remarked that he was unsure. Cornacchia stated that if the County has jurisdiction to the west and east, it makes no sense to have the city have a small portion in between. He expressed concern about the possible use of this process to further annexation aims by outside entities. Cornacchia suggested that there be a full discussion on the effect of this and what areas within city limits means. He remarked that transferring some of these small portions makes no sense and suggested that perhaps something else is going on rather than legitimate road maintenance considerations. With regard to island annexations, such as the Irving Road piece, Goodson reported that when a portion of a road is bounded on both sides by county roads, an agreement to "trade" maintenance is made with the city. Cornacchia questioned why the city wants jurisdiction over these roads. Goodson commented that the urban transition agreement requires that the city request annexation of roads for areas that have been annexed. Rust noted that there seems to be some alarm regarding the city's intent. He suggested that the Board request that the city send someone in from their transportation department next time and ask them for the rationale for the proposal and also that Ollie Snowden be present. Cornacchia observed that it says in the agreement that when transference of a road is not logical, the transfer may be deferred by agreement of the parties. He remarked that the intent of the city is a legitimate concern of residents in an area when it appears illogical. Green indicated that he would like to see examples of this having been done before. Stinchfield noted that, in general, County staff has been requesting that these small sections be annexed since if they don't do that, the city is not accepting responsibility for the total development. Stinchfield remarked that staff thought they were following the basic intent of the agreement. He noted that maintenance of a road does come up on calls regarding traffic signals operating properly.
Cornacchia stated that if transfers are logical, helpful to maintenance and do not provide the city with an advantage regarding annexation of a non-accepting homeowner, then it seems okay. Wilson indicated that she would asked Stephen Vorhes to work with staff on this matter. It was agreed to postpone this issue to the next meeting (May 2) and address questions in letter from Sorenson at that time.
c. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 95-4-18-3/In the Matter of Recommending Priorities on the Oregon Department of Transportation's State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Tom Stinchfield reviewed the agenda memorandum (see material on file). He noted that MPC had delayed a recommendation until its next meeting based on various members' concerns. Rust stated that the real problem seems to be how to integrate urban and non-metro projects. He remarked that if MPC cannot agree, then the state makes its own list. Stinchfield observed that there is the option of having separate metro and non-metro lists. Responding to Cornacchia, Stinchfield indicated that they have worked with ODOT to support projects in the pipeline and that the project lists haven't changed much since last time. Green questioned how MPC had come to their list of priorities, specifically asking why the Beltline/Barger project was ranked as #10 versus the Beltline/River Road/Delta project. Cornacchia remarked that it was not given a higher priority than projects that have been in the works for a long time. Stinchfield observed that the first phase of the Beltline project is committed and going to bid. There was a brief discussion of the priorities listed in the packet. Direction was given to tell ODOT and the cities informally that the non-metro priorities are okay and then to bring the entire matter back after MPC takes action.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor stated that he had met with the sheriff last Friday and that he was about to execute contracts regarding the closure of the Work Camp. He noted that there has been some interest in considering interim alternative uses for the facility. Van Vactor asked if the Board wants to stay on the path of mothballing or direct staff to prepare a report on alternative uses. McManus emphasized that he felt he was given direction to mothball the camp and that he has put a lot of effort/work into getting that accomplished. He remarked that he is trying to attrition the camp down in an orderly fashion and make long-term plans to protect the County's investment. McManus asked whose responsibility it is to seek alternative uses for the facility. McManus noted that there are issues with regard to 1) land use that requires a percentage of activity out there to be 51% forest related, 2) a contract with the community, and 3) direction given to get the camp mothballed with the anticipation that next year's revenue stream would include reviving it. Cornacchia stated that it was the intent that the expenses of the work camp were to end in order to capture the deficit reduction and that now the Board was hearing there may be other functions that could utilize the facility at their own expense. McManus indicated that his department has looked at the idea of state funding, but uncertainty of CCA funding was a problem. Rust suggested that the County continue with mothballing, but if an opportunity presents itself that fits within the legal requirements, then the notion of reopening it earlier could be explored. McManus indicated that his target date is May 5 and he has been ratcheting the number of prisoners down with the intent of ending the use of salaried employees at the work camp. Responding to Green, McManus indicated that a decision may eventually have to be made on whether to run the camp as a work camp or a drug and alcohol facility with eventual CCA funds. He stated that he does not want to be in the position of having to pay a full-time employee to remain at the camp after June 30. McManus agreed that he will sign no contracts until May 5 and will hold off on a caretaker until that time. Cornacchia indicated that a final decision should be able to be made within the next 7 to 10 days. Weeldreyer agreed that whatever plan may come forward will need to provide for staffing/security, to keep all systems running, meet land use planning agreements and protect the asset. Wilson noted that the facility has been funded with bond proceeds, so it is necessary not to violate any of the bond covenants. This matter will be discussed at the May 2 meeting.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
d. REPORT BACK/Request for Board Policy Direction to Develop Proposed Amendments to the Lane County General Plan Policies, Goal 4, and to the Nonimpacted Forest Lands, F1 Zone, and the Impacted Forest Lands, F2 Zone, and for Amending Lane Code Chapter 16.210 and 16.211.
Jim Mann, Planning Program Supervisor, summarized that state laws regulating uses on forest land changed in 1993 and Lane County needs to update the zoning code to comply with changes in state law. He observed that the current F-1 zone prohibits dwellings, noting that there is still a justification for a distinction between F-1 and F-2. Mann remarked that staff is proposing that the County proceed with amendments to conditionally authorize dwellings in the F-1 zone, but to make the siting of the dwellings much more restrictive than under F-2 and more than required by state law. He continued that, if directed, staff would draft the amendments and would have hearings in June or July. Rust asked for an estimate of the theoretical build out possibility if everyone took advantage. Mann indicated that there are 5,909 tax lots in F-1 zones and that 352 are developed with homesites, so the others could be open to future assessment. He noted that there may be more or less depending on parcels and partitions. Cornacchia stated that he was hesitant to open up development of F-1. Rust remarked that he is not in favor of opening up F-1 lands.
Mike Evans, Land Planning Consultant, indicated that he has been retained by the Lane County Landowners' Association, whose membership consists of Giustina, Swanson, Roseboro, Weyerhaeuser, etc. - most, if not all, of the major timber land holders. He remarked that they felt that they could control the houses that went in out there and want some ability to have a dwelling under certain circumstances. Evans observed that they have set some limits/restrictions for themselves; for example, that the only place that you could qualify for a dwelling in the F-1 zone was on a parcel that has public road frontage or easements. Responding to Cornacchia, Mann responded that there is a requirement to extend a firebreak from 30 to 100 feet in areas that are not within a rural fire district. Rust remarked that this is a small, self-interested group who has promulgated rules. He observed that there may be a different perspective if fisheries, etc. had input. Rust suggested opening up this discussion to a broader spectrum of interests, asking that before this is sent to staff to do amendments, that a public hearing be held, inviting commentary on this major policy shift. Cornacchia noted that public policy has already been set by the state and that these people are saying that they want more restrictive conditions than the current state policy. Rust observed, however, that this would be dramatically changing policy for Lane County. Mann noted that if these amendments were to be drafted, they would go to the planning commissions and there would be public hearings. Cornacchia indicated that he likes these additional restrictions. Weeldreyer remarked that she is a strong supporter of private property rights and is comfortable with this. Dumdi indicated that she had no problem with this. General consensus was reached with Alternative One (direct staff to prepare amendments to the General Plan Policies and Lane Code 16 which comply with the Goal 4 Rule and incorporate the changes mentioned in the agenda memorandum), with Rust dissenting.
8. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
a. ORDER 95-4-18-4/In the Matter of Making an Appointment to the Regional Strategy Board.
MOTION: Approval of appointment of Jim Ramseyer. Cornacchia MOVED, Rust SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0. Rust commented on the need to recruit for diversity.
b. RESOLUTION 95-4-18-5/In the Matter of Recognizing the 85th Year of Boy Scouts in America and Supporting the Oregon Trail Council Boy Scout Programs.
MOTION: Approval of the Resolution. Cornacchia MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.
3. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rust indicated that he had spoken at MPC regarding animal control issues. He voiced the expectation that members will talk at their councils and determine if further meetings are needed.
Weeldreyer distributed a handout regarding recreational vehicle siting for hardship standards, asking if there is interest in working with Land Management to come up with proposals to revise the RV policy to allow more flexibility. Consensus was reached to allow a temporary extension in this situation. Cornacchia noted that a change in the code would set a significant precedent. Weeldreyer indicated that she would research possible options in this situation with legal counsel.
Green stated that he had met with Jim Hill last week regarding Oregon Investment Policy and its impact for Oregon housing.
There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Sharon Giles, Board Secretary