APPROVED 9/20/95

June 21, 1995
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING
Harris Hall Main Floor - following MWWSD Meeting

Chair Ellie Dumdi convened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. with Commissioners Steve Cornacchia (9:07 a.m.), Bobby Green Sr., Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Leslie Barrett, Recording Secretary.

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

Bill Van Vactor announced that Cornacchia had requested that Les Lyle from the City of Eugene be available for Item 7-d. (Oral report on Road Improvements to Hyundai reports). Van Vactor indicated that Lyle would not be available until this afternoon, and requested that the item be postponed until around 2:00 p.m. today.

Van Vactor stated that David Garnick had requested that Item 6-e. REPORT BACK/Projected Cash Balance and Department Budget Performance be postponed for one week as all the departments had not complied with the timeline for a report this week.

Rust inquired if the Executive Session would be held in the morning, as he had made an afternoon appointment at 2:30 p.m. with the assumption that the agenda would be finished at that time. Van Vactor indicated that the Executive Session item should be brief.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

James D. Kiley, 3111 Myrna Avenue, Santa Clara area of Eugene stated he was employed as a parole and probation officer (PO) for the State of Oregon, and was the President of the professional association that represents parole and probation officers throughout the state. Kiley indicated that he wanted to comment in regard to Item 6-g. regarding the Firearm Policy recommendation.

Kiley remarked that he wanted to state for the record that the State PO’s are armed, including those in Eugene, with specified training that has been approved by DPSST. He continued that the parole and probation officers do a job that is highly involved with public safety functions. He further stated that they are listed in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) as public safety officers, which necessitated their arming.

Kiley continued by stating that parole and probation officers are considered to have dangerous jobs because of the kind of clientele that they serve. Kiley remarked that the County parole and probation officers are unarmed, which he felt put them in a "dangerous situation in the field," leaving them without personal protection that is afforded the state officers.

Kiley encouraged the Board to look at this issue in terms of liability to the County and safety of the employees, and then cited Clackamas and other counties as examples of local government that studied and then made recommendations pro-firearms. Kiley indicated that Multnomah County is also doing a study.

Cornacchia inquired if the suggested treatment was "threat to arm." Kiley responded negatively. He said that the State had a policy of threat to arm, which proved quite cumbersome to get someone armed because it takes at least a two week notification. Kiley indicated that the threats they encounter in their job are daily and immediate. He further remarked that if there is a threat situation, that PO's, police officers or sheriff's deputies do not knowingly walk into it. Remedying the threat or preparing safety equipment after the threat has happened has not been adequate.

Rust asked Kiley’s preference on the Board giving PO’s the option to arm. Kiley responded that would be preferable, and that one of the officers was highly trained, as he is an ex-lieutenant with the Sheriff's Department and has gone through the State training.

Rust further questioned Kiley if he was in agreement with the other recommendations made by Donna Lattin, supervisor of the County probation and parole officers, regarding training. Kiley said it was a feasible plan, with optional armament, possibly modifying the cost impact to the County by having the officer purchase their own weapon.

Cornacchia then asked if there was a shorter time on the threat to arm policy if that softened his opposition to it, or if the reality was just two weeks. Kiley responded that processing time had shortened since 1986, and implementing special armed units at the Governor’s request in 1989, had lessened the time. The first officer application took eighteen months for completion, with documentation needed from the District Attorney, the State Police and several others. Kiley indicated that time frame was not adequate, as the threat becomes immediate. He further commented that if a PO is out at a residence with the possibility of automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, explosive devices or possibly a meth lab, the situation becomes very difficult. Kiley stated an individual cannot retreat if they cannot get out.

Rust queried Kiley to see if he planned to stay for the rest of the discussion. Kiley responded affirmatively. It was the consensus of the Board to review that item earlier on the agenda.

3. COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS

Dumdi stated that Commissioners’ announcements would come later.

4. COMMISSIONERS’ BUSINESS

a. Announcements -- None.

5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

Van Vactor responded to Dumdi’s question that a brief Executive Session would be needed.

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

Van Vactor indicated he had placed a draft letter to the Elks, with regard to potential acquisition of that site for the Juvenile Justice Center, in each Commissioner's box and wanted to alert them that the letter was there. Van Vactor said that Steve Carmichael is eager to send the letter, and requested comments as soon as possible.

Van Vactor also stated that David Bennett, the consultant working with Judge Mattison’s group, as well as the Community Corrections Advisory Committee, is in town and will be making a report tomorrow from 11:30 - 1:30 to the Community Corrections Advisory Committee. Bobby Green is a regular member of the committee, but Van Vactor indicated he wanted to invite the other Commissioners if it fits into their schedules. If there were going to be three of them, they needed some notice. Commissioners indicated their schedules, and it was possible that three of them might be in attendance.

Item 6g. was taken out of sequence.

g. ORDER 95-6-21-4/In the Matter of Reviewing Firearm Policy Recommendation for County Probation/Parole Officers.

Donna Lattin stated that there was no more serious issue for any manager than the safety of their employees. She continued that it was a very difficult issue, and was one that reasonable people would differ on. Lattin stated that she felt she had done a careful analysis of the incidents of victimization against probation officers, and further stated that Kiley had raised some valid questions. Lattin also remarked that this was the kind of issue that benefited from all perspectives being on the table.

Lattin said that the recommendation before the Commissioners was only for the two County PO’s that oversee a very specialized sex offender unit. She pointed out that in the Agenda Cover Memorandum (ACM), she advised the Board to reassess the issue before they assumed responsibility for all parole and probation officers. Lattin indicated that when dealing with safety issues you need to plan for the exception, and had taken considerable time to speak with people around the state and review the background information.

Lattin continued that when planning for that exception that you need to realistically assess the incidents of risk for specific officers assigned to specific duties and overseeing specific populations. She further remarked that she did not believe there was a "one-size fits all" solution to the problem. Lattin called attention to the ACM stating there was considerable debate around the state, although the majority of counties are optionally arming probation officers at this time. The majority of offenders are not armed in the state, and that Multnomah County has an arming to threat policy at present.

Lattin said that the responses/solutions to the issue range from a no arming policy in Washington County to a task force recommendation out of Multnomah County to mandatorily arm all new officers. Multnomah County is "testing the waters" over the next year, cautiously and systematically proceeding to arm specialized units to assess the very important question: "Does the incident of injury and potential for injury justify carrying a lethal weapon?"

Lattin stated that a range of safety devices is provided to the officers, from chemical agents to cellular phones and radios. She indicated the question today is whether the potential for injury justifies the carrying of a lethal weapon, and answering the solution: Does carrying the lethal weapon increase or decrease the risk to the officers, the community and the offender? Lattin continued that there are no perfect answers to this solution. She said that the advice she offered was specific to the small unit and warranted reassessment when responsibility was assumed for a larger unit.

Lattin indicated that the State went through its own evolutionary process in the development of their optional arming policy. In 1988, the State developed an arming to threat policy, which allows officers to carry a firearm for the duration of the threat at the request of the officer and by the approval of the supervisor/director of that county branch.

Lattin continued that in 1991 the State developed a tactical supervision unit which is a specialized unit designed to supervise the most serious, dangerous, potentially volatile clients. She further remarked that in 1993 the DOC conceptually approved optional arming. Optional arming allows for the carrying of a concealed firearm on duty by request of the Probation Officer and approval of the Director. In 1994, State training began for those officers who had requested to be optionally armed. Authorization occurred after training was completed. This is a new issue for the State and comes to the County at a time of transition, as the structure of the County’s Correction Probation Parole program is uncertain.

Lattin stated that Kiley had made one compelling comment about the time it takes to become approved under the former DOC guidelines for the arming to threat policy. She recommended that in terms of mitigating the risk and speeding up that process, one suggestion was to require both County officers to complete mandatory firearm training. This would speed up the process at the time a threat was identified. At that point a psychological exam would be required before the officer was armed to threat, but she felt that could be completed within one to two days. Lattin further remarked that this is imperfect -- the nature of threat is not such that it can be planned or that it can be anticipated.

Lattin reviewed that we live in an increasingly violent and volatile society. She stated that probation and parole officers do a very difficult job, and that she did not want to minimize the risks that they are exposed to in their profession. Lattin cited California as an example. She said that over 1500 officers supervise over 60,000 offenders in the communities, and that they have never had an incident of serious injury to a probation officer. They have been carrying guns since 1979, and have been optionally armed.

Lattin stated that she felt that the arming to threat recommendation is sound and reasonable for the two County officers in this unit, and then reiterated that she advised the Board to reassess the issue in the coming months.

Cornacchia inquired how many cases the two officers in the sex offender unit supervision program are carrying at present. Lattin replied that each of them carries approximately twenty-five cases. Cornacchia then queried of the twenty-five cases, how many contacts are required per month by the system. Lattin said that a minimum of four contacts are required by the Department of Corrections. Lattin continued, that because the unit is an intensive supervision unit, that they designed this so that the contacts would actually be doubled. Actual contacts are then a minimum of eight per month per case. Lattin further remarked that they are averaging around ten or eleven contacts per case per month. She indicated that not all contacts are face-to-face, but could be by phone.

Cornacchia asked Lattin to walk him through a model, where contact was required within three days within a setting of ten minimum contacts, determined by the officer what is required at the preceding contact, the officer comes to the reasonable conclusion that there is a threat here and has under this program a required contact coming up in three days. He inquired: "What happens?" He asked if there was a process or criteria in mind that would provide the opportunity for that decision and that arming in that period.

Lattin replied that at the moment the officer becomes aware of a threat (which could be written, verbal, a threat to injury or death of an officer or a family member or associate), it is reported. In the interim, if it takes two to three days to do the necessary approval process, there would be steps taken to mitigate the threat. There are a number of options: 1) prohibit the person from going into the field to contact that person -- to require that the offender come to the office for a visit, if a visit is required; 2) request law enforcement backup if it is deemed very necessary to go into the field to see that offender; 3) remove that case from that probation officer, if the nature of the threat is considered so volatile. Lattin reiterated that steps would need to be taken.

Cornacchia then gave his reaction that it sounded as there never would be an arming, because there are other options that would be chosen by the supervisor that are better situations. Lattin replied that was not the intent. She indicated that the nature of a threat was such that the threat did not go away. There needs to be a determination made that, as stated in the arms to threat policy, the nature of the threat warrants the carrying of a legal weapon. Everything short of carrying a weapon would be pursued in that interim period of two or three days.

Cornacchia said that it sounded to him as if she was saying that throughout the contact for the next two years, you could require the individual to come into the office, rather than field contact. He indicated that the officer could be removed from the case and have it given to another officer on each and every case. Lattin indicated that because of the work that PO’s do, she felt it was critical that they continue to go into the field to monitor offenders because it is in the field that they determine whether the offender is complying with conditions and sees the home environment. She further remarked that she did not believe it was an adequate response to simply restrict those contacts to an office visit.

Cornacchia then asked about the psychological evaluation. He inquired if it was an evaluation that had to occur each time the officer asks for protection. Lattin responded that this was an issue she would ask the Safety Committee to review. She indicated that at this point, it is not required that County PO’s complete a psychological evaluation at the point of hire. It would be an option for the County, and would expedite the process if there was a threat incident with the existing policy. Lattin said she foresaw that at the point an officer brought a threat to the attention of the supervisor or the County Administrator, and that arming to threat is approved, that psychological exam would be conducted very quickly. She stated that she did not have an answer of whether that should be completed at each incident, but felt it might be sufficient to have the one.

Cornacchia indicated that in the model he discussed, it seemed that the other person was the problem, yet the parole and probation officer who raised the issue of the problem become the one scrutinized. He said that if this happened each and every time, that he personally would be offended by that and would have his union deal with the issue. Rust asked if the State required a psychological screening. Lattin responded that with the optional arming policy, the director has the discretion of seeking a psychological profile. Lattin then referred the question to a State PO, who responded that all staff had an initial psychological evaluation, and with optional arming, only if there was a concern by the Director.

Lattin stated that she agreed with Cornacchia's perception as to how this would be viewed by probation officers. She said the reason that she included it at this point was after discussions with County Legal Counsel and other jurisdictions that it does afford counties the most protection in carrying a lethal weapon at this first stage of testing that policy. Cornacchia said he had no problem with an initial psychological evaluation, but to have one each and every time a request was made would make him wonder why he was in that business. Lattin agreed that it was cumbersome.

Cornacchia had a question about the DOC guidelines that Lattin had mentioned, inquiring if they were mandated or were put out as guidelines for different entities that had parole responsibilities to follow and set policy. Lattin responded that they were mandatory for the State probation officers. Because these are County officers, the County has stated through intergovernmental agreement that it would abide by those for purposes of ease of operation, but have the discretion to develop its own.

Cornacchia said that if the County was going to develop a policy to arm, based on consideration of threat, that it did not make a lot of sense to him to have the process so cumbersome and lengthy that it had no effect. If by the time the individual needed to make contact for the protection of the public and that other individual, and then having a two week process, or if the supervisor was on a two week vacation and they were the only one who could give approval, then those kinds of situations keep pushing him [Cornacchia] toward the policy of just straight voluntary arming. He wanted an idea of what the criteria are, the timelines and having County policy or process that removes all those impediments to making the policy work in the way in which it was intended.

Green stated he would like to hear from the two County parole and probation officers on the possibility of their working intergovernmentally in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies. He also questioned what would occur if there was probable cause to believe there were some other activities going on which could create a dangerous situation where an officer might be asked to make contact. Lattin replied that the officers would be in situations that would put them in contact with other offenders, that they would be called upon to assist other agencies, so it’s not neatly categorized, although it is a specialized unit. She further indicated that she had invited the two County officers to come today, and that they were in attendance. Lattin also commented that there is no uniform agreement about this policy statewide, and as she began this report within the County’s unit, the sentiment was divided within the unit: one officer believing very strongly that he should have the option to carry a gun; and the other officer seeing no need at that time to carry a gun. She remarked that there were valid and compelling arguments to be made on both sides of the debate.

Rust commended Lattin on her careful analysis. He indicated he appreciated all the background information that she had pulled together, and reiterated her remark that reasonable people could come to different conclusions using that material. Rust said that what "shakes out" for him, was the California experience and the disagreement within the Parole and Probation office, is that the optional program is probably the best one.

Rust said that Cornacchia had raised a lot of issues about process, and how the County can make things more difficult than they need to be. Rust stated that when an officer leaves home in the morning, if in their "gut" they feel they would be more safe to have this tool, that it should be available to them. He also indicated that he would like the officers to be able to have that tool without going through excess tape, tests and waiting.

Rust stressed the importance of training, stating that it would be the "key" to making this work and protect the County’s liability, as well as the officer and the clientele. He indicated that he thought the managers should be able to order testing of officers if they felt there has been behavior or attitude that warrants that. Rust continued that at some point in that officer’s career, the manager should be able to weigh in with some kind of lever in terms of making sure that the appropriate use of that tool is being carried out. Rust reiterated that he felt optional arming was the best policy.

Weeldreyer also indicated that she would like to hear from the County PO's. She stated that she had done one ride-along in the Oakridge area, and that she would feel very much at risk, if she was the PO, due to some of the dwellings that she went into and some of the conditions that she found there, because these incidents can flare up so quickly. Weeldreyer stated that she would not want to be in a position to explain to the PO’s family if something happened to them, and agreed with Commissioner Rust that the arming of the PO’s should be optional so that the officers can feel safe and able to protect themselves at all times. Weeldreyer cited the length of the waiting list for people in Lane County to obtain a concealed weapon permit legitimately, and that it was frightening to consider how many illegal weapons might be present at any time.

Dumdi said that she felt that Rust and Weeldreyer had stated things very well, and that Cornacchia and Green had raised some good questions. Dumdi indicated that she, also, would like to hear from the County officers.

Steve Lauch, one of the two County parole and probation officers in the sex offender unit, stated that he and Ms. Lattin had many lengthy discussions about this issue, and that he has told her that he strongly disagrees with her proposal -- being armed to threat does not give him the appropriate tool to respond to those instant and spontaneous issues that he is presented with. He presented background to support his position, mentioning that he had worked nineteen years in the Sheriff’s office prior to his current assignment. He said that he is the only person in the State of Oregon that holds three certificates in law enforcement -- Corrections, Police and Parole and Probation. Lauch stated that he offered his opinion based on a great deal of training, background and experience that Ms. Lattin did not have regarding the actual practice of the work that he does.

Lauch mentioned two issues not presented in Lattin’s proposal. He indicated that he is not "just" a sex offender probation officer. He stated that he was a member of a team, assisting in arrests of people that are not on his caseload, and his colleagues assist him in making arrests of people on his caseload. Lauch stated there were three instances in which he had been personally involved that required his instant and spontaneous responses where he should have been armed when he was involved with the apprehension of persons on other caseloads. In those situations, the offender was fleeing and the officers were in foot pursuit. One offender was able to get into a van. Police had been summoned and had their weapons drawn. There was another person in the van with four or five large knives. He indicated that the person in the van could easily have been armed and that he (Lauch) could have been hurt at that point, as he was unarmed.

Lauch stated that in another instance, he had been summoned to assist other parole officers and the police in a search of the residence believed to contain a large number of firearms and ammunition that had been stolen by a burglar, and the officers had received information that they might have been at this particular house. Lauch stated that by going into that situation, he took some risks. Lauch continued that crime, drug use and gang activity are all increasing in this area.

He indicated that 80% of his caseload is comprised of poly-substance abusers, and that these are difficult to manage. Lauch stated that when you compound poor judgment, low self-esteem and substance abuse, the increase in danger is present. He cited another example of an individual on his caseload that he considers a danger to himself. The individual has been sent to prison by Lauch four times in one year. Lauch said the individual is a meth user, and said he believes the danger level increases for Lauch and his colleagues each time he is arrested because of the substance abuse and a desire not to be arrested. The last time he was arrested, he had been running loose for two days with officials having no knowledge of where to locate him.

Rust inquired if there was any indication that the offenders were improving after receiving treatment. Lauch responded that from an optimistic standpoint, he would like to say yes. Some are responding favorably to treatment, although the two cases he cited have not been in treatment long enough to actually have a very positive outcome.

Lauch stated that Lattin's proposal mentioned that sex offenders typically are predatory in nature in that they seek out children, the weak and women in dysfunctional situations in order to prey upon them, and do not present that much of a risk to parole and probation officers. Lauch said that in his one year experience as a PO, that he has three people on his caseload that he considers extremely dangerous. He cited an example of an individual who had started out at the State's work release center in Tillamook. The offender had threatened the officers with an ax. The warden happened to be there, talked the individual into putting the ax down, and told the individual he would be escorted to the penitentiary by one officer. During that course of transportation, the offender assaulted the officer, took the officer hostage, ordered him to drive around through the countryside, stop for alcoholic beverages, ordered the officer to stop and pickup a female hitchhiker, drove to an isolated area and raped that woman.

Lauch commented that when an individual on his caseload was transferred to Portland, then someone else will be transferred back. While one individual was on parole in Lane County, he was arrested in the office and the police were summoned. Lauch indicated that the police were so concerned about their safety that they sent the SWAT Team to arrest this individual in the County office. He indicated that the sex offender can pose a threat of danger to the PO’s, and said that they needed the option of having the appropriate tools and equipment available to them to respond safely to those issues.

Carlos Cartlidge, the second County parole and probation officer in the sex offender program, cited an example in the past two months where he responded to a house of one of the offenders on his caseload who possessed a semi-automatic assault weapon. Carlos stated that he asked a Sheriff’s deputy to accompany him. The deputy entered the house with his gun drawn. Cartlidge stated that during his discussions with Ms. Lattin that he was indifferent, and stated that 99% of the time there is no need to carry a weapon. He continued that there is a difference of opinion, but in that one occasion he needed to protect himself.

Cartlidge remarked that in the future if he goes to a home where there is a report of a weapon, he will ask a police officer to accompany him, but just for his personal protection. He indicated that he needed the discretion of carrying a weapon. Cartlidge continued that neither he nor Lauch were "gun nuts," and that he does not own a personal weapon. He further stated that it was his personal opinion that some of the automatic non-hunting weapons on the marketplace should be banned. Cartlidge said that he is familiar with weapons and had been on active duty with the Army and currently with the Army Reserve. Cartlidge indicated that he felt the Board would be wise to give them the discretion to carry weapons.

Rust stated that it sounded as if Cartlidge was substantially in agreement with wanting the option to carry weapons, and said that the issue before the Board was whether to make it optional or to have a threat to arm policy. He inquired of Cartlidge what his position was, and whether he would have a problem if the Board made the policy optional? Cartlidge responded that he felt it would be wise to make it optional for the PO’s to carry arms at their discretion. He further remarked that the question about whether it would be practical to consult with a supervisor every time they might need a weapon, would not work.

Rust commended Lattin on encouraging the staff in her division to come to the Board to have the type of discussion that was just held, even though their opinion may disagree with hers. Rust said this is the type of management that is needed at Lane County, and he appreciates that. Dumdi echoed his remarks.

Lattin commented that the division has been in operation for one year and that the two parole officers are exemplary. She stated she had met with both officers to tell them that she was not coming to the Board with an "agenda," that her goal is to get everything on the table, and invited them to come forward and challenge any statements in the document and present their own perspective. Lattin continued that she felt the Board had heard some compelling information. She called attention to the supplemental item in the packet noting that while she had addressed safety issues in the memorandum, there are some system issues and organizational issues that the Board will be making in Corrections, Probation and Parole in the coming months.

Lattin continued that the Risk Manager had been involved for some months in a Violence in the Workplace Study, and there is a Safety Committee that is reviewing broader County policies that will pertain to the Juvenile Probation Officers ultimately, the District Attorney's office and other County employees. The Safety Committee anticipates having preliminary recommendations in about two months, but is about a year away from a final policy. Lattin mentioned the need for a consistent, long-term policy that addresses these kinds of situations.

MOTION: Approval of Option 3, allowing optional arming for officers. Rust MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED for purposes of discussion. Cornacchia then inquired of Rust if he would add as part of his intent to include the requirements of training, the psychological evaluation, and those kinds of things that were discussed. Rust responded affirmatively and asked that Legal Counsel and the Risk Manager review -- that the bottom line was optional arming, but that the other issues needed to be taken care of, as well.

Cornacchia told Lattin that in his eight years as a Commissioner, he could not remember a better agenda packet in terms of getting to him the information that allowed him to review both sides of the issue and thanked her for her exemplary work. Cornacchia continued that he had hoped that Lauch, Cartlidge and others would be present to round it out, but he had come to the meeting supportive of Lattin's recommendation, with the expectation that there would be a re-evaluation. He also indicated that at the same time he had two nagging thoughts if fellow employees said they want the option of carrying arms, that it would have been difficult for him to say that he agreed with her and not the line staff. Cornacchia stated that all the information that was provided is a compelling picture -- and that he did not want to be the one who was "wrong" and placed a fellow employee in a position that 97% of the time this would not have harmed them. He did not want to have to explain to the families that he was the one that had placed their family member in jeopardy. Cornacchia told Lattin that there appeared to be a movement toward optional arming of PO’s and did not want her to take that movement as a rejection of her work, suggestion and recommendation. The result was a natural outgrowth of the information that she gave to the Board.

Green stated that he gets value from the practitioner's point of view and that assists him in making his decision. He also cited the point on how the County PO’s work with other officers in different situations with a dangerous environment was very helpful to him. Green said that he supports Cornacchia’s remarks concerning Lattin’s work, stating she is a rare manager to invite opposing viewpoints and indicated that most managers would not do that. Green indicated that if he was in the PO’s position, he wanted the option of whether to arm himself before he walked out the door that day because his main mission for the day would be to return safely home. He remarked that he wanted the officers to have the same option, and indicated that he would support Option 3, optional arming of officers.

Dumdi expressed her thanks to Lattin for the excellent job and the opportunity to hear from both probation officers. She indicated that she would also support the option to arm.

VOTE: 5-0. The Board Order will be amended to reflect approval of Option 3, optional arming of officers.

b. ORDER 95-6-21-1/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Lane Council of Governments for the Development and Management of Cable Franchise Agreements. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Cornacchia MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

c. PUBLIC HEARING/In the Matter of Adopting the 1995-96 Budget, Making Appropriations and Levying Taxes.

David Garnick, Senior Management Analyst, indicated that Budget staff had pulled together all information that the Budget Committee had approved and a number of attachments that were incorporated into the Order to make things easier for the departments and the Board. Garnick reminded the Board that they had adopted an amendment to Lane Manual that permits the County Administrator to execute contracts that have already gone through the review process. A comprehensive list of contracts was provided as an attachment.

Cornacchia inquired if the contracts would ever go to the next step of not having to be approved, when they were already approved by the Budget Committee and met required parameters. Van Vactor indicated that from a staff perspective it is important to form an audit trail and ensure Board level approval.

Garnick continued by stating Intergovernmental Agreement and Dues Lists had been reviewed at the Budget Committee level, were attached and included for Board approval. Garnick mentioned that one difference this year was the inclusion of the number of full-time equivalent positions by department to allow a "measuring stick" of when a department might be exceeding what has been approved. Departments will know when required to return to the Board for additional FTE approval. An extensive list of budget adjustments was also included -- most of them being technical or of a "housekeeping" nature where an adjustment was approved in the current year and needs to be carried over to be reflected in next year's budget. Garnick indicated there were a number of grant related adjustments where not all the final figures are known at the time the budget is prepared, but the departments have a better estimate of what those figures are. Garnick pointed out the third group called "Policy Issues" was found on Page 3 of the agenda packet, listing what some of those are (e.g., a programmatic change that is not strictly technical in nature).

Garnick said the one item that needs to be discussed is the License Canvassing Program. The budget package presented was balanced as far as the Animal Regulation program was concerned, but the department is projecting that there is not sufficient revenue to fully fund that program. Garnick indicated that the County will need to make a determination it wants to "kick in" another $5,315 to fund the County share of that program. If it is decided that will happen, there will need to be an adjustment made in the Order to do that.

Dumdi stated she had some concerns about the LCARA License Canvassing program indicating every effort should be made to ensure that dogs are licensed. She reported that her experience going out with a canvasser was very positive. As there were no comments from the Board, Van Vactor clarified that an amendment was needed to fund the $5,315 to fully fund the Canvassing program.

Dumdi opened the Public Hearing at 10:12 a.m. As there was no one to testify, she closed the Public Hearing at 10:12 a.m.

Rust inquired where the additional $5,300 would come from to fund the canvassing program at LCARA. Garnick indicated that one suggestion would be reducing the appropriated reserve by that amount, but that would place it below 5%. Garnick stated he was not aware of any other funding available (e.g., Video Lottery dollars). Garnick responded to a Board inquiry that by backing off the enforcement aspect of the canvassing program, the department no longer felt the revenue generated would fund the program. One of the funding items discussed previously was the possibility of a tiered license fee for those individuals whose unlicensed dogs were picked up. After a brief discussion, it was requested that LCARA staff return with an oral report on the canvassing program indicating how continuation of the program would be funded. Garnick summarized that it could be assumed that the budget was an estimate of revenues at this point, and that LCARA staff will return to speak to the Board.

MOTION: Adoption of the 1995-96 budget, make appropriations and levy taxes. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Dumdi stated to Garnick that there was one minor correction on the very last page. Historically, there was a program called "Predator Control," but it is now called "Animal Damage Control." Garnick indicated that the change will be made.

Cornacchia stated that he will be voting for the budget, but added that it does not necessarily reflect a support for the LCARA canvassing program. VOTE: 5-0.

Van Vactor thanked Rick Schulz and David Garnick for their hard work in the preparation of this budget, stating that they gave up many evenings and weekends with families. Van Vactor asked that they convey to their families how much the County organization appreciates their hard work, especially as this was the first budget in a long time that was prepared without the assistance of Margo Drivas. Dumdi echoed Van Vactor's thanks.

d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 95-6-21-2/In the Matter of Adopting the 1994-95 Supplemental Budget #2 and Making Appropriations.

Garnick stated that this was Supplemental Budget #2 for 1994-95, and that Budget staff was trying to get everything cleaned up before the end of the current fiscal year. He indicated that since all changes were under 10% of any change in a particular fund, they were able to utilize a shorter supplemental process without the involvement of the Budget Committee. Garnick also stated that there would be one change coming in the next week, which would require a third supplemental budget as it was over 10%, and required different publication notice.

Garnick mentioned one specific item on page 2 of the cover memorandum regarding Fund 12, the Self-Insurance Fund. He clarified that as a result of a vehicle being wrecked by the Traffic Team (the current policy is that the department pays $500 and that the Self-Insurance Fund picks up the remainder of the costs), the department’s insurance premium will be increased over the next five years to recoup the cost.

Dumdi opened the Public Hearing at 10:22 a.m. There being no one to comment, Dumdi closed the Public Hearing at 10:23 a.m.

MOTION: Adoption of the 1994-95 Supplemental Budget #2 and Making Appropriations. Rust MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

e. REPORT BACK/Projected Cash Balance and Department Budget Performance. Dumdi announced that this item would be postponed until the following week.

f. ORDER 95-6-21-3/In the Matter of Filling a Vacancy on the Rural Community Improvement Council. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Cornacchia MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

7. PUBLIC WORKS

a. ORDER 95-6-21-5/In the Matter of David Sweet’s Appeal of Tourism Special Projects as Recommended by the Tourism Council.

-and-

b. ORDER 95-5-21-6/In the Matter of Awarding Tourism Special Projects Grants for 1995 and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Agreements.

Alisa Cobb summarized the grant cycle to date. Grants were solicited in April, with a due date of May 3. Cobb said an applicants' conference was held on April 17 with about seventeen people in attendance to gain more information on the program. Twenty-eight proposals requesting $182,000 were received: eighteen small grant proposals and ten large grant proposals. Cobb stated that the budget to be allocated is $70,000 this year. Two potential and two actual conflicts of interest were declared by members of the Tourism Council.

Cobb continued that because there were conflicts declared, she split the Council into two subcommittees of three people each (six of the eight Council members participated). Each subcommittee was composed of two designated and one appointed member, with one committee scoring only the even numbered proposals and the other odd. Cobb explained that this was done to avoid any actual conflict of interest. Council members scored the proposals, returned them to Cobb and she then compiled the scores. Cobb continued that on May 18 the Council discussed the scores. Issues concerning preference points were discussed and some scores were adjusted. Compiled scores were issued to the committee. Because of conflict of interest, two members could not discuss the proposals, but the other members did discuss them and came up with a motion that approved anything that scored over 80% of the available points and to not fund anything scoring less than 68% without further deliberation. By following this process, the actual conflicts were then eliminated and the remaining proposals (between 68-80%) were discussed by all, recommendations were made to not fund, fund partially or fund fully.

Cobb continued with her summary, stating that the Council’s recommendation was mailed to all applicants on May 23, which included a notification of the appeals process, with the appeals deadline May 30th. One appeal from David Sweet was received. Cobb explained the appeal process to the Board, stating that the Board would hear from Mr. Sweet and, that as outlined in Lane Manual, that he had ten minutes to lay out his appeal.

Cobb then said that Claudia Plaza, Chair of the Tourism Council, would present the Tourism Council response to the appeal. Cobb continued by saying that after the Tourism Council had responded, any of the recommended applicants could have five minutes each to respond, although she had not received any requests from applicants to do so at this meeting. Cobb stated that she had received one letter from the Lane County Softball National Organizing Committee about the appeal. Dumdi asked Cobb to read the letter into the record and then distribute copies to the Board. It was decided that Cobb would read the letter after the Sweet appeal.

Cindy Weeldreyer left the meeting at 10:27 a.m., returning at 10:32 a.m.

Cornacchia asked about Lynn Hallbacka who had been listed as a potential conflict on the American Festival of American Music. Cobb responded that Hallbacka was not at the meeting on the 18th to discuss the proposals, and since the Tourism Council decided to fully fund everything scored higher than 80% without further discussion, that conflict was cleared. Cornacchia verified that Halfback did not score the Oregon Festival of American Music and that her scores were not included in the total that created the 91.11%. Cobb said that was correct, and that Lynn's was a potential conflict of interest as was Sandee Hansen's. As potential conflicts of interest they would be allowed to participate in the discussion. Only those with actual conflicts are not allowed to participate in discussions.

David Sweet of 2519 Kincaid Street, Eugene, addressed the Board stating that he was there to address the obvious -- that in no way did he feel that the Tourism Special Projects Grant Process was fair. When he researched the official reasons for appeal, he felt that four out of six members of the Tourism Council declaring a conflict of interest was no way to do business ethically or legally, as he felt it violated ORS 244.120, Subsection II, Part B, Paragraph B, which says that someone with an actual conflict of interest cannot participate as a public official in any discussion or debate on the issue out of which the actual conflict arises. Sweet continued that the actual conflict arose with scoring of the proposals. He cited the small grant proposals as an example, stating there were eighteen. The committee that judged his, judged nine of the proposals and not the others. The other three judges only judged the other nine proposals that they were allotted.

Sweet commented that there was some disparity in the judging of points, contending that one-half of the scorers rated applicants substantially lower than the other group, which resulted in many of the lower scoring applicants being eliminated without benefit of being reviewed by the entire group of scorers, because it was decided by the Tourism Council that all applications scored below a certain percentage would be eliminated without further discussion. Sweet said this resulted in six of the nine applications in his group being eliminated. He stated that this does not meet the letter or the test of the law.

Sweet indicated that separating into two subcommittees was a convoluted arrangement, resulting in disparate ranking -- one group substantially higher (six of nine receiving funding) and one group substantially lower (three of nine receiving funding). Sweet stated that he felt the process was no good legally or ethically. Sweet indicated that he was prepared to take his appeal to the limit.

Sweet was also concerned that only private groups obtained final funding. Not one public agency in Lane County was awarded a grant. He continued that not only did Dave Sweet not make the percentage ranking, but also: McKenzie River Chamber of Commerce, the City of Oakridge, City of Cottage Grove, City of Lowell, Florence Festival of Arts, the Oakridge Westfir Chamber of Commerce. He felt his proposal was slighted by an actual conflict of interest and a convoluted attempt to right that which does not meet the test of state law and that this was an unfair, illegal process.

Sweet said that his proposal was unique in that the benefits of the funding would be returning to the Lane Tourism Council directly. He stated that everyone else was "standing with their hand out." His proposal turned the money around and puts the funding toward the acquisition of Worldwide Web or Internet home sites for the Tourism Council itself and the members of the Tourism Council. Sweet indicated that when he included the figures for his proposal, he knocked off 50% because of the nonprofit status of the County and the Tourism Council. He further remarked that if he were to go ahead with the elements of the project privately, he would stand to profit dollarwise at least twice as much as by presenting the proposal to do community service to the County since he had created Virtual Eugene and is about to put Springfield on the Internet.

Sweet indicated that he is not objecting to the rejection of his proposal, but to illegal, unethical conflicts of interest that has been admitted by the members of the committee. He said that two-thirds of the committee was in conflict of interest. Sweet said the winners were the insiders who were trying to payoff their program and the losers were the Cities of Oakridge, Cottage Grove, Lowell, Westfir, McKenzie River area and the Lane Tourism Council itself because his proposal turned the effort and energy back towards them. Sweet continued that after this conflict of interest, he was not sure that he wanted to promote their existence. He suggested taking them out of existence as they stand, and have people not in conflict of interest judge the awards, because it is public money.

Claudia Plaza responded on behalf of the Tourism Council. As Chair of the Council she mentioned it was a difficult task because each year that special projects have administered the granting of the money, it has been very difficult to find "someone who does not know someone" who is interested in applying for a grant. Plaza indicated that the Council had used the same procedure this year, as they had in the past, of clearly separating the groups of applicants into two different groups. Plaza stated that she, personally, had not been able to vote on any issue for several grants and that this was the first time that she was able to have comments on any proposal that came forward. Legal Counsel came to every Tourism Council meeting where they planned to evaluate special projects, and members were advised by Legal Counsel on what would be considered a conflict, both direct and indirect, and Council members have tried to be very open about declaring conflicts, indicating that they may go overboard about declaring those conflicts.

Plaza reported that the scoring was clear -- they were easily able to take the top percentage (80% and above, eliminate anything beneath 68% and then look at the next category). This was done to allow Council members to vote, in order to get the number needed to pass the issues. Plaza asked for questions from the Board.

Rust commented that it seemed to him that Council members should have scored all of the grants. He stated that he was almost to the point of asking all people with actual or potential conflicts not to be part of the process, and have the remaining members score all of the applications. Rust inquired if that had been contemplated. Plaza said that this was her third or fourth year on the Council, and that there might only be two people to do any scoring after actual and potential conflicts had been declared.

Rust indicated that just knowing someone did not constitute a conflict. Rust stated that a conflict would be when you had money of your own connected somehow, or were a member of an agency that’s going to receive the award. Rust said that just knowing people does not mean anything. Plaza agreed, and said that she felt the Council went overboard in having to declare a conflict. These are people that declare there could be some sort of conflict because they happened to work for a television station which could become one of the stations that would get the contract if someone received an award, which she felt was really stretching it, but people are declaring because they are so cautious. Rust agreed that would be a potential conflict.

Cornacchia indicated that it sounded as if they "erred" for the very reason brought up on the appeal. Rust stated that in terms of disclosure, Sweet helped put him on the Internet, and is a friend of his, so he had a theoretical conflict, but would still "weigh in" on this because he did not have any money involved.

Plaza cited the University of Oregon as an example -- because it employs so many individuals. She asked how many people do not have some contact with University of Oregon, and if the U of O received a special projects grant, doesn't that touch a large percentage of families in the community? Plaza inquired how do you get away from anybody being touched by anything in these proposals? Cornacchia asked what Nancy Cameron's actual conflict with Friends of U of O Museum of Art. Plaza indicated that she worked at the University. Cornacchia said that she does not work at the Museum of Art. Alisa Cobb replied that Cameron works at the University Budget office.

Cornacchia asked what Erickson's actual conflict was on the Artistic Gymnastic proposal. Cobb responded that last year that same organization submitted a proposal, and the motel that he manages was the host hotel for that large event. His conflict would be that his hotel would be getting business from this event. Cornacchia asked if the event would occur whether the grant was funded or not. Cobb responded affirmatively, and said they erred on the conservative side, because last year they knew his hotel was the host hotel -- this year they did not know, as it was not included in the proposal. Cobb stated that she and Teresa Wilson decided to declare it because it was similar to last year.

Rust said that he never got to the bottom line of his final question. He reiterated that question: Would you lose a quorum, if all the participants who did not have conflicts score all of the categories? Cobb stated that it's an eight member council, with only six members able to participate, and that if the two conflicts were removed, there would have been only four that would be scoring the proposals.

Cornacchia indicated that if they used the argument of the appeal that two potentials are also inappropriate that would take it below. Rust stated that the potentials could have participated after they had declared. Cobb agreed. Rust said if there had been one more member present, it could have been done the way he suggested. Cobb responded to the question: "Why not just let everyone score all the proposals," by stating that splitting the proposals in half with each group scoring half is the practice that had occurred in the recent past. Cobb stated she had asked Teresa Wilson the question, and cited the following example: If one individual had an actual conflict and was allowed to score all of the proposals except the one where he had an actual conflict, he could score all other proposals lower because he wanted his one proposal to come out on top. By splitting them in half, that allows fairness in the scoring.

Rust indicated that he knew these people, and that he did not think they would do that. He said it sounded as if they could have all people score all that did not have conflicts, if they had one more member show up at the meetings because they would have had a quorum of people without conflicts. Cornacchia indicated that based on the questions he had asked, the argument could also be made that there were no conflicts.

Green commented that he sits on the Tourism Council and was present on one of the days that Teresa Wilson attended and laid out the material on ethics. She also described what the actual and potential conflicts were to each member that was there. Green remarked that he remembered John Erickson stating that he had a conflict of interest. Green indicated that he did not weigh these projects due to a scheduling conflict, but felt that there was a genuine effort on the part of Committee members not to have bias. Green also stated that Sweet was correct -- that he did not know how to get around it with the process given. He indicated that it would be difficult to find neutral bodies to grade the proposals. Green said he supported the staff recommendation, but did not know how to resolve Mr. Sweet's concern.

Green asked Sweet if he had applied before. Sweet indicated that this was the first time he had applied, and that it virtually became possible for him to apply only through the past few weeks as technology became available.

Green also asked if he [Sweet] would be making the argument if he had been awarded the grant. Sweet replied that most of the arguments he makes before public bodies are based on principles, and that he was not here to make money. Cornacchia inquired of Sweet that if he had been awarded the grant, would he have rejected the award. Sweet indicated that quite possibly he may have under the circumstances that "four out of six means riddled with conflict."

Alisa Cobb read into the record a letter from Benjie Hedgecock of the Lane County Softball National Organizing Committee, one of the recommended applicants, regarding Mr. Sweet's application.

Weeldreyer stated she represented the Board as the liaison to the Mental Health Committee, indicating that committee had a very strong policy regarding conflicts of interest, including the replacement of individuals as committee members if there is a conflict of interest. She questioned if each advisory committee has their own policy in handling conflict of interest.

Van Vactor gave a historical perspective, that Oregon governments (State and local) operate with citizen involvement and often times the governmental action needs the expertise of those individuals that work in a particular line, and conflicts are to be expected and recognized that they will happen. Van Vactor indicated that’s why there is the distinction between potential and actual conflicts.

A discussion followed. Rust responded to Weeldreyer’s question regarding Mental Health representation that it was his recollection that the Board had excluded people who belong to organizations that contract with Mental Health for alcohol or drug monies from serving on Mental Health committees. Rust further indicated that the policy was not spread beyond the Mental Health committees. In regard to the Tourism Council, he stated that the Board had allowed anyone in an "interested party category" to serve. He continued that he did not feel that Mr. Sweet had made a compelling argument for his project, but that it did get his attention and he found it "intriguing and interesting."

Rust said that he felt that other people losing out was not the issue, or that Sweet scored low was not the issue, nor was other agencies losing out on the issue, but did feel that Sweet made a case for scoring all the projects at once, and people having conflicts should not be participating at that level when passing out money. Rust stated that he thought the package should be sent back to the Tourism Council and ask those with actual conflicts to not participate, and those without conflicts to rank all the projects at once by a quorum of others.

Cornacchia indicated that he could not support returning the applications to the Tourism Council to be rescored when the Board had approved the same process the prior three years, stating that would be disrespectful to the volunteers within the knowledgeable area who had followed an established pattern of scoring. Cornacchia stated that other appeals had been heard by the Board on the same issue of conflict of interest. Discussion continued on actual and potential conflicts of interest. Cornacchia indicated that he did not think there was a compelling argument made to support the Sweet appeal or the recommendation to throw everything out and have the Tourism Council rescore the applications.

Green commented that he would not support the appeal, citing comments made by Legal Counsel Teresa Wilson to the Tourism Council. He stated that Ms. Wilson had made conflicts and potential conflicts of interest very clear to the committee. Green also remarked that he took exception to the letter from the Lane County Softball National Organizing Committee, that the final comment seemed to be a personal attack against Mr. Sweet, referring to the "vague and handwritten letter." Green indicated that Sweet had a complaint, which he made, and a handwritten letter should not be disparaged.

Weeldreyer remarked that she did not feel a strong case had been made for appeal, indicating that she was in support of a motion to approve the recommendation. She further commented that she would like staff to have an opportunity to look at the Tourism Council process, indicating she would like to see some standardization among advisory committees around conflict of interest, so that this does not have to be revisited on an annual basis.

Dumdi stated that some good comments had been made, and agreed that the appeal did not have standing. She indicated that she felt the Tourism Council had done the best job they could do under the guidelines presented to them. Dumdi suggested re-examining the way Tourism Council applications were scored in the future, and perhaps even re-examining the membership composition, looking at a broader opportunity for citizen involvement. Dumdi also took exception to an earlier comment, stating that this year many awards were given to larger festivals, but past record indicates a broad distribution of Tourism dollars benefiting both large and small applicants.

Weeldreyer said that she felt the expertise of the members of the Tourism Council was very valuable and could be used in an ex-officio capacity, where lay people would be making the votes, relying on the expertise of ex-officio members.

MOTION: Denial of David Sweet’s Appeal. Order 95-6-21-5. Green MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 4-1, Rust dissenting.

MOTION: Approval of Order 95-6-21-6. Cornacchia MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. Dumdi thanked Alisa Cobb for the excellent job that she had done with the Tourism Special Projects, stepping in late as a result of a personnel change. VOTE: 4-1, Rust dissenting.

RECESS: The Board recessed at 11:10 for ten minutes, reconvening at 11:23 a.m. with all members present. Dumdi commented that there were 35 minutes left to finish as much business as possible. The Commissioners Conference Room was scheduled during the lunch hour, and a discussion was held regarding returning early in the afternoon to finish the agenda.

c. ORAL REPORT BACK/Delta Ponds as a Public Nature Park. Bob Keefer, Parks Director, gave an oral report updating the Board on Delta Ponds as a Public Nature Park. He indicated that on May 3rd, Art Farley, from the Friends of Eugene/Springfield Habitat and also involved with Friends of Delta Pond, came to the Board with concerns about spraying and requesting the County consider designating Delta Ponds as a nature park, working with the City of Eugene to do some management studies. Keefer indicated he was returning to the Board to update what property the County has at Delta Ponds, and how the Parks Department would be involved.

Keefer stated there were two parcels outside the road right-of-way for Delta Highway that are part of the Delta Ponds system. Keefer referred to an aerial photo, citing the first parcel located below K-Mart, comprising seven acres purchased by the County in June 1964 as part of a road project dealing with Delta Highway and Beltline Road. Research has not been completed, but it was thought to have been purchased from Road Funds. Van Vactor clarified that if there was a prescription on the use of funds, it is generally at the time of acquisition. Keefer continued that the area was zoned R-2, planned unit development, high density residential. The land is mostly a field in a marshy area, and is on the tax rolls with an assessed value of $380,000. Cornacchia inquired if this acreage was contemplated as part of the park proposed by Mr. Farley and others. Keefer said it was included in the proposal to be considered as one, large nature park.

Keefer then commented on the second parcel, four acres in size, on the east side of Delta Highway. This site is a pond and was acquired through tax foreclosure in 1967. Keefer said that the parcel had gone through one Sheriff's sale, with no bids received at that time. The parcel is zoned R-1, for a single family residence. Keefer continued that research included a review of the natural resources functional plan, and these areas are all considered important areas from the recreation and habitat standpoint, even though the national resources functional plan has not been adopted. It will be part of the metropolitan update, and these two areas will be designated for residential use.

Keefer said the City of Eugene staff has been contacted. City staff indicated an interest in acquiring the parcels, but no funds are available. Contact has not been made with the City Council or anyone in the City policy arena. The City owns almost all of the southern end where the ponds are and limited areas of the upper portion. Keefer indicated there were also some privately owned parcels in this area. Keefer said he was not aware that prior commitment of Road Funds were available for recreation before 1980, so was not aware that the parcels could transfer without being a road fund problem. Keefer commented that the County could, if the City wanted, transfer the foreclosed piece of property to them. The seven acre parcel requires further research before a decision is made, perhaps returning it to the Road Department for a recommendation for the Board's action.

Keefer said that the Parks Department is not in a position to incur additional parkland in the metro area, nor embark on a further study of development of this land as a nature park, as the department does not have the staff or resources to accomplish that. Keefer continued, stating that this concept should be supported by the County. Since the parcels are in the metro area and under urban transition, he felt it was best for the City to take on this project. Keefer responded to a Board inquiry that this would be a great corridor for a park by preserving the habitat.

Green queried Keefer about the appearance of the County initiating this dialogue with the city without having approached the city policy arena first. He indicated that not having enough staff to manage the property was not a compelling enough reason to transfer the property, and said he would like to have some more dialogue with the Council to ascertain their interest level. Keefer suggested having County staff meet with the corresponding City staff and have them present information to the City Council, with County staff in attendance to answer any questions that may arise.

Charlie Patton commented briefly on the advantages of having the parcel under one jurisdiction.

The meeting was recessed from 11:35 a.m. to 11:38 a.m. regarding a "hot" electrical smell. Facilities staff was called to investigate the problem.

Patton continued with his report, mentioning the wonderful ecosystem on the property, including the turtle population and the "great" nesting sites that are in the area. Patton indicated that the underlying problem was getting the property under one management for reporting any concerns to the appropriate property owners.

Consensus of the Board was to have County Parks Department staff work with City staff to ensure the proper procedures. Engineering staff and Foreclosed Property staff need to be included in the research prior to meeting with the City. Green inquired who initiated the conversation regarding these parcels. Art Farley and a group of friends came to a Board meeting on May 3 during Green’s absence, requesting County Parks staff to look into a possible transfer.

7. d. ORAL REPORT BACK/Road Improvements to Hyundai Site

Postponed until the afternoon to include Les Lyle's participation from the City.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

Cornacchia requested that Item 8-C-6) (ORDER 95-6-21-13) be pulled from the Consent Calendar.

A. Approval of Minutes: May 23, 1995 Work Session, 8:30 a.m.

B. Public Safety

1) ORDER 95-6-21-7/In the Matter of Authorizing Renewal of a Law Enforcement Agreement with Weyerhaeuser Company.

C. Public Works

1) ORDER 95-6-21-8/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Triad Mechanical in the Amount of $80,473 for the Central Receiving Station Pit Floor Repair, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract.

2) ORDER 95-6-21-9/In the Matter of Awarding a Three-Year Requirements Contract to Miles Oil Co., Inc. for Fuel and Fueling Services and Delegating the County Administrator Authority to Execute the Contract.

3) ORDER 95-6-21-10/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Layfield Plastics, Inc. in the Amount of $25,824.50 for the Purchase and Delivery of Geogrid Reinforcement to be Used in the Construction of the Short Mountain Landfill, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract.

4) ORDER 95-6-21-11/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, Inc., for CFC Recycling and Motor Stripping Services for $86,400 Per Year, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Contract.

5) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 95-6-21-12/In the Matter of Acquiring Fee or Other Interests in Portions of Certain Real Properties for the Improvement of Game Farm Road South.

6) Pulled.

7) ORDER 95-6-21-14/In the Matter of Amending the Covered Bridge Grant Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to Increase the Grant Reimbursements for Pengra Covered Bridge and Dorena Covered Bridge.

MOTION: Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Rust MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

Cornacchia commented on Item 8-C-6) ORDER 95-6-21-13/In the Matter of Accepting the Director's Report on Improvements to North 19th Street and Yolanda Avenue From City Limits to North 23rd Street Including Assessments which he had pulled from the Consent Calendar.

Cornacchia stated that last week all Board members had received a petition from residents on 19th Street. Since this was in his district, Cornacchia indicated he had asked Ollie Snowden to have staff research the suggestions being made and report back to the Board on whether they were manageable, and work has not yet been finished on the research requested. It was the consensus of the Board to postpone the item until that has been completed. The petition requested narrowing a bike path by a foot, narrowing a sidewalk by a foot and creating parking on one side of the road. Public Works will be notified that the item was postponed and that the Board is waiting on action regarding the constituents’ request.

9. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

a. ORDER 95-6-21-15/In the Matter of Accepting $743,560 From State Housing & Community Services; Increasing Appropriations in Revenues and Expenditures Amount of $743,560; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Omniplan Amendments, and Subsequent Agreements With HACSA. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Cornacchia MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

b. ORDER 95-6-21-16/In the Matter of Accepting Revenues in the Amount of $1,231,214 From the Cities of Eugene and Springfield; to Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement Between Lane County, Cities of Eugene and Springfield; and to Delegate Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Intergovernmental Agreement and the Subcontracts Listed in Exhibit A in the Department of Health and Human Services for Fiscal Year 95/96.

MOTION: Approval of the Order. Rust MOVED. Dumdi pointed out that there was a file note regarding this item. Cornacchia stated that the Board had received a memorandum that morning regarding the City of Springfield action. Cornacchia indicated that he was comfortable with their new language, acknowledging the County does not know where resources are, and allows this to be done this year and revisit the item next year. Green stated he was in support of the language revision.

Since the previous motion had died for lack of a second, MOTION: Approval of the Order, with the added language from City of Springfield, making the item a year-to-year on the 1%. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

4. COMMISSIONERS’ ANNOUNCEMENTS

Weeldreyer, Cornacchia and Green had no announcements. Rust thanked Youth Services for producing a package on Suicide Prevention that will be conveyed to Corazon Aquino who requested that information when she was at the University of Oregon. Rust will send it to the University of Oregon, and it will be forwarded to Ms. Aquino.

Dumdi announced that at the last minute of the just completed legislative session, Representative Tiernan and Representative Nato from the Portland Metropolitan area were successful in moving forward HB 2438 which states that no local elected official shall receive a raise during their four year or six year tenure. Dumdi said she would like to draft a letter to the Governor to consider vetoing that bill. It was requested that the letter be written in a draft form to allow Board members an opportunity to review it. Van Vactor stated that he had discussed the language with County Counsel and that it appears that it will only apply to those elected officials who have the power to set their own salary.

Dumdi distributed a letter that was recommended for approval at the Economic Development Standing Committee to Senator Hatfield in reference to the Community Development Block Grant and Home Block Grant funding. Dumdi requested that the Board review, approve and then she would sign and forward the letter.

Dumdi announced that she had received a report from Jerry Kendall, and will distribute it, regarding a meeting held in Florence in the past couple of weeks regarding Snowy Plover Habitat. Dumdi stated that there was a lot of conjecture that entire stretches of beach would be closed. The Fish and Wildlife Service said that is not their intent -- their intent was to protect the actual nesting sites which are at the estuaries, with no intention of closing off entire sections of beach. Dumdi added there was a comment period open until June 30.

Dumdi further announced that there was a news release put out yesterday with the good news of the Private Industry Council receiving a $1.3 million grant award to the Dislocated Worker program for retraining.

5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

After a brief discussion with the Board, Van Vactor indicated that there was no need for an Executive Session.

There being no further business, the meeting was recessed at 11:55 a.m. until the 1:30 p.m. session.

Leslie Barrett, Recording Secretary