APPROVED 6/21/95

May 23, 1995
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' WORK SESSION
Commissioners' Conference Room - 8:30 a.m.

Chair Ellie Dumdi convened the meeting at 8:35 a.m. with Commissioners Steve Cornacchia, Bobby Green Sr., Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Leslie Barrett, Recording Secretary.

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

Dumdi announced that there would be one emergency item coming up later. Terry Wilson called attention to material for Item 7-b, which was carried over from the previous week. Commissioner Weeldreyer stated that she needed to leave at 10:30.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Douglas Card, 1727 Jackson, Eugene, representing the Applegate Trail Committee spoke in favor of the upcoming Applegate Trail project, which is scheduled to be discussed at the May 30th Board Meeting. Mr. Card wanted to give the Board an understanding of all the different organizations they are working with and a "sense of reality of our mission." They have four interpretive centers around Lane County which are being developed, and are working with seven other centers around the state. They are working with: two federal agencies (the National Parks Service and the Army Corps of Engineers); four different communities; two different counties and a host of local historical societies.

Gloria Aagaard, P. O. Box 123, Cheshire, shared some excerpts of commitment letters from various organizations who are allocating funds to match the $13,000 the Committee will be asking from the County to match state money. Letters were circulated from: Richard Hayes, Army Corps of Engineers; Bob Keefer, Lane County Parks; Lester and Luella Sweet, long time Elmira residents; Doug Crispin, Armitage State Park; Junction City Historical Society Board of Directors; Junction City/Harrisburg Chamber of Commerce; John Weber, City of Eugene Parks Planner; and George A. Lavios for the City of Cottage Grove.

Cornacchia asked Bill Van Vactor to have an item prepared for the May 30th session indicating how much flexibility the Commissioners have as a Board to utilize some of the Tourism dollars scheduled to be granted as special tourism projects. Rust added that the Applegate Trail Committee was responding to direction from the Economic Development Committee to "hustle up some commitments around the community and come back to us." Rust stated he hoped the Board would be in a position (on the 30th) to find out if Lane County Parks Department can be the non-profit agency to receive the grant and sponsor this, possibly with the use of Video Lottery dollars.

Cornacchia commented that he brought up the Tourism dollar issue in the hope that the Board would be open to using a variety of pots of money, as the Video Lottery dollars may be needed in another area.

Dumdi commented that she had received an invitation from Gloria Aagaard to attend a meeting on May 25th at the Fern Ridge School District but would be out of town. Rust indicated he might be able to attend in her absence.

John Moseley, Vice-President for Academic Affairs at University of Oregon, and as a representative of the Southern Willamette Research Corridor (SWRC), spoke on behalf of the Regional Strategies, but indicated he was unable to attend the hearing due to other commitments. Moseley stated that with the influx of new industries (Sony, Symantec, Hyundai) that the industrial partners in SWRC were interested in "working with the public and the educational institutions that have been the backbone of SWRC over its eight years of existence" to develop priorities for the public and private sector. He referred to a letter from Jerry Moskus, the President of SWRC, supporting high-speed telecommunication systems.

Moseley related that the first priority of SWRC is the same as the high technology goal, and that SWRC plans to work with Regional Strategies, the University of Oregon, School District 4-J, Lane Community College, City of Eugene and Lane County who are contributing to the development of the Lane Education Network, which will be a basis for a much broader high-speed telecommunications network for the whole area.

Moseley indicated that the area covered by the Regional Strategies is "essentially exactly contiguous with the area of the Southern Willamette Research Corridor." He remarked that the University of Oregon is strongly supportive of the software goal. He reported that twelve companies recently attended a session sponsored by the Software Engineering Research Center at the University of Oregon to listen to proposals from faculty members of all four Oregon universities and from the University of Florida and Purdue to provide industry support for innovative software development. He conveyed SWRC's plans to work with the County and others to help bring these goals to fruition.

3. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH REGIONAL STRATEGIES BOARD

a. RESOLUTION/In the Matter of Adopting a Regional Strategy for Submission to the Oregon Economic Development Commission and the Governor of the State of Oregon.

-and-

b. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 95-5-23-1/In the Matter of Adopting an Updated Strategic Plan and 1995-97 Action Plan and Recommending the Strategic Plan be Submitted to the Oregon Economic Development Commission and the Governor of the State of Oregon for Consideration Under the Regional Strategies Plan.

Hal Reed, Jim Zelenka and Jim Ramsmeyer introduced the Regional Strategies Plan. Team members commented that the document was a result of many hours of work by citizens and industry representatives with the Regional Strategies Board in three industry subcommittees: high technology, software and forest products industry sectors.

The team members stated that Lane County is part of a four county Regional Strategy group comprised of Benton, Lane, Lincoln and Linn counties. They explained that the document is an update of a document approved in 1994, the previous biennium, and that the update begins with Section 5 and continues in Section 7. They said that Section 5 is an industry analysis, which is the result of subcommittees meeting together and reporting back to the twenty member board, comprised of five representatives from each of the four counties.

The members explained that Section 7, the Activities section, is what is being focused on today, that Section 7 is the Action Plan for the 95/97 Biennium. They further explained that the document contains results of the 93/95 Biennium, which is the award of projects, and is found in Section 6.

In response to a query by Cornacchia, team members clarified that this is a six-year program, in two-year increments, that tends to coincide with the funding cycles dictated by the Legislature. The first two-year cycle has just ended, and the middle cycle has just begun.

Cornacchia inquired if these were locked in. Team members responded that they are updating strategies as appropriate, as they go, but are basically locked into a three industry strategy: Forest Products, High Tech and Software. Further response was given that discussion about adding another strategy, e.g. Tourism, would not occur until four years hence, and that while they are locked into a strategy for three bienniums or a six-year period, regional strategy dollars can only be spent on those key industries. They indicated that within that same program exists multi-region strategy dollars with which they could participate in a Tourism project within the four-county area, and that Regional Strategy dollars could not be used, but could combine multi-region strategy dollars with some other region that has tourism as a key strategy and would affect our region. They cited tourism examples from other regions that did not come to fruition (Klamath County and Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties) because of difficulties in each of the other regions, and failure of project sponsors to complete the projects and to submit proposals.

Dumdi and the Regional Strategies Board jointly opened the Public Hearing at 9:04 a.m.

Patti Lake, Director of Training and Development at Lane Community College (LCC), spoke in support of the entire Regional Strategies Program, and stated that LCC has been lucky enough to be involved in several of the programs. Lake cited Wood Products as one area in which LCC was involved. She expressed concern that funds are not always available through their budget process to "match" projects, and suggested looking within County resources (e.g. Video Lottery) to see if any money is available for a match, as it would help them get more new funds and aid some programs now funded on more solid ground.

There being no further public testimony, the Hearing closed at 9:07 a.m.

MOTION: Approval of Resolution adopting a Regional Strategy for submission to the Oregon Economic Development Commission and the Governor of the State of Oregon. Cornacchia MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. Brief discussion followed. VOTE: 5-0.

MOTION: Approval of Resolution and Order 95-5-23-1. Cornacchia MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

4. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

To be held later in the meeting.

5. COMMISSIONERS BUSINESS

None.

6. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

Dumdi announced there will be an Executive Session following the Work Session.

7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

Van Vactor announced that Sharon Giles had successful surgery and that she was recovering, and it is anticipated she will be out for a minimum of four weeks. He stated that alternate staffing schedules have been made to cover her duties, and best wishes for Sharon's recovery were extended.

b. ORDER 95-5-16-4/In the Matter of Award of Bids Under LCP 93/94-05 for Handicapped Accessibility Improvements to Youth Services and Florence Annex With Community Development Block Grant Funds.

Peter Thurston reviewed the item which had been deferred from May 16th in anticipation of election results due that evening. He explained that successful passage of the Youth Services bond measure now creates a question of whether grant funds can appropriately be used to update the Youth Services facility with handicapped accessibility improvements, and that the key issues before the Board relate to predicting how long the Youth Services administration building will be in service and whether this complies with grant requirements.

Discussion followed on whether to follow the recommended action by awarding the Florence Annex contract and further investigating the possibilities of future award of contract for Youth Services, when grant compliance has been explored and determined.

MOTION: To award the bid under LCP 93/94-05 for handicapped accessibility improvements to Florence Annex with Community Development Block Grant Funds and to further investigate possibilities of award of contract for Youth Services, when grant compliance has been researched and determined. Rust MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

8. PUBLIC WORKS

a. ORAL REPORT BACK AND ORDER 95-4-18-3/In the Matter of Recommend-ing Priorities on the Oregon Department of Transportation's State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).(NBA & PM 4/18/95)

Tom Stinchfield, Transportation Planning Engineer, reviewed that the item had been presented on April 18th, but action was delayed because the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) had not completed action on their priority list. The Board had directed staff to informally notify ODOT that they approved of the rural priorities, and that was done at that time.

On May 11th, the MPC took action on the metro priorities, and changed one item based on discussion at the City of Eugene: the second stage of the Beltline is their first priority over the Ferry Street Bridge and other parkways.

MOTION: Adoption of the Order as submitted. Green MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

The meeting recessed at 9:27 a.m. to reconvene at 9:45 a.m.

b. DISCUSSION AND ACTION/Natural Resources Implementation Code Amendments for West Eugene Wetlands.

To be held later in the meeting.

11. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

a. ORDER 95-5-23-5/In the Matter of Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Incentives for Hyundai Electronic Industries.

This item taken out of order.

Chair Dumdi read the Order into the record.

MOTION: Adoption of the Order. Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

Extensive discussion followed concerning the appropriateness of utilizing road funds to develop roads to the new Hyundai site. Cornacchia requested Public Works staff do a reconnaissance of 18th and Willow to see what it would cost, and allow them to negotiate with the City of Eugene on the need for particular improvements. Bertelsen to Willow Creek and the possible realignment of Danebo were also reviewed. Cornacchia requested further discussion at the next two to three meetings.

Other discussion included what the County's responsibilities would be under the Memorandum of Understanding. Rust stated that he felt this was the last big project that the County Road Fund could support due to diminishing resources, and that the Road Fund needs to be protected for improvements of existing County roads. Cornacchia and Green echoed their agreement of Rust's assessment, and Cornacchia stated that there are still outstanding commitments (e.g. Oakridge area and others) that will be financed from the Road Fund.

Weeldreyer suggested looking at the interest earned by the funds set aside for Ferry Street Bridge, as a way of lowering the impact to other projects in this current year. Teresa Wilson stated she will check the possibility of utilizing that endowment.

VOTE: 5-0.

8. PUBLIC WORKS (Continued)

d. DISCUSSION/Update on Short Mountain Landfill Project Schedule.

This item was taken out of order.

Mike Turner facilitated a discussion of mandated capital improvement projects at Short Mountain Landfill, relating that the new permit issued by DEQ in February, 1995, contained specific timelines for accomplishing several tasks. Turner reiterated those as:

1) Cease spray irrigation of leachate by the end of the 1995 irrigation season, usually end of September or early October;

2) Line the lagoons by November 30, 1995;

3) Submit a plan for long-term leachate treatment by September 30, 1995; and

4) Implement the leachate treatment plan by June 30, 1996.

Turner distributed flow charts of projects to help define the issue. He conveyed that the filling capacity of general operation of the landfill is scheduled to be reached by about October of this year, and that $215,000 has been scheduled for construction to increase this year's filling capacity and extending the fill date to approximately October, 1996.

Turner explained that installation of the first bottom liner has been accelerated by one year, from the ten year plan, to begin this year, and the $3.9 million project consists of construction of a new lagoon and lining of the existing lagoon, which requires transferrance of the current waste, but that the lagoon will serve a dual role -- as a lagoon for an interim period of time, and eventually a cell for waste. He asserted that this allows the County to meet the deadline and the intent of having the lagoons lined and out of service by December 1, 1995, but that construction projects would require dry weather.

Turner informed the Board that the revised site development plan is driven by endangered plants and wetlands that the County was unaware of in 1990 when the development plan was done, that the landfill design must move away from the wetland areas and when that is completed, they will determine whether to install a new cell or to line a lagoon. He said this is estimated to be completed in October, 1996 with an approximate life expectancy to September, 1999, and that after engineering studies have been completed and bids received, a decision will need to be made.

Turner commented on the File Note, that the County is required to line the lagoons and has to have additional capacity for waste. He remarked that leachate treatment is a requirement by DEQ, but is not related to lining the lagoons.

Turner continued that bids are out on these projects and that June 7th is scheduled for additional discussion on these items and award of contract, due to short DEQ timelines. Discussion followed on when a Work Session might be held for further review. Turner reported that bids will be brought to the Board in June. Additional discussion on Waste Management projects was tentatively scheduled for July.

A Revenue/Expense Comparison was distributed, and annual expenses were also reviewed by Turner. Also distributed were charts detailing 1994/95 expenditures by program and by site.

MOTION: Approval of staff recommendation to proceed with projects as currently planned. Rust MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

Weeldreyer left the meeting at 10:32 a.m.

b. DISCUSSION AND ACTION/Natural Resources Implementation Code Amendments for West Eugene Wetlands.

Roy Burns introduced Neil Bjorklund of City of Eugene Planning. The item came out of the Urban Transition Agreement, where the County requested that the City of Eugene administer programs in using development regulations within the Urban Growth Boundary. Burns continued that, as a portion of that, the County is then obligated to adopt codes and permit the City of Eugene to administer them, inasmuch as portions of the area are outside of the city limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary.

Burns related that the Lane County Planning Commission chose not to adopt the proposed code amendments by the City of Eugene or to recommend approval to the Board. They requested additional notification that went beyond the resource allocations of staff at Lane County to administer.

Burns responded to Cornacchia that this session was to deal with implementing the Codes and that on May 30th the Board will consider amendments to two specific properties. He further remarked that the specific code amendments to be considered by the Board have received State and Federal approval and any changes made will need to be taken back to the State and Federal government for negotiation.

Bjorklund responded to Rust concerning the Hyundai proposal, stating they are inside the city limits and the code amendments have already been adopted inside the city limits, that their development will be reviewed in accordance with those provisions, and any action taken by the County on these codes will not impact Hyundai.

Bjorklund explained a map he had posted regarding wetland areas and identified the properties which would be affected by code amendments. Cornacchia inquired about the buffer protection zone and whether additional properties might be included. Bjorklund responded affirmatively.

Bjorklund further commented that the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers have approved the West Eugene plan and code amendments as presented. He contended that if changes were made or the code amendments approved are not adopted for the urban transition area, there would be a need to go back and negotiate with those agencies before they could transfer permitting authority to the local level.

Burns commented that for clarity the issue before the Board today was direction on how to proceed and not adoption of the code provisions. He further stated that they were asking for the Board's guidance on how to proceed as a result of the requirements placed by the Planning Commission on notice that they felt went beyond staff ability to follow through on the Planning Commission recommendation.

Dumdi commented that it was her understanding that the map shown by Bjorklund had not been available until after the first of the year, and that a lot of people who would be impacted by this had not seen the map. When reading the background information, she noted that one of the things that the Planning Commission had requested was that individual maps be sent out. She inquired about the possibility of holding another large session where the people who would be impacted would have a chance to come in and actually see the map.

Cornacchia commented that the mailing to individuals was a resource problem. The Planning Commission was asking for a detailed map of each parcel that shows, not only the wetlands protection that is already in place, but also the attendant buffers, and how those buffers are impacted. He announced that the buffer area consists of the wetland areas and an additional 75' of non-wetland outside the wetland zone. Cornacchia's concern was that the property owners are aware of the buffer zones and the impact they would have on their property.

Burns responded to a query by Green that there was a time lapse between when the initial hearing was held, negotiations by the City, and a variety of other things before the notices were mailed to property owners and surrounding property owners. He indicated that over 2500 notices had been mailed before the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission asked for additional activities, and concern about the impact maps was raised at this second meeting.

Bjorklund stated that the information was available and was provided to every property owner who requested it in response to the Public Notice. He distributed an informational flyer that was sent to every property owner and resident in the notification area. He indicated that the City received quite a few calls, people asked questions, and the City provided lot-specific information about their holdings in the area. He disclosed that one of the reasons the large map was not produced earlier was that the technology was unavailable and was very expensive to do on an individual basis. He stated the map produced used certain parameters and applied them system-wide, doing some editing by hand, resulting in a finished product that was not specific for each tax lot.

Bjorklund indicated that one of the difficulties in providing a lot-specific map for each tax lot was based on a series of meetings held with property owners in West Eugene during development of the plan and the adoption process. During those meetings, he stated City staff negotiated with property owners some flexibility changes in the way the buffers were allocated or figured so that property owners have at least three options of how to meet their buffer requirements, and one of those options has "no numbers" attached to it at all. He stated that these changes make it very difficult to create the maps requested by the Planning Commission without specific development proposals from property owners.

Cornacchia introduced a discussion on buffers, tying them to the City's stormwater management plan. He indicated that there was no state or federal requirement for the buffers. Cornacchia said that what the Board was discussing was a choice by the City of Eugene to not treat stormwater in an urban facility, but to cast it into streams around the periphery of the community for those streams to filter out the pollutants and material. He remarked that this was a nationally accepted, scientifically valid way of dealing with stormwater treatment, but that he had a problem with what was occurring. He stated his concern over notifying County constituents that their property would be used to treat stormwater drainage, limiting what runs off their property into the channels to treat and disperse its poisons. Cornacchia further stated that this was a financial decision -- it was cheaper to dump the stormwater into the streams than to put it into the treatment facilities.

Cornacchia indicated that he felt it was wrong for the City to say to the people outside the city limits that their property will be used, without any compensation, to deal with a City problem. He remarked that if the City wanted to use these properties to treat their poisons, then they should buy them, compensate the owners, or annex them. Cornacchia stated that in a sense their property was being taken, not unlike the "Dolan" case.

Rust commented that the stormwater was basically oil and dust from the roads. Cornacchia agreed, but stated that it bothered him that there was a lack of candor in the process -- that no one mentioned the stormwater drainage issue during this code amendment process. He stated his issue was not one of using County constituents' property to filter the City's stormwater drainage, but rather their use without compensation. He suggested an alternative would be to have a stormwater drainage treatment center and charge everyone for it.

Cornacchia referred to comments made by Steve Gordon, found on page 13 of the January 10, 1995 Planning Commission minutes, which stated, "Mr. Gordon noted the City was under a Federal mandate to control nonpoint source storm water runoff. The plan was integral to satisfying that mandate because the wetland and waterside buffers and setbacks would be employed to filter runoff before it reached streams and wetlands. Mr. Gordon said that absent the buffers and setbacks, individual property owners would be required to pay the costs of treating runoff onsite before it could be discharged."

Cornacchia questioned how the City can require County residents to pay the cost of treating runoff onsite before it can be discharged. He suggested one alternative might be having the people who are dumping in the Amazon inside the City pay for treating the runoff. Cornacchia said there must be a variety of alternatives. Dumdi stated that perhaps the City should pay for the buffers. Cornacchia agreed that it would probably be less expensive to purchase the buffers than deal with the water treatment.

Bjorklund clarified that state law does not require buffers in general, but state law does require buffers as a condition of approval for a wetland conservation plan, and that this area is inside the boundary of the City's wetland conservation plan that's been approved by the state and the federal government. Bjorklund cited the ORS as saying setbacks from wetlands and waterways are required in order to get approval, and said that the terms "setbacks" and "buffers" are interchangeable in the way they are being discussed.

Bjorklund further stated that the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan only applies to the Eugene City limits, and permits for stormwater do not apply to water flowing out from the Urban Growth Boundary, but what comes out of the City. The City is not under obligation to do anything in those areas for stormwater. Bjorklund continued that the program is based on both on-site stormwater treatment and wetland buffers and construction practices and erosion abatement and a lot of other things inside the city limits.

In response to a question from Rust, Bjorklund pointed out that the three lower areas are upstream and are flowing into the City. Bjorklund stated three or four tax lots would be impacted, but only when they are developed. He further remarked that the areas cannot be developed until they are annexed to the City, and therefore would be under the provisions of the Stormwater Plan.

Cornacchia read from the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (Page 1.10) stating it specifically talks about the West Eugene Wetlands Plan: "the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the wetlands it protects represent an opportunity to integrate stormwater management goals with wetland management goals." Bjorklund indicated that was correct, but inside the city limits. Bjorklund offered to provide Cornacchia with a copy of the adopted Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, as Cornacchia had a draft.

Bjorklund stated that the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the Storm-water Management program are integrated: the Stormwater Plan does not apply outside the city limits as there is no legal authority, and the policy in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan calls for buffers inside the plan area. He related that the policy is already in place and was previously approved by the Commissioners. Cornacchia stated he would not vote approval of the plan, as it stated that 75' setbacks on either side of a wetland or waterway were to be used for buffers. Dumdi said that she had not voted for the plan.

Burns commented that the issue would need to be brought before the Board in a formal process, that the intent of today's session was an attempt to get direction and not product approval. Rust asked Bjorklund what the consequence of inaction would be -- inquiring what the consequences would be from the state and federal permitting authorities if the plan was kept in limbo because it was not implemented. Bjorklund responded that they would have to go back to negotiate the Eugene Wetlands plan with the state and federal agencies. He indicated they would probably be forced to modify their approval, but didn't know how the agencies would respond.

Rust requested a topographical map of the area to get a better idea of the drainage system, a copy of the ORS concerning setbacks, and further asked Bjorklund to pose the question to state and federal authorities regarding inaction on the plan. He then stated he would like to engage the public in a meeting or public hearing, but wanted more details before that occurred. Bjorklund indicated that someone from the stormwater program could discuss the issue with the Board. Rust commented that he was particularly interested in more information concerning Cornacchia's theory that the City is somehow gaining capacity in a channel that is going to benefit the upland residents of the city, and that that's really what this is about -- to preserve the capacity of a channel. He requested that Bjorklund analyze that theory and put it back on the table at a later time.

Burns asked the Board if they would like a work session that had an element of dealing with the stormwater management program of the City of Eugene on how the natural drainage ways are integrated in as part of the treatment process for stormwater. Cornacchia indicated that perhaps Bjorklund had contributed to his confusion on the issue of buffers and referred the group to an attachment to the Board packet. He indicated that on page 15, the last paragraph of section 13, of a memorandum written by Bjorklund, dated January 3rd, includes the phrase "if buffers are not required" and gives the impression that there are other ways of dealing with the water quality problem.

Green requested an opinion of whether the addition of setbacks would amount to a "taking." Burns replied that the Planning Commission had requested that the City of Eugene have their attorney analyze to see if there was a taking, and that analysis has been provided. After some discussion, Teresa Wilson suggested that it would be reasonable for County Counsel's office to review the opinion and inform the Board if they generally agree with the analysis. She commented that the opinion stated that most of it was probably not a taking, but as applied in certain circumstances could be. She stated that ultimately the answer might be that there are risks involved because there's no "clean" legal answer. Green then said he would like to have those risks identified to ascertain if they are manageable.

Cornacchia stated he wanted to make it clear that he was raising the issue because he thinks it has to do with fair and just treatment of people and their property. He indicated that if he could be proved wrong, he would state that he was wrong and vote for implementation of the Natural Resources Code Amendments for West Eugene Wetlands.

A Work Session dealing with the issue was tentatively scheduled for August.

c. DISCUSSION AND ACTION/Proposed Citizen Involvement Plan for the Natural Resources Special Study, an Element of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Periodic Review.

Burns introduced a draft, stating he was seeking Board guidance and direction in order to avoid some of the issues associated with not having adequate citizen participation throughout the process, and that at the end of the process the elected officials will have been kept abreast of the issues.

Cornacchia indicated that in terms of the draft involvement plan, he would provide Burns with his written comments, and stated that he had a question about the purpose of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). He inquired if their purpose was for something specific and listed examples: establish the parameters of the exercise, identifying the lands, determining significance, applying significance to an analysis for future protection, set-asides. He stated that if it was merely to review staff work of the past, that he was "not on board at all."

Cornacchia said he did not support the current inventory, or the methodology used to do the inventory. He stated there was no definition of significance, and stated that was something that had to be done. The application of significance criteria to the inventory site is not something that has been done with public involvement.

Cornacchia referred to the item in the Board packet for item 8c "Draft Metropolitan Natural Resources Special Study, Proposed Citizen Involvement Plan, and requested that they convene the CAC and establish methodology. He said he would like to have the citizen advisory committee actually participate in the site inventory as opposed to the former method that was utilized.

Cornacchia referred to page 3 of the plan, entitled "Fall 1995," "Mailing to property owners and interested parties indicating property-specific results of inventory to property owners and requesting comment on the inventory, criteria for significance and 3 working papers," indicating his agreement with this section. He then referred to Section "Fall 1996" on page 4: "Mailing to property owners and interested parties to notify of public workshop on draft implementing measures, including Metro Plan text and diagram changes and ordinances."

Cornacchia remarked that he was requesting mailing of property specific results of a significant analysis at that time. He stated that people should have the opportunity to participate in the inventory of whether their site should even be included for analysis, and that they also should be included and have an opportunity to be heard on the exercise of the analysis itself of whether their property is significant to the whole community for natural resources purposes or not.

Dumdi commented that a big issue would be cost. Cornacchia responded that he was suggesting that the Citizens Advisory Committee tackle that issue, along with how to inventory, how to establish criteria for significance, how we analyze property and then the exercise, reporting back to the elected officials.

Burns asked for clarification by stating his understanding of Cornacchia's request: that part of the invitation to a workshop in which they'll be discussing the results of the study should include a notice to affected individual property owners (if they are affected) of the impact on their property. Discussion followed. Green commented that he counted six mailings scheduled. Burns indicated that they keep records of who letters are mailed to and do a certification of mailing, but he has never gone through the process without someone coming late, stating they were not notified. He stated that there will be broad notice, including radio and television advertising.

Discussion followed on the timeline, noting that project completion is scheduled for Fall, 1997. Dumdi thanked Bjorklund for his attendance and participation at the meeting.

9. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

a. ORDER 95-5-23-2/In the Matter of Approving an Administrative Services Supervisor Position in the District Attorney's Office and Transferring Funds From an Investigator Position To Cover the Cost.

Responding to a question from Dumdi, Doug Harcleroad clarified that "Administrative Services Supervisor" was the correct position title. Van Vactor commented that a discussion needed to be held in the future regarding how reclassifications are to be created. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Rust MOVED, Cornacchia SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

10. HUMAN RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES

a. ORDER 95-5-23-3/In the Matter of Establishing a New Classification and Adopting Salary Range for Intergovernmental Human Services Program Manager in the Department of Health and Human Services (H&HS).

A brief discussion was held regarding the Budget file note that had been resolved by the Department of H&HS. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Cornacchia MOVED, Rust SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0.

b. REPORT BACK/Projected Cash Balance and Department Budget Performance.

Senior Management Analyst David Garnick reviewed the Target Status Report dated May 4, 1995. He called attention to the summary spreadsheet and stated that at this point, it looks like there will be a $400,000 carry-over. Garnick advised the Board to read the cautionary footnotes and stated that Budget staff liked to take a conservative view. Discussion followed on possible claims regarding this money.

4. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Rust distributed a memo regarding Room Taxes, and reported on a recent C-VALCO retreat where they had devoted the entire discussion to the topic of Room Taxes. He stated C-VALCO would like to pursue a charter amendment which would lock in Room Taxes for financing tourism and convention-related activities only. Rust indicated he thought this could be a discussion item at the upcoming Board retreat. Discussion followed, with more discussion to be scheduled at a later date.

Ellie Dumdi read an invitation to Willamette International Trade Centers annual dinner to be held the meeting of May 25th.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 11:48 a.m.

 

Leslie F. Barrett, Recording Secretary