APPROVED 10/4/95

June 28, 1995
Commissioners' Conference Room - 9:00 a.m.

Chair Ellie Dumdi convened the meeting at 9:08 a.m. with Commissioners Bobby Green Sr. (9:09 a.m.), Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Excused: Steve Cornacchia. Recording Secretary: Leslie Barrett.


Bill Van Vactor announced that Item 7-f-1 has been postponed until July 5, 1995, as Jim Gangle was on vacation.

Emergency Business items:

Bill Van Vactor announced that there would be: 1) a projected cash balance report from David Garnick; 2) a lengthy item from Donna Lattin on the Public Safety Coordinating Council to comply with SB 1145; 3) need to process some transfers in order to avoid an overexpenditure in a department; and 4) an order that authorizes execution of intergovernmental agreements with regard to Hyundai roads.

Van Vactor also pointed out that Item 8-b, an appeal on the Children's Mental Health Services RFP, was a time certain item at 11:00 a.m. Van Vactor indicated a fax had been received yesterday from Cottage Grove Counseling, filing what he described as an attempt at a late appeal, having gone outside the regular appeal process. Van Vactor suggested the Board consult with counsel before deciding to hear the appeal, as it did not go through the normal appeal process, and indicated that the person was waiting on the telephone to find out if the appeal would be heard.

Rust inquired of County Counsel Teresa Wilson if it was her opinion that the party had not made a timely appeal. Wilson responded that the appeal process was well laid out in the RFP, and they did not follow that process with the memo coming in outside the process. Her advice was to be consistent and follow the stated process by rejecting the appeal.

MOTION: On the basis of Counsel's opinion, denial of the Cottage Grove Counseling application for appeal and to notify them immediately. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED for discussion purposes. Weeldreyer indicated that she had not had a chance to read the fax, but said she had participated in a previous conversation with Mr. Reese. Reese had explained to her that the reason he did not file an appeal was because County staff indicated that filing an appeal was not a good use of his time. Weeldreyer said they felt that they were "intimidated" (her paraphrased term) not to make the appeal.

Rust said that he did not think it necessary to go to the substance of the appeal, as the appellant did not follow the procedure. Rust said it was unfortunate that the party had not made the appeal as outlined in the RFP process. Rust indicated that he did not want to have one party's allegations about the process on the table and not hear from staff. Green and Dumdi agreed that the appeal was not presented timely and should not be heard.

VOTE: 4-0. (Weeldreyer initially wished to abstain, but on advice of counsel that an abstention effectively worked as a denial, changed her vote to a yes.) Dumdi asked that Cottage Grove Counseling be informed of the decision.


Chair Dumdi announced that Steve Cornacchia was excused, as he was attending a meeting in Olympia, Washington.

Jan Wroncy, P. O. Box 1101, Eugene, requested a stay of spraying operations on Lawrence and Greenhill and potential operations on Horton and the west end of High Pass. Wroncy indicated that she had previously notified County Legal Counsel of Federal, State & local governments that recognize chemical sensitivities as a disability, and are covered under the American Disabilities Act (ADA).

Wroncy further explained that the ADA guarantees that persons with disabilities are to be provided access to public property and facilities. She further contended that the road system is a public facility, and mentioned her opinion that Mike Perkins (Coordinator for the IVM program) "is acting like a dangerous person, wielding lethal weapons against the public, and appears to be targeting vulnerable, chemically sensitive disabled people." Wroncy continued that all "escape routes" have been closed off from the valley in which she resides.

Wroncy indicated that Lawrence and Greenhill Roads are critical to her to get medical help in Eugene, if she is ill. Wroncy said that she told the County this last year, and they sprayed the two roads anyway, which denied her access to medical help when she was injured.

Wroncy continued giving background to the Board on chemicals that can impact her. She said this was a formal notice that she intends to sue the County if she is harmed, and reiterated her request for a stay on spraying.

Rust commented that he was sensitive to Wroncy's plight, and asked if she had medical proof regarding her condition. Wroncy replied affirmatively and said that she was well documented, and has notified the County repeatedly for years that she is sensitive.

Discussion continued. Dumdi said it was her understanding that the spraying was advertised for a specific day and time, and that it dissipates rapidly rather than lingering for a long period of time. Dumdi commented that there were other individuals that requested eradication of some kind of vegetation and that the lowest dosages were utilized. Rust inquired if one road could be set aside as chemically free while the problem was researched. Green indicated that sounded reasonable, and expressed interest in hearing from County staff on how to address Wroncy's concerns and also getting more data on an impartial medical opinion.

Teresa Wilson informed the Board that Dave Williams has been working with Mike Perkins on Ms. Wroncy's tort claim and on what could be considered "reasonable accommodation" as required by ADA. Wilson stated that she would ask Williams and Perkins to speak with the Board at a future Executive Session, possibly toward the end of July.

Rust commented on the timeliness of spraying in the area around Wroncy's house and asked if one road could be left unsprayed. Wilson counseled the Board on some options available to provide reasonable accommodation. Weeldreyer questioned Wroncy on the protective breathing apparatus she had brought with her to the meeting, and inquired if it was able to shield her from the effects of spraying. Wroncy indicated that it was not.

Dumdi questioned Wroncy about her area being posted as a "No Spray" area. Wroncy said that Horton Road has not been posted to date, but she did have signs around her property. Wroncy indicated that valley residents on Horton Road and the west end of High Pass are mainly in favor of not spraying. Wroncy indicated her problem was not only protecting the area where she lives, but requiring a safe route.

Wroncy said that last year spraying occurred a month after the posted date, with no warning to her and she was exposed to the spray, and unable to travel that road safely for approximately a month. She indicated that alternative routes are a very long way out of her way.

Dumdi asked for clarification of Wroncy's usual route. Wroncy stated she takes Highway 36 to Lawrence, usually following Clear Lake, trying to utilize the quickest and safest route. Wroncy said her neighbors know her and her car, and if they see her collapsed along the road they know to call help for her. She tries to stay on routes where she can get help, and reiterated the need for one open route.

Discussion continued on the possibility of guaranteeing a safe access until the matter could be discussed. Van Vactor said he would prefer to have Public Works staff speak to the Board in the next week, having a discussion of preserving one of those routes. Dumdi asked to have Public Works staff refrain from spraying the areas in question until the discussion was held. Wroncy stated that Horton Road to Highway 36 was the only access left to her at this time. She would then take the shortest route, which would be Lawrence to Clear Lake. Green also requested the discussion with County legal staff on options regarding reasonable accommodation under the ADA requirements.

Dumdi thanked Wroncy and stated that a report back would be obtained as quickly as possible.


To be held later in the meeting.

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

To be held later.


a. Announcements


b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 95-6-28-1/In the Matter of Adopting the 1994-95 Supplemental Budget #3 and Transferring Appropriations.

David Garnick introduced the supplemental budget, stating it was a technical adjustment recommended by the external auditors to move some of the debt service into a different fund.

Dumdi opened the Public Hearing at 9:33 a.m. As there was no one present to comment, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:33 a.m.

MOTION: Adoption of Supplemental Budget #3 (Order 95-6-28-1). Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

Mental Health Sex Offender Treatment Program Presentation

Diana Rogers, Mental Health employee in the sex offender treatment program, introduced herself and a panel that included Kyle, Cory and Gary. Diana said she primarily worked in family therapy, and was pleased to have three courageous clients from the program who were here to speak to the Board and answer questions about the treatment program. Rogers gave a brief overview of services provided. She said that at this point there is no waiting list for the program because of the development of Life Skills.

Rogers indicated that clients generally join Life Skills directly from prison and stay in this stage until they are ready to be scheduled for full evaluation that occurs before they enter treatment. She stated that participants stay in Life Skills until a treatment slot is available for them.

Rogers explained that participants may stay in the Phase I program for up to 9 months, spending 2 hours per week hearing lectures on problem solving, doing homework and developing competency skills. She stated that this a modular program dealing with 36 different treatment issues and life skills, and as part of the program, participants also attend a minimum of one monthly problem solving group, where they deal with crisis issues that come into their lives.

Rogers identified Phase II as the intensive treatment program, comprised of smaller groups that meet weekly in groups and bi-weekly in individual sessions and at any point in the program, participants could be involved in family visitations, couple work and family work. In addition, she indicated that a family group meets on a weekly basis, dealing with non-offending partners or other significant family members who learn how to become appropriate supervisors in the home or offer visitations. She said that a free children's group is also provided, as many clients are indigent and would be unable to attend otherwise, plus the children's group allows time for some play therapy experiences.

Rogers continued by stating that Phase II has a level system of ten different levels, in which participants demonstrate some level of competency, graduating into a self-developed, individualized after-care plan, which varies in length depending on the client and family needs.

In addition to treatment evaluations, Rogers indicated that evaluations are provided for pre-sentence investigation. Rogers said that there are 32 offenders in the Phase II section of the program. Eighty offenders are being treated in Phase I services between Life Skills and Phase I and in the past year, over 80 family members have been served. She stated that with current budget cutbacks, these services are being provided by four full-time equivalents.

Gary introduced himself, stating that he was convicted of first degree sodomy and rape against his step-daughter in 1985 and he was sentenced to ten years at the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP) and five years of probation. Gary said he was at the OSP for 24 months, released in January ‘87 and was in the community for 18 months when he violated the conditions of his parole and probation. Gary defined the 50 months he spent in prison as "lost time." He said he was resistant to treatment in prison, as he saw participants labeled as "snitches."

Gary said he has spent 44 months at Lane County Mental Health, and thanked the parole officer (Pat Shriner) who forced him into this treatment program. Gary said that he was not mandated to attend sex offender treatment. Gary spoke about his initial treatment at Lane County Mental Health. He stated that in a one-on-one session, Ernie (his counselor) encouraged him to be open and willing to seek help. Gary said that opened the door for him to be able to ask for help.

Cory introduced himself as a recovering sex offender, stating he had been convicted of Sex Abuse I in 1989 or 1990. Cory said that he was guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail and then sent to Lane County Mental Health for treatment, which he fought for the first 18 months. He said he had a lot of things to hide -- other sexual offenses committed against other children that he had not been convicted of and he remained in denial for a period of time.

Cory said he is married and has a son. He said he realized that he wanted to "be there" for his son, and that he needed to get "all my skeletons out of the closet, and learn to be a better parent." Cory said he is able to live at home and has gained a lot of new parenting skills and that he and his wife have benefitted from the family therapy groups.

Kyle said he was 27 years old, a sex offender and a child molester. He was charged with two counts of Sex Abuse I on August 10, 1992, and one count of Sex Abuse III. Kyle indicated he was guilty of these charges, and received a sentence of 90 days work release, three years probation and a $120 Victim's Assistance Fine. He said he was guilty of abusing a foster child in his care from 1990 - 1992

Kyle reported that he sought help and he has been in a variety of treatment programs for almost three years, aimed at making him a safer member in the community. He has spoken to community groups and other offenders as a panel member, sharing his story. Kyle said the Sex Offender Treatment program gave him the support to stop sexually abusing, and to begin monitoring and working on his sexual addiction.

Kyle indicates that the Mental Health Sex Offender Treatment program stresses that this is a life-long process. He says in assisting his recovery, they treat him as a person, not just an offender -- showing concern for his safety in the community. Kyle reported that when he first entered treatment he was working as a checker in a convenience store, but Diana and others believed it was an unsafe position because of imminent contact with children. Kyle said that due to his denial at the time, he sought to keep the job and within a couple of months, was held up at gunpoint by the child that he had sexually abused, along with some of his friends. Kyle says that he now realizes the recommendation to quit his job was for his own safety, as well as others.

Kyle said he entered the Sex Offender Treatment program "with a bag of shame I carried around with me." He indicated he was suicidal from the sex abuse he had committed, but also from the secret that he was gay. With the support he has gained through treatment, Kyle says he can now "face anyone and declare my true self without feeling shame for this." Kyle conveyed his appreciation for the important work done by the program.

Dumdi thanked the three panel members for having the courage to come and talk to the Board about themselves and their experiences.

In response to a question from Rogers, Gary indicated that he had been with the same employer since October 1990 as a result of his treatment and that his previous employment history had been a maximum of one year in any position. Gary said he has been in treatment for four years, since 1991.

Rust inquired of all three members, that they had spoken of treatment as being "life-long," and asked "when does the public feel safe?" Gary said that for him, it's something that he needs to be aware of at all times, that he has to intervene every day.

Cory said that for him it meant the tools he has learned to keep himself from re-offending, of knowing his assault cycle and recognizing the "red flags."

Rust asked if Mental Health "weighs in" on that final judgment when someone is pronounced to be safe and in the community. Rogers indicated that is done at a variety of levels. She said a determination is made at the time of pre-sentence investigation and throughout treatment they are monitored pretty closely incorporating as much external support into the treatment program as possible. Rogers indicated that allowing people to come back at whatever point they feel they are slipping is important. She stated they have to demonstrate competency in using the tools they are taught throughout the process and in order to graduate from Phase II of the program, a significant amount of work is demonstrated and an assessment is made concerning community safety.

Rust inquired about recidivism after Phase II, asking how many reoffending parties are seen after graduation. Rogers stated that she is unaware of anyone who has successfully completed the program, who has reoffended post-graduation. She said that there have been people in the course of treatment who have reoffended. Rogers responded to a question by Rust that she had worked with the program for ten years. Rogers said that there are a lot of people that do not complete treatment, but the longer the program has been in existence, the more people complete the program and this year there will be 10-12 graduates, with 30-40 people currently in the program.

Rust said that the message to the justice system ought to be that we ought to do everything we can to get clients to complete the program successfully, giving them the very best chance of leading meaningful lives with their families. Rogers indicated that she believed that was true that what works is when people on parole and probation are working hand-in-hand with treatment.

Green inquired of the panel if any of them were ever victims of sexual offense. Cory and Gary responded that they had been. Kyle said that he hadn't been physically abused, but said that his own observations are that he's in the minority -- that the cycle of abuse goes throughout generations.

Rogers said that she always feels it important to add that there are a large number of victims who do not grow up to be offenders, but that observing cycles of abuse is a common way for people to become offenders and this is one of the reasons why family treatment is stressed.

Green said he was thinking more of a preventative mechanism i.e., if you know what it feels like, why would you do it? Green inquired about treatment during incarceration. Gary responded that voluntary treatment was available, citing options that were available. Rogers remarked that sex offenders are people who don't feel very powerful and look for vulnerable targets to make themselves seem powerful, disregarding the feelings of anyone else. She said that's an important part of knowing and understanding the offending cycle. Rogers said offenders see the person they are abusing as an object, and sex offenders are made to view their victim as a person again. Rogers commented that involving the victims as part of the treatment has a pretty significant impact on the offender.

Green indicated that he agreed with that. Rust stated that he hoped all three participants felt more powerful now as individuals in a healthy way. Kyle indicated that was where he found himself gaining more power -- that it is not about overcoming his sexual addiction, but more about building healthy relationships, and really working on his issues by looking at himself as a whole person. Kyle said that is very rewarding.

Rogers said they emphasize personal power as opposed to power over others. Rogers asked Cory to give some details about his family, as they were "at risk" at one point. Cory said that he convinced his wife that he didn't do anything, and that when she finally found out a little at a time, she became frustrated about him lying about the entire relationship. Cory said they were on the verge of divorce several times and that his wife had attended some group treatment programs which helped her understand some of the things he was going through, and they have been working through the problems.

Rogers indicated that most participants may have been convicted of one or two offenses, but usually have a history of a number of offenses that they have never been prosecuted for. Rogers stated that in terms of treatment results, there is no way to calculate how many children or adults are spared from being victims because someone has stayed in treatment, or number of times they have been in a treatment program. She remarked that if they are able to keep someone stable and safe for significant periods of time through the course of treatment, that this can have a significant impact in terms of cost of health care and mental health care, citing that abuse is rampant in the U.S.

Cory indicated that prior to treatment he had no self-esteem and hated himself for the things he had done. He was using drugs and alcohol and did not feel that he could contribute to a workplace. Cory said that he has been clean and sober for about three years, and has held the same job for 5.5 years. Cory said he has benefited his family by being able to provide for them and learn healthy ways to communicate and interact with them. He indicated how nice it was to be home and be a father to his son.

Linda Eaton from Health and Human Services, program manager for Alcohol Drug and Offender program (includes the Sex Offender program) stated the purpose of the panel presentation was to illustrate that treatment is viewed as part of the continuum of public safety within the community. Eaton indicated she understood that there would be difficult choices to make about funding for public safety programs, and wanted to advocate for a range of services to be included.

Eaton stated the cuts that were made in the sex offender program were not heard during the regular budget process because of uncertainty of funding at that point. Final figures for the CCA revenues for the next biennium were cut approximately 30% for the sex offender program. Eaton stated that during the past year more emphasis has been placed on collecting fees from clients, utilizing a sliding fee scale and accepting Medicaid, although budgeted funds for Medicaid have also been reduced.

Rust observed that this is an issue that generates fear in the general public and is one of the most misunderstood aspects of correction and offending in our society. Rust indicated that offenders will mainly return to the community, and treatment is absolutely important and must be funded through a public safety and corrections approach. Rust said he would like to see a strong component for this funding within the levy that the Board will be working on.

Emergency Item - Creation of Public Safety Coordinating Council

Dumdi read the title: In the Matter of Directing the County Administrator to 1) Initiate the Process to Establish a Public Safety Coordinating Council and 2) Reconvene the Community Corrections Advisory Committee (CCAC) if Needed to Develop a CCA Plan Recommendation.

Donna Lattin announced that there was new Corrections Legislation that restructures corrections at the local and state level and redefines the neutral responsibilities and roles of the State and County. Lattin said that the legislation describes "where we are going," and what she is suggesting is "how we are going to get there."

Lattin said the first step is to establish a Public Safety Coordinating Council, and secondly, the development of a CCA plan. Lattin indicated that the Sex Offender program was one of the CCA funded programs.

Lattin said there were two other issues of importance to the Board in July, the first being an appointment of a Community Corrections manager. Lattin indicated that she, by Board appointment, is the Community Corrections manager. Lattin stated that if the Board did not take action she would continue in that capacity, until such time as a broader system discussion and agreement on restructuring of Corrections could be held.

Lattin stated the second decision pertained to the designation of a supervisory authority. Lattin referred to the Board item, which has Sheriff McManus and the Department of Corrections Branch Manager, David Cook, designated by Board action as supervisory authorities in the County. Lattin said that if action is not taken, the designation would be sustained until the time of a broader system discussion.

Van Vactor clarified that the overall purpose is to commence the implementation of the new law, as well as to try to maintain the status quo in the interim. Lattin replied affirmatively and that Senate Bill (SB) 1145 includes an 18 month transition period.

Lattin indicated that critical decisions need to be made within that time period, stating new funds will become available to construct, renovate or acquire new corrections facilities. Rust indicated that the agenda item lays out a nice process. Van Vactor stated it was a major work task.

MOTION: Adoption of the Order to initiate the process to direct the County Administrator to initiate the process and reconvene the Community Corrections Advisory Committee, if needed, to develop a CCA Plan recommendation. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. Green echoed Van Vactor's remarks -- it's a major work task a brief discussion followed. VOTE: 4-0.

State Representative Floyd Prozanski (House District 40) commented briefly on SB 1145. Prozanski stated he had served this year on the Judiciary Committee, and some subcommittees, was Vice-Chair of Crime and Corrections, and is a former Assistant District Attorney at Lane County. He said SB 1145 is a new approach in dealing with corrections and that he had some hesitation about the State pushing responsibility to the County level. To make the process work, Prozanski stated he accepted the mandate that the State has to provide adequate funding to each and every County to make the process work.

Prozanski stated he hoped the Board would also recognize that a broad perspective is needed of programs and services that will be provided at the County level, specifically mentioning the sex offender presentation. Prozanski said his experience as a prosecutor and other studies indicate this is the type of essential program that needs to be continued. He said that Lane and other counties will be in a "hard crunch" for bed space availability because of the shift mandated by SB 1145. Prozanski encouraged the Board to maintain a broad perspective and look long-term at getting people in the system with appropriate sanctions. He also reminded the Board there is an "opt out" portion.

Rust agreed with Prozanski's philosophy that if the State does "download," it does need to provide resources. Rust said this can be worked out as a partnership if the State does make good on providing the dollars needed. Prozanski stated the need for State officials to be held accountable. A brief discussion followed.

Rust commented that at the last Lane County Criminal Justice Advisory Council Meeting, there was a report on an item that Rust initiated (i.e. charging prisoners for their stay in Lane County jail). Courts representatives commented at the meeting that prisoners are already charged in a variety of ways, being statutorily driven. Rust said he was serving notice that he would not pursue that any further and thanked the Board for their indulgence in considering the item. Dumdi stated that one of the benefits was that all Board members gathered more information.

Rust also mentioned that at the same meeting, consultant David Bennett presented statistical information of who's in the jail, how long they have been there, what type of offense they committed, how many repeat offenders and the like. Rust continued by stating that statistics of this snapshot show about 50% of people in Lane County jail have had at least five prior arrests. Rust commented that we have a revolving door system, with a much smaller number of inmates driving the system with some arrested as many as 20 times.

Rust said that this information might give "a better handle" on how to manage the jail population and perhaps how steps can be taken to avoid the constant activity overwhelming the system. Rust stated that Lattin has additional copies of the information and would like other Board members to receive the material. It was the consensus that Board members would prefer to have their own copy of the handout, rather than circulating one.

Dumdi asked Prozanski to make his phone number available. Prozanski replied that he could be reached at 342-2447 and distributed cards to the Board members.

Van Vactor indicated two additional agenda items: A report back in regard to access to McKay Lodge, and the option on the Original Pancake House.

c. ORDER 95-6-28-2/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 3 of Lane Manual to Create a Department of Children and Families.

John Ball was present to review additional information requested by the Board clarifying the reporting relationship between the Commission, the Staff Director of the Commission (who may be a Department Head), the County Administrator and the Board. Ball referred to the ACM, calling attention to HB 2004 as the most extensive statutory discussion. He stated that in the ‘93 session, the AOC and State Commission worked with the legislature and made it clear that there is a direct connection between the appointed Commission and the County Board of Commissioners.

Ball, referring to the ACM, said that it has been made very clear that the Chair and the local commissioner are directly accountable to the Board, and that policy and budget powers of the local Commissions are a direct function of the Board, and the Staff Director's position is directly accountable to the Board. Ball said he concurred with that analysis. Ball indicated the new department, if created, would have direct responsibility for meeting Lane County guidelines and meeting the State Commission on Children and Families guidelines.

MOTION: Approval of Order 95-6-28-2, recommending Option 1, that the Administrator be appointed by the County Administrator. Green MOVED, Rust Seconded. VOTE: 4-0.

d. ORDER 95-6-28-3/In the Matter of Adopting the Overall Economic Development Program for 1995-96 for Submission to the Federal Economic Development Administration.

Thurston stated that the plan had been reviewed by the Economic Development standing committee and was consistent with the County's strategic plan. Dumdi stated she wanted to make the Board aware of an industrial park project (listed on page 50) in Florence, that the City of Florence wished to develop. Dumdi said there was a pending request for road fund monies to provide street access.

Rust commented, that he would like to say "time out" on road funds that are not budgeted or in the CIP until the Board has had a discussion about the road fund to allow a better grasp of the overall picture. Van Vactor indicated that the project could go forward, as no formal proposal has been received from the City of Florence to date. Discussion followed.

MOTION: Adoption of Order 95-6-28-3. Rust MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.


a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1073/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land from "Forest" to "Marginal Land" and Rezoning that Land from "F-2/Impacted Forest Land" to "ML/Marginal Land"; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 3322-94; Aster). (Second Reading and Public Hearing: July 26, 1995, 1:30 p.m., Harris Hall Main Floor)

MOTION: Adoption of the first reading and setting the second hearing. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0. Van Vactor stated that County Counsel indicated that the standards by which this change occurs are quite rigorous, and he encouraged the Board to look carefully at the findings to ensure they correctly and thoroughly cover all applicable criteria.

b. DISCUSSION/Illegal Dumping.

Van Vactor indicated that Ken Sandusky had sent a memo regarding illegal dumping that set forth major options for the Board. Ken Sandusky reported the range of things that could be done:

1) Take the position that access to parking area behind BRING Recycling where illegal dumping has occurred for years comes at too high a cost to the County in continually cleaning, and at too high a cost to the neighborhood in litter, unsightly appearance and illegal activity. Option: Gate the site at Franklin Boulevard and deny access to the river for vehicles.

2) A middle ground position -- most people try to get to the river during the warmer months of the year (May - September), close off the area the rest of the year (October - April), allow access during warmer months.

3) People are probably going to try to get to the river anyway, so try to accommodate the area by upgrading the area and improve security, do some "brushing" on a periodic basis to improve line of sight to Franklin Boulevard, provide some lighting, possibly pave the area to make it look more formal.

Sandusky stated that he would appreciate some direction, even including a mix and match of options 2 and 3. Rust complimented the staff on their work and creativity in presenting options to an ongoing (15-16 years) problem. Weeldreyer has also heard from the Goshen area residents on the problem. Rust liked the idea of "dressing up" the site similar to one in the Lowell/Unity area, engaging neighborhood watch, and monitoring and enforcing the area over the next couple of months, rather than just closing off a site.

Green indicated that option 3 on Sandusky's written memo seemed to be what Rust was recommending, and he would also support that option. Weeldreyer stated that her only concern was that if the County made a substantial investment in improving the site, and later decided to gate it off and disallow public access, she would be in favor of some intermediate steps, i.e., installing a light, graveling the parking lot, mowing the brush and look at gating the property during the winter months. More discussion followed. Rust said he would like to work with Weeldreyer on this project, even though it's in her district.

Sandusky summarized that the consensus of the Board was to put in a security light, do some "brushing" to keep the line of sight open, but not pursue paving at this point. If things get worse, more severe steps can be taken. Rust also asked about having a line of communication open with BRING Recycling about reporting any unsightly debris or illegal activity.

Weeldreyer indicated she would like to coordinate a meeting with Rust, Sandusky and the neighborhood association in the Goshen area, possibly involving EPUD, as they are also in the neighborhood.


Dumdi announced that item 7.F.1) on the Consent Calendar would be postponed one week until July 5, 1995.

A. Approval of Minutes:
March 8, 1995, Regular Meeting, following HACSA
March 16, 1995, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
March 28, 1995, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
March 29, 1995, Regular Meeting, following HACSA
March 29, 1995, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

B. Health and Human Services

1) ORDER 95-6-28-4/In the Matter of Accepting an Inter-governmental Contract Extension in the Amount of $29,606 From the City of Eugene; and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Contract Extension Attached as Exhibit A.

2) ORDER 95-6-28-5/In the Matter of Awarding Contracts for Services to Adults With a Severe Mental or Emotional Illness as Listed in Exhibit A, for the 1995-97 Period and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Contracts.

C. Human Resources and Management Services

1) ORDER 95-6-28-6/In the Matter of Authorizing Reimbursement With Bond Proceeds.

2) ORDER 95-6-28-7/In the Matter of Authorizing Tax Anticipation Notes in a Principal Amount of No More Than $4,100,000.

3) ORDER 95-6-28-8/In the Matter of Authorizing Extension of Interim Financing in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,250,000.

D. Public Safety

1) ORDER 95-6-28-9/In the Matter of Authorizing Inter-governmental Agreement With the Oregon Department of Transportation - District 5, for Forest Work Camp Work Crews Projects.

2) ORDER 95-6-28-10/In the Matter of Authorizing Renewal of a Law Enforcement Agreement With Forest Industries.

E. Public Works

1) ORDER 95-6-28-11/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to G.E. Capital Modular Space in the Amount of $69,366 for the Purchase and Delivery of a Modular Office Building to Short Mountain Landfill, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract.

2) ORDER 95-6-28-12/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to City Recycling, Inc. for Scrap Metal Recycling Services, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Contract.

3) ORDER 95-6-28-13/In the Matter of Approving a Work Order with Emcon for Construction Management Services for the 1995 Intermediate Hydraulic Barrier and Phase III Development at the Short Mountain Landfill, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Work Order.

4) ORDER 95-6-28-14/In the Matter of Entering Into an Intergovernmental Agreement With Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) to Administer Open Burning Permits, and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Agreement.

F. Regional Information System

1) ORDER 95-6-28-15/In the Matter of Approving Award of Bid 94/95-04 for Geographic Information/Database Servers.

MOTION: Approval of the remaining Consent Calendar. Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

The meeting recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:08 a.m. with all Commissioners present.


a. ORDER 95-6-28-16/In the Matter of Accepting the 1995-97 Intergovernmental Agreement #20-001 and Plan/Amendment Approval Forms 1, 2, 3 and 4 With the State of Oregon Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Services Division and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Letter of Acceptance, the PAAFS and the Subsequent Subcontracts Per Exhibit A.

Rob Rockstroh indicated that this was a summary list of contracts that the department has with contracted systems. MOTION: Approval of Order. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

b. ORDER 95-6-28-17/In the Matter of the Focus Institute, Inc.'s Appeal of the Funding Recommendations of the Children's Mental Health Services Request for Proposals (RFP) Selection Committee; and the Award of Children's Mental Health Contracts for the 1995-97 Period.

Rockstroh indicated the primary focus was the award of contract for services, but stated there was an appeal that needed to be heard prior to that award. He reiterated that the Cottage Grove appeal was dismissed earlier in the meeting because it was not timely.

Rockstroh indicated that a minimum score of 70% was required on the management score. Thirteen applications were received, two were rejected, and one appealed. Rockstroh indicated that there are three steps in an appeal process: 1) statement of H & HS position -- committee recommendations to be presented by Rockstroh; 2) ten minute response by the appellant and 3) a 10 minute collective response by the "rogue's gallery."

Rockstroh said that a decision needs to be made on what are considered "appealable grounds." He referred to attachment C, listing criteria (numbered 1-5) which can be used. Rockstroh said that this puts the burden on the appellant to prove the case, and that he is "hands off" in the process.

Two program service coordinators scored the management portion, and Rockstroh stated the least senior has seven years of relevant experience. Programmatic issues and allocation of contracts were scored by a broader committee, comprised of lay people appointed by the advisory committee, a program manager, a parent from the community, two Medicaid Authorization Specialists (MAS), and a member of the Mental Health advisory subcommittee. Rockstroh said that his interpretation of the appeal letter indicates some interesting material, but that a lot of it was not relevant to the appeal.

Rockstroh commented on the analysis, saying that primarily what is seen is a misinterpretation, and that people are not discouraged from applying. Rockstroh stated that he never tells a non-profit what to do, nor does his staff. He indicated that if someone asks, they will be honestly told that it's hard to do, and that a lot of work is required. This may have been misinterpreted.

Rockstroh indicated that in the scoring process, two different raters will score differently, but that they rate individually. When the scores were summarized, three different applicants had low scores -- the appellant being one of them. Rust asked Rockstroh to respond to the statement that "different criteria were used to evaluate the proposals" after the appellant had their ten minute presentation. He stated he was notifying the applicant that this was the "big ticket item" for him.

Dumdi reviewed the appeal process, turning the first 10 minutes to the appellant. Gary McNebb stated he was the Executive and Clinical Director of the Focus Institute, which is a state approved mental health agency, located at 400 East 2nd, Suite 103 in Eugene.

McNebb stated they were a newly approved mental health agency, but with many years of experience in administering clinical and administrative dimensions of mental health programs for Title 19 children, such as those included in the RFP. McNebb said that administrative staff of the Focus Institute have prior experience in responding to RFP's, and this is the only time that there was a denial. He also indicated it was fairly clear that this was a time of enormous change with respect to health care, including mental health care. McNebb said that some would call this a mental health revolution, and he commented that there was some evolution, which includes a changing set of definitions of what is to be expected and defined within the parameters of the process.

McNebb said that prior to incorporating, they came to Lane County Mental Health to inquire if a "for profit" mental health agency would be in keeping with their understanding of what would best allow them to specifically apply for kid's services and other related services. They were told that what they had described would be acceptable. McNebb said they also double-checked with the State Mental Health and Disabilities system to ensure they weren't bringing on an organization that would impose any unnecessary impediments to their intent to provide services to low-income families with at-risk kids, in particular. McNebb reiterated that although they were a new organization, the staff had tremendous experience.

McNebb said that it became apparent to them a couple of months prior to the RFP process, that in conversations with Lane County Mental Health, they were told that no new agencies would be accepted in this particular round of bidding. Upon further inquiry, they were told that the primary reason was a complication of issues with regard to administrative overhead, at a time the system is making an evolution to managed care, and that adding another agency was not in keeping with the cost containment considerations driving managed care. They were encouraged to collaborate with already existing mental health agencies, in order to put some of their programs under the "umbrella" of an existing state approved mental health agency, which would broaden the base of effectiveness of any of the organizations they would do that collaboration with.

McNebb stated that they have a highly trained staff with regard to brief therapy outcomes, which is one of the hallmarks of managed care. He indicated that Focus Institute has hardware and software capabilities to address the clinical and administrative issues of accountability that are also primary considerations within managed care. McNebb said that they were told that the best way to bring that capability into this community, given the transition period, was to do so within a collaboration of an already existing agency. Attempts were made to contact agencies that had been identified to them by Lane County Mental Health, within the parameters of the understanding that had been conveyed to them and alleged to have been conveyed to the differing mental health agencies. McNebb said that it seemed that they would be able to work out a collaboration during the transitional period.

McNebb reported that as the time drew near for the RFP to become publicly available, the "rules of the game" seemed to change. What had previously been said to them about their ability to have certain levels of authority and accountability for their program and accountability under the umbrella of an existing mental health agency were changed to say that they would have had to give up complete clinical and administrative control under that umbrella, leaving the other agency completely in charge, i.e., it would only be acceptable for Focus Institute to be an employee of that existing agency. McNebb indicated this was too complicated in terms of negotiating and they were unable to come up with it prior to the RFP process.

McNebb continued that they decided to understand carefully what it was about the request to do that collaboration, (which was the administrative overhead piece to provide all services they had identified within the RFP for 10% less than clinical hour for the clients they would serve) in an attempt to meet administrative overhead.

McNebb said that there was nothing mentioned in the RFP which mentioned Board structure and function for a "for profit" organization. He said they repeatedly asked for information about that, but were told that they had what was required. At the end of the process when they were notified that their application had been denied, one of the primary statements for denial was that their Board structure and function in relationship to the corporate administration of the Corporation and Board were not sufficiently separated.

McNebb stated that they inquired further, identifying specific information in the actual RFP regarding the information requested regarding the Board and how it was established in relationship to those specific outlines and guidelines. McNebb said that another one of the reviewers agreed to reevaluate in light of that, and passed them on a quick reevaluation of the scoring. McNebb stated they then had only one person who had tallied a score that did not "pass" them, but did not want to review the information presented to the other individual who rescored the application.

McNebb said that another impediment to their "fair access" to the process was Lane County Mental Health's intent to restrict the numbers of pages to be used in responding. On a different RFP, he indicated that by adding a little more information because they were a new organization, the management session passed all five scorers. McNebb stated there were differing standards applied at every turn of the process for them regarding Board structure, how much information could be brought to the scorers because they were new, when all the other applicants were known to the scorers. He felt that one page was too restrictive to them because they were a new agency. When they were allowed to add a second page in a later RFP, all five scorers evaluating the same management structure voted to accept their proposal.

McNebb said he would like the program reevaluated within the program parameters and have the denial reversed.

Dumdi announced that there were ten minutes available to recommended applicants. Jim Forbes, the Executive Director of Looking Glass, asked agency representatives to introduce themselves to the Board, and mentioned three individuals who were unable to attend the meeting. He distributed a statement to the Board and said that this was an awkward situation for the Board of Commissioners and others who had applied for a contract. He likened running non-profit services to the last bastion of free enterprise, stating that there is competition among groups, but they can compete and still remain friends. Forbes said they were present to urge the Board to support the findings of the selection process of the Lane County Mental Health division. He continued that those present felt it was a fair, equitable process that was very clear. He also mentioned that a bidders conference was held where questions pertaining to the RFP could be addressed. Forbes also said the RFP was "clearer than most" on what it would take to "measure up," and that all ended up "playing by the same rules."

Forbes said it was appropriate that, if there is a process, it's followed and then upheld. He continued that the recommended configuration of providers had demonstrated a good capacity to work together. Forbes said that, although they do compete from time to time, over the years they have established a continuum of care amongst them, and are working closely together which was demonstrated by their joint appearance today.

Forbes said that they felt the right choice was made for children, youth and families of Lane County, and urged the Board to support the decision of the review panel. As there were no additional remarks from the group, Dumdi thanked the applicants for coming.

Rockstroh stated he was ready to comment on Rust's initial question regarding differing criteria. Rockstroh indicated that most of the appellant's discussion was spent on issues surrounding the Board, complications about that and a bias towards that. He said that was "thrown out" for everyone. Rockstroh said that in managed care there have been dramatic changes. In the past, there were actually organizations where only nonprofits could bid, but that language was changed later. He indicated that they "love the idea of separate advisory boards for accountability." Rockstroh said the "nonaccountables" were thrown out, with a reevaluation occurring. He indicated that on the reevaluation, Focus Institute did not do well. Rockstroh said most of the focus of the appeal was on the Board issue, but that is a "non-issue" to the County.

Rockstroh referred the Board to number 5 of scoring, and indicated that no one was scored on that item as part of the evolving standard. He said that "no new agencies" was not the issue, but that they didn't want to have any more than the number they now have from a systems standpoint. Rockstroh said he was not clear why that was used as a miscommunication, it is not something that anyone is told, it must be a misinterpretation because the County cannot tell someone not to compete. He indicated that they would love to see partnerships. He stated that they are intrigued by them, but don't see them very often.

Rockstroh said that the comments about when the rules change or changing definitions or the Board operation issue which kept coming up were interesting, but applications were totally recalculated and these were non-issues.

Rockstroh said he didn't mind restricting how many pages go into a RFP, although he hadn't written the RFP, because he didn't want an unlimited amount of pages, citing the State and Federal government which also restrict pages. Rockstroh said that all applicants were in the same position, and no one was treated any better or worse than any other applicant.

Rockstroh said that new agencies have been added in the past, and he didn't know how to respond to that issue raised by the appellant. Rockstroh said he didn't see any issue on differing criteria except a different RFP, a different set of "eyes" might have looked at it differently, using the same scoring sheet, but he couldn't respond to that.

Discussion followed. Green inquired if new agencies had received funding in the past. Rockstroh responded affirmatively, and said they try to be relatively consistent with a similar process to Commission on Children and Families with Youth Services contracts and United Way. He indicated that this is the standard used by CCAC. Rockstroh said there "is no magic," that this is somewhat subjective. Experienced people are utilized as scorers and this is their best guess based on that experience.

Rust indicated that it is not the Commissioners' role to substitute their judgement on the scoring, but rather to ensure that there was no bias or obvious procedural problem. Rust said he appreciated the work of the appeal, but "it is evident that the reviewers used different criteria" is asking the Board to make a "leap of faith." He said he was looking for an indicator or evidence that "the only explanation for the low scores is a differing criteria." Rust said that he found no evidence that differing criteria were utilized, but that different people judge things in different ways.

Rust stated that there was no proof or evidence of bias presented by the appellant and that he could not find any grounds for overturning the staff recommendation.

Weeldreyer stated that bias is very hard to determine because it's a perception, and everyone's perception is not going to be the same. She said that was the difficulty and agreed with Rust. Weeldreyer also said that perceptions are strong, and that the appellant can clearly see bias, but Weeldreyer said they would need to go into further detail.

Green said he just completed participation in a search at Lane Community College, and he felt that everything was subjective. He said he found compelling that the same three groups did not receive the level of points from each of the scorers, and felt that was fairly consistent. Green said he did not find any evidence that would have compelled him to overturn the recommendation. Green said that he would support a denial.

Dumdi stated she noticed many of the same things previously mentioned and also looked at the scoring sheets and found the scoring to be consistent. She said that she has been involved in scoring RFP's and that it is not an easy job, but that scores have a tendency to fall in the same areas because of the criteria. Dumdi stated she did not feel that the appellant had given enough information to substantiate a change in the way the awards were granted.

MOTION: Rejection of the appeal and accept the recommendations per the Order and the Order itself (95-6-28-17) be approved. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

Weeldreyer indicated that information came out of a conversation she had with members of Cottage Grove Counseling on bias because the non-profit provider community is an integrated group of people. Weeldreyer said that she was "not going to start throwing any rocks," but requested more information about the process in a spirit of "continuous quality improvement" because of a recent appeal on a Tourism grant. Weeldreyer said that there probably isn't any perfect system, but it should be an ongoing process to scrutinize what the Board does in terms of process to diminish perceptions which are strong towards bias.

Rockstroh said that he agreed, and it would be a good work session item to talk about. He indicated that the Cottage Grove appeal was not filed in a timely manner. Rockstroh reiterated that they do not tell nonprofits what to do. He indicated that nonprofits are independent and have "lots of clout." Rockstroh indicated there is no collusion, it's an "arms length, clean process." Rockstroh indicated that the nonprofits were well respected in the community.

Van Vactor stated it was a good idea that a Work Session be held. More discussion followed. Dumdi thanked the appellant for their work and time.

Dumdi announced that it was 11:45, and after a discussion it was the consensus of the Board to meet through the lunch hour in order to finish the agenda.


a. PROGRESS REPORT/Development of the Juvenile Justice Center.

Carmichael spoke on the issue of a road being built along the edge of the University of Oregon (UO) practice field. Carmichael stated that he had met yesterday with UO officials to discuss the County request regarding use of the practice fields for access to the Looking Glass site for the new McKay Lodge. Carmichael distributed a map to the Board and referred them to the access needed, marked by a green line, for sewer and water. University officials were in agreement as long as the trench was not dug during use of the practice field. Those times have been identified, and approved.

Carmichael referred the Board to the area outlined in orange, which illustrates where a road might need to be built, although this was the last resort if access could not be gained through the National Guard current road or through the Elks property. The UO questioned if 20' was sufficient to build a road, and Carmichael stated that it is acceptable to the City. The UO's desire is that they don't lose any ground, but if everything else failed and they had to go this route, they would be able to make it work. Specifications about a gate, blocking sled and sand pit were identified in the document. Carmichael indicated that this area is off the main playing field. If a fence was moved so that players did not run onto the roadway, it could all work, although their first preference is to not give up any property.

Carmichael recommended taking action to approve this as a last resort, so that the building plan can move forward contingent on the traffic engineer approving access to Centennial. The traffic engineer had indicated, in a meeting with the architect, that additional traffic onto Centennial was not desirable. A curb is already cut for a driveway there, and is right next to the Elks Club entrance. Carmichael indicated this would constitute the contact with the UO that the Board had requested.

Rust clarified that this was the information that would be used to obtain a City permit. Carmichael agreed, and that the road site is a "last gasp route" for Looking Glass to be able to proceed, and that the road will probably not be built there. When the master plan has been completed, that information will be known.

Green inquired about the construction timeframe. Carmichael said that the County would be able to work within the UO timeframe and stated that none of their conditions would be difficult to meet. Carmichael said that Bill Van Vactor would be speaking with Mike Gleason about the traffic engineer's comment regarding Centennial Boulevard.

Weeldreyer asked about the McKay Lodge timeframe. Carmichael responded that construction had been planned for the end of September, but indicated they were still working with their estimator around how much money is needed, and might be pushed back by a couple of weeks to a month. Carmichael said that he thought it would be about a six month construction process. Weeldreyer asked if construction equipment during football season would not be a problem. Carmichael responded affirmatively saying written authorization has been received from the National Guard to utilize the access road in front of the National Guard until September ‘96.

Teresa Wilson commented that in the future, an easement may need be given to Looking Glass across the practice field which will provide legal evidence of their access. She said that they will work with the City to authorize an execution of the easement. Van Vactor indicated that should be done today. Wilson said a revocation or a separate written agreement that the easement is returned if an alternate route is used should be included.

MOTION: Approval of the recommendation and creation of an easement as described, with revocation clause, for Board signature. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

Dumdi questioned the status of the Elks Club proposal. Carmichael said a letter has been sent, and he will be following up within three to four days.

Carmichael commented on Senate Bill 1, regarding siting of the five regional training schools, was going to be signed by the Governor on Friday. He indicated that starts the "clock ticking" for siting of a regional training school, and there will be 105 days to do that. Carmichael indicated he would be back before the Board on those issues. Van Vactor commented on the importance of the project manager, and that it will be one of the first priorities of the staff implementation group that meets on Thursdays, stating it is a "huge task."

b. DISCUSSION ONLY/In the Matter of Issuing Bonds to Construct the Juvenile Justice Center.

Randy Green, Finance Manager, discussed the issue of bonds to construct the Juvenile Justice Center. R. Green stated that the bulk of the money would be needed in the last two years of construction, and gave the Board background on the possibility of staging a series of bond sales, although about $2 million would be needed the first year.

R. Green continued with an explanation of anticipated interest rates, and cautioned the Board against waiting to issue bonds in anticipation that interest rates would be lower. He said that it is really difficult to forecast interest rates. R. Green also indicated that there is a higher danger that interest rates will rise, rather than drop because rates are relatively low at present.

Rust questioned the possibility of refinancing bonds if interest rates were to drop substantially. R. Green indicated that was a possibility, although there are criteria that must be met for a refunding. Commissioner Green asked for a definition of "low." R. Green responded that a 20 year bond of $1.75 million was recently sold at about 5% interest. He indicated the new bond sale would probably be about the same length of time and carry a slightly better rating (Aa), when the other one was rated A1 because of the nature of the bond.

R. Green next mentioned arbitrage and then discussed bank qualification and tax anticipation notes. He indicated that the County will probably have tax anticipation notes for the foreseeable future, which means $10-15,000 per year for the General Fund.

R. Green then discussed the level of the General Fund reserves. He mentioned that Moody's "hit us quite hard" on the level of reserves for the $1.75 million note that was just issued, stating that they believe they are getting extremely low. R. Green continued that they did not know that the County had just moved $22 million out of the General Fund, and didn't move any reserves with them, and that will improve the outlook for the coming year. R. Green indicated that if the Board anticipates continued use of the reserves over the next two to three years, that would argue for issuing all the bonds at once now.

R. Green then covered investment earnings, stating earnings would be maximized by issuing all the bonds now, earning between $1.5 million and $3 million more than if issuing as the money is needed.

R. Green then explained the subject of an initiative petition that might occur in 1996 or 1998 when general elections occur. He stated that because they are on the ballot costs interest. He indicated that if it was believed there would be an initiative petition on the ballot, it would argue for selling bonds away from that time period, and possibly now.

R. Green outlined selling strategies for the Board: 1) issue now, as soon as possible (because the need for the money begins this year); 2) issue part of them now and part of them as money is required; 3) select a time when sale occurs; or 4) short-term borrowing, inter-fund loans and issue at a future date.

Rust inquired about guaranteeing reserves in future years, asking R. Green if that would change his recommendation. R. Green responded negatively, primarily because of the maximization of interest earnings. He also commented that there were additional costs every time bonds are issued, stating that was $50,000 at each occurrence. Rust inquired if interest earnings reduced taxpayers' obligations at the end or if there was an option to utilize that for improvements or some other purpose. R. Green stated it would be the Board's option, but said it could not be used for anything other than was stated in the ballot measure or the repayment of the debt.

Green stated that with a project of this importance, he would prefer that all the money be issued at once to ensure adequate funding. In response to a question, R. Green commented that his personal opinion was that interest rates were as low now as they would be over the course of the project. Green asked if the County was gaining interest on the money that had been approved. R. Green responded affirmatively, stating that the County does rebate to the Federal government (unless certain conditions are met, and stated he felt that was unlikely) any excess earnings to the IRS, further explaining the process. Discussion followed.

Van Vactor complimented R. Green on the ACM and number of issues listed in a straight-forward accounting plan, and stated that if the bonds are issued all at once the citizens start paying that much sooner on their tax bill, possibly a significant amount before there is any visible construction on-site. He indicated there might be repercussions on that and wanted the Board to be aware of the possibility. Green inquired if this had been done before. County Counsel Wilson responded that if was fairly common and cited several past examples. Discussion followed. R. Green stated that he had spoken with the County's Financial Advisor, Rebecca Chao, and she encouraged issuing all at once now.

After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to issue the bonds all at one time, now.

Green inquired of Steve Carmichael about the availability of public meeting rooms in plans for the Juvenile Justice Center, as he hadn't seen them mentioned in the design. Carmichael stated it would be his hope that rooms would be available as a resource for public use, and is the type of issue that he would like to have discussed at the implementation team. He indicated it would be nice to have these types of missions (e.g., training rooms, meeting rooms) identified before the architect starts designing. Green commented that he had raised the issue because of the public investment.

Weeldreyer mentioned the possibility of a timeline that could be on display in the Public Service Building, which would allow staff and members of the public to see that work on the Juvenile Justice Center was being accomplished, even though the construction project might not have actually been started. Carmichael agreed that this would be a good, visible way of displaying progress.

Carmichael inquired how often the Board would like progress reports. Consensus was that once a month, give or take a week or two would be fine for frequency of reports.


a. ORDER 95-6-28-19/In the Matter of Ratifying the Tentative Agreement Between Lane County, the Sheriff, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2831, as Recommended by the County's Bargaining Representatives.

Ruth Larson indicated that the Board had previously been provided language changes to the AFSCME contract resulting from the interest-based bargaining process that had been initiated. Larson indicated that there were no economic issues, and that the changes had been ratified by AFSCME. Bargaining representatives are recommending Board approval.

MOTION: Approval of the Order. Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

Green complimented Larson on the work that she had done, making his "life easier."


ORDER 95-6-28-22/In the Matter of Approving a 30 Day Extension to the Purchase Option Agreement with the McDonald's Corporation for the Broadway Motel/Original Pancake House Property and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Extension.

MOTION: Approval of the Order. Rust MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. Green asked about the asbestos abatement and inquired why the County was paying for it. Turk commented it was a negotiated item, and that the abatement was taken into consideration for negotiations of the sales price. VOTE: 4-0.

REPORT BACK/PROJECTED CASH BALANCE: David Garnick reported briefly on the Cash Balance, updating the Board on the amount from the previous month. Garnick indicated that the amount was down slightly from the previous month, about $260,000 which is .24% change of the General Fund.

Garnick stated that some departments were up and some down, saying that some of the projected lapse was utilized to purchase computer equipment in various departments. He commented that in other areas, the anticipated revenues were not coming in quite as high as expected. Garnick said that the department of Health & Human Services (H&HS) continues to change daily, making it difficult to know exactly where they will come in. He indicated that he has worked with H & HS, but it is very difficult to know exactly when revenues will be received. Rockstroh had previously indicated he would not use more General Fund than he had budgeted.

Green inquired about the methodology of what the "fair share" of RIS payments were, citing the City of Eugene's comment that they did not believe that Lane County was paying their fair share. Discussion followed. Van Vactor stated their was a series of incidents in the past where different partners have paid different shares, commenting that there are differences in how calculations are made and how the County allocates revenues. The County maintains that the revenue allocation should be different, with revenue flowing back to the people that produce that revenue. He indicated that it's an ongoing debate almost every time the Regional Executive Group (REG) gets together.

Garnick stated that the "good news" was that it looked like the County funds would come in higher than anticipated, and efforts are being made to capture as much revenue as possible before June 30th, the cutoff date.

Garnick indicated that an updated FinPlan would be forthcoming to the Board as soon as possible, with ten year projections. Van Vactor commented on the Leadership Team meeting discussions revolving around a possible Sheriff's levy. Leadership Team will be meeting on July 6 to review the Sheriff's proposal, and again later in the month in preparation for an August 7 meeting with the Board. Van Vactor stated that the amount projected to return to the General Fund is smaller than some people had anticipated. Van Vactor stated he appreciated the work of the Budget staff in showing the reality of the funds.

Van Vactor stated that there is continuing difficulty in getting accurate reports from the departments. He said this is of critical concern because of the close cash carryover and the tightly balanced County budget. He said he anticipates the need for the Board to issue explicit directions to departments so that the problem does not continue. Garnick commented on how helpful the process has been. Weeldreyer spoke about accountability. Other Board members echoed the comments.

ORDER 95-6-28-20/In the Matter of Transfers Between Appropriation Levels, Departments and Funds. Garnick indicated that these of transfers are usually included in a supplemental budget, but stated that these items came up at the last minute. Garnick said that this was the last opportunity to make the transfers, saying these transfers are within a fund, but between departments and that Board approval was required.

Garnick commented on the Justice Courts costs, some which are beyond control, mentioning extensive use of a pro-tem. Total costs were $15,000. Garnick stated that some appropriations would be borrowed from within General Expense, saying that the County would be holding a payment to the State for the Gambling Enforcement Video Lottery dollars. It is budgeted to be paid within the next year.

Garnick said the second transfer was Corrections Operation, Fund 18, the Sheriff's office request for $54,000 to cover unfunded vacation liability (TM buyback and indirect charges). Contingency funds are available, as they have not been utilized to date. Van Vactor questioned John Clague about TM sales, stating that when departments authorize vacation buyback, they certify that budgeted funds are available. Clague said that the bulk of the sales come from LCPOA, and the contract does not leave an option. The LCPOA contract states that they may sell TM. Two years prior, LCPOA was asked to waive that, and they did. Clague continued that when they were again asked to waive that language this year, LCPOA declined.

Rust encouraged that the item be looked at again during the next negotiation session. Clague stated that they have asked to have that budgeted based upon past experience, but indicated that policy limits that to 2% of the payroll. Garnick said that has a slight change in the next budget year.

Garnick said the last item was a transfer within a fund and between object class. Garnick explained that the Risk Fund was experiencing higher than anticipated Workers' Compensation Claims, saying these were not new claims, but extensions of old ones that had been projected to complete by this time.

MOTION: Approval of the Order. Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

ORDER 95-6-28-21/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Eugene for Improvements to the Roads Between the Hyundai Manufacturing Plant and Amending the Lane County Five Year Capital Improvement Program in FY 95/96 List of Public Improvements to Add the West 18th Avenue and Willow Creek Road Projects.

Van Vactor indicated this implemented the discussion held the previous week. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. Discussion followed on Item 12 of the last page of the agreement, regarding accounting of engineering fees. Consensus was to review the final accounting on the project. VOTE: 4-0.

ORDER 95-6-28-23/In the Matter of Authorizing Payment for Dexter Wastewater System EPA Final Audit Determination. Van Vactor briefly commented on the item. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 4-0.

Wilson commented that the approval of the Order removes the need for an Executive Session.


Weeldreyer indicated she had spent most of the swing shift on the previous Friday at the County Jail, an hour in the most secure area on the top floor. She expressed her surprise that the staffing level was low among these inmates. The remainder of her evening was spent observing the booking area. Lt. Sachet showed her the matrix system, how decisions are made about "who stays and who goes." Weeldreyer said this was very informative for her and helpful to see how it actually worked.

Green mentioned the safety issue of the officers, who are armed only with a mace spray and a radio. He asked the same question about deputy defense during his tour, and was told that there is a gun policy and video cameras.

Rust indicated he had attended a conference in Portland. He shared a list of conference participants including the head of Boeing; Quincy Jones, the musician; Alan Blair of Pacific Yurts in Cottage Grove; and Robert Atkins from Oakridge who runs Value Added Cedar Processing. Rust stated he would be distributing the list, agenda and other relevant materials.

Rust wished everyone a happy Independence Day.

Green indicated that he would be leaving for Minneapolis on July 6 to attend a NAACP conference. Green stated that he expected the issue of Affirmative Action would have a high profile and that he would bring back everything he learned about the topic.

Dumdi shared comments on the AOC Board retreat that she had attended with Commissioner Cornacchia on Monday and Tuesday. She indicated that it consisted primarily of legislators talking about what had been successful and what had not during the recent session, and preparing for the special Light Rail session in July and a January session.

Dumdi said she had a press release from Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) stating that the County had been successful in receiving two grants. One was the block grant for the SCAR/Jasper Mountain ASSET center and failing septic system. They are receiving $75,960 for that project, which will make their water system viable and working. The other was for Westfir to prepare a Wastewater Facility Plan, and will be receiving $65,800 because not all Westfir residents are connected to the Wastewater treatment system.

Weeldreyer complimented Peter Thurston on his work in preparing and submitting the grants.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:53 p.m.


Leslie Barrett, Recording Secretary