minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

March 18, 1997
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' REGULAR MEETING
Commissioners' Conference Room - 1:30 p.m.

Chair Cindy Weeldreyer presided with Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr. and Peter Sorenson present. Zoe Gilstrap, Recording Secretary.

10. PUBLIC WORKS

a. REPORT BACK/Recommendation of Task Force to Evaluate Discharge Criteria for Onsite Leachate Treatment for the Short Mountain Landfill.

Ken Kohl, Land Management Solid Waste, gave a brief overview of the recommendation report (see material on file). He noted that the task force identified two primary discharge bodies, the Coast Fork of the Willamette and the onsite wetlands. Kohl commented that the committee’s first recommendation was to totally eliminate the creation of leachate and have no discharge but that method would be too costly.

Cornacchia asked if it was possible for the task force to look at the first recommendation and find out what that cost might be.

Kohl responded that the consultants are currently taking the information from the report to do a more detailed study to include a better cost analysis. He said there will be information in their report on the costs of nondischarge technology.

Green asked Steve Moe, Chairperson, Leachate Task Force, about the second choice of the committee to create an on-site treatment that produced a minimal environmental impact and if it would be acceptable to the DEQ.

Moe stated the criteria the task force developed was much more than what the DEQ would require.

Kohl remarked that when this report was prepared there was discussion and background of what would be involved with the pipeline in comparison of what level the regional treatment plant would treat the leachate. He said when the feasibility study currently being prepared by the consultants comes back to the Board next month, the pipeline will be used as a base line for comparison of the other technologies.

Pamela Gutherie, Task Force Committee member, stated that the task force did not consider the pipeline an option.

Don Walkin, Task Force Committee member, stated that he resided south of the landfill for many years and has seen the gradual decline of Camas Swale Creek and has been reluctant to consider anything that resembles partial discharge of any leachate back into the system.

Weeldreyer stated the follow up that is planned is to take these task force recommendations and forward them to the County’s consultant, Emcon, for inclusion in the Leachate Treatment Feasibility Study. Emcon will use the prioritized list of discharge locations to establish discharge criteria to evaluate different treatment technologies. She said this study should be completed and ready for Board review in April.

b. ORAL REPORT/Improvement of Local Roads and Minor Collectors.

Ollie Snowden, County Engineer, distributed and discussed a memo on this issue (see material on file). He stated that this issue and the following issue were items that the Public Works Department would like to bring back as policy questions for direction from the Board.

Snowden explained that, regarding improvement of minor collectors and local roads, typically Public Works will get a petition from the property owners and residents on the roads. He said these are usually very low volume roads with the main traffic generated by the abutting property owners and residents. Snowden remarked that these are different from local access roads because these are county roads, functionally classified as local roads and minor collectors. He commented that there are two issues: who pays, and if projects should be built to standards. Snowden explained that if the Board initiates a project by resolution, the County pays for the majority of the process, but if a project goes through based on a petition, the bulk of the cost, according to Lane Code, is supposed to go to the abutting property owners. Snowden said County staff has been inconsistent in the past and by trying to be customer friendly, property owners were given a type of improvement which, in most cases, was not built to standard.

Weeldreyer stated this is an opportunity to use the economic situation the County is in to do some exceptions and allow for some betterment, not necessarily as a big expenditure, but as part of ongoing maintenance on the roads in the county system.

Cornacchia asked if that meant there would be additional expense budgeted in the maintenance part of the budget or if something else in maintenance drops off in the County system.

Snowden replied it would mean the latter, that rather than coming back asking for more money, the project would be worked in with the existing work load. He stated he is not recommending this.

Weeldreyer said there might be an option where betterment work could be done as part of ongoing maintenance since it is in the county system and provides for a safer road. She said if there was any interest, she and Dumdi could work with Public Works to determine some parameters by which the PW’s supervisors could make some of these individual calls.

Cornacchia stated that he has not heard anything that would move him away from current policy but invited Weeldreyer and Dumdi to come back with something more substantive to demonstrate what those parameters would be.

Weeldreyer remarked that there is County interest in this type of betterment and that County responsiveness to the people is important to show that County government listens and also for establishing credibility with the citizens of Lane County. She stated that she and Dumdi will work with the Public Works staff and come back with specifics to continue this policy discussion.

c. ORAL REPORT/Storm Drainage Financing.

Snowden stated he was not asking for a decision today, but wanted to pose a policy question to see if there was any interest in having staff continue to work on this issue. He said the issue relates to storm drainage and, specifically, those storm drainage problems that are not road fund eligible. Snowden noted frequent complaints about drainage problems that are off the right-of-way where Public Works cannot state that it is a road fund problem. He reported there is no funding source for these problems. He asked if the Board was interested in having staff perform more work to explore potential funding alternatives that would allow Public Works to deal with some of those drainage problems.

There was a consensus that staff should not spend time on this, but the Board was not opposed to having them explore this issue in the future.

11. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned into executive session at 2:58 p.m.

 

Zoanne Gilstrap, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices