minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

June 22, 1999

WORK SESSION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Commissioners' Conference Room - 9:00 a.m.

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

Green announced the Register Guard published the Public Hearing for 9:00 a.m., but it will be held later in the meeting. He added there will also be an emergency item.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Harold Meyer, 38446 Windling Road, Marcola, reported he had come before the Board last month regarding the Marcola Road Project. He said he was worried that things slowed down and were not moving forward like he had hoped. He said he is representing Lane County's youth with regard to the sidewalk project on Marcola Road. He stated he was under the impression that the Board would do something with the community development fund and he wanted to tap into it to get the sidewalk project done. He reported that he had received a response from Willamette Industries and they will contribute something, but the amount is unknown. He reminded the Board how important this project was to Marcola as the residents could not afford to pay for the assessments and any funding they receive will go back into the County's funds. He urged the Board to move forward on this issue.

Dwyer responded the Roads Advisory Policy Committee will be presenting options to the Board with regard to the process and accessibility to the funds. He added everything is moving forward, but at a slow pace and there will be a process for him to have a fair hearing in regard to his application.

Weeldreyer questioned Meyer regarding the assessments on the project.

Meyer responded he wanted to remind the Board about how he is strongly advocating for the safety of the youth in Marcola. He added he would like to be informed when the commissioners will be meeting on this item.

Lee Downing, 39468 Lemming Rd, Marcola, stated he was a member of the stakeholder's committee on the road project. He said he was disturbed that people were complaining about the project and didn't come forward to the stakeholder group. He said the complaints are coming from the Lower Mohawk area, where they do not want a turning lane. He added the County said a left hand turn lane is needed because it is a dangerous area. He said his concern is that the people complaining live at the end of the valley with a short way to travel on the road, but he lives at the upper end of the road and has 20 miles to travel. He added these people are being selfish to try to put changes to the project. He said the design of the road and safety is his concern.

Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris, Eugene, stated she had a problem trying to get information before the Public Hearing. She stated the Board of Commissioners didn't have any information for her on this meeting and she had to drive to Delta Highway and pay 25 cents per copy for the information. She advised the Board to consider having two or three check-out documents for the public that are free. She wanted to know why a copy store only charges 6 cents per copy but the County charges 25 cents. She stated the independent audit authorized by Lane County was at a cost of $100,000 to the citizens in 1997. She said the audit was suppressed and put under the table, with its recommendations not taken into account. She noted the independent audit recommended that the County sell its spray truck.

Jan Wroncy, P. O. Box 1101, Eugene, commented on reasonable requests for accommodations pursuant to Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. She said she has a disability and made requests to the County and had been partially accommodated on the issue of fragrance free meetings. She said she has an extreme chemical sensitivity because of a hereditary metabolic disorder and cannot break down the poisons in the new modern chemicals. She said she had tried to participate in the government process and had such an allergic reaction that she had to leave or sit out of the room and wait to be called to testify. She noted that in San Francisco, they have fragrance free meetings and it is not an imposition for people not to put on perfume before they attend a public meeting, but is an imposition for her not to be able to breathe. She asked the Board to revisit the rules regarding providing a fragrance free environment for the public to come and participate.

Green asked how it could be enforced.

Wroncy replied in San Francisco they asked people to leave the meeting if they came in with strong fragrances.

Dwyer replied that it is a serious issue, but from a practical standpoint it is difficult to control.

Sorenson asked to see a copy of that ordinance as it would be useful for legal counsel.

John Sundquist, 31139 Lanesturn Rd., Coburg, stated his problem with the procedure today was the short notice given. He added for an important document that concerns controversial application procedures, the public would be well served by being given 30 days notice. He added there were six days notice or three working days for this matter. He said the public would be well served with adequate notice and publication of the materials that will be presented.

3. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

4. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

a. ORDER 99-6-22-1 Developing a Donation Policy for Facilities and Operations at the Juvenile Justice Campus.

Steve Carmichael, Youth Services, suggested the development of guidelines for gift giving and donations for the youth campus because they will not have the full operating funds when they move into the building, and it will be a continuing issue over time. He added the campus represents a public-private partnership and an opportunity for the community to become engaged in using and paying for the facilities. He said there are people interested in making those kinds of donations. He reported they will complete the 21 bed drug and alcohol facility in September, but the seven beds for girls are not funded, so they will operate 14 beds, not the full facility. He said the girls’ wing will not be in operation unless they can find additional funding. He noted the shelter and assessment center are in the same situation. He added they are running 36 detention beds in the Skipworth facility and when they move into the new facility, they will take their operating dollars from Skipworth, but will not be able to operate the two additional pods. He said if the citizens are as interested in helping out as he thinks they are, they should provide the opportunity for them. He noted that last Friday the Implementation Task Force that had been working on the campus and the Juvenile Justice Center met and developed the guidelines. He said the guidelines for gift giving for the Juvenile Justice Campus would be the County Administrator and Youth Services Director negotiating gifts and donations that would be made and reviewing the criteria and the timing of the gift. He added other criteria would include the operational impact and cost effectiveness of the type of named gift recognition. He said he and the County Administrator would bring the options back to the Board. He added all of the gifts would have to meet the goal of the campus and be appropriate for it. He said they would encourage endowment-type gifts so people could give money and the principle would remain intact and the interest would pay for ongoing programs.

Van Vactor suggested the normal delegation of authority, $50,000 and above, would come to the Board and the rest could be handled administratively.

Weeldreyer asked if the cash from a donor wall would become part of the endowment fund.

Carmichael added a donor may not choose to go an endowment route, but he would encourage people to do it.

Dwyer stated he had mixed feelings about it. He said it is a good idea but didn't want it to be limited to the juvenile justice system as there are other worthy things that could be done. He said it would be defraying costs that would be borne by the average citizen in recognition of a contribution.

Weeldreyer suggested a plaque or recognition thanking the people of Lane County for passing the bond measure.

Morrison noted that on the proposed list, it stated there was a list of task force members attached, but it wasn't and requested a copy of that. She asked if there was a list of people that wanted to do this.

Carmichael responded there had been interest expressed.

Sorenson said he would like to have the policies written so they apply countywide. He said covered bridges would be another example. He said the public is growing both supportive of naming public buildings and concerned their contributions as taxpayers are not as valued. He said it would be a great way to honor the taxpayers.

Wilson said if the commissioners were interested in this applying countywide, she would craft a Lane Manual provision.

Dwyer said to honor the taxpayers by minimizing the impact on their pocketbook.

Green responded he was supportive of this as it was another way of subsidizing administration and facilities and a way to solve problems.

Wilson said approving this order, as it was applicable to the Juvenile Justice Center allowed Carmichael to proceed with any interest level that had already been expressed.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 99-6-22-1.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. ORAL REPORT Future Use of Current Pathways Facility.

Carmichael handed out a diagram of the current operations. (Copy in file.) He reported that the current Pathways Program used three modular units that were brought in 1990, when a levy was passed to fund substance abuse treatment programs for juveniles with regard to public safety. He added the program will move to the substance abuse treatment facility in September and the current Pathways modular unit will be vacant and they have an idea for the use of the facility. He added Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, had also expressed interest in the building. He stated they would use it as a transition from the current Pathfinders to the outside. He noted that some juveniles could exist in another facility and complete treatment quickly, but if they are returned home, they go home to families with substance abuse, and then would return back to the same environment and the treatment would be wasted. He said the current facility would create a transition place where juveniles (who were ready to go back to something that is not a treatment program but can't go home) could live independently and house parents would be hired to stay at the facility. He added there is three years of funding to do this through the youth intervention network. He said the facility needed to be remodeled as there are no facilities for live-in houseparents. He said it wouldn't cost the County any money for at least three years and it would be a minimal cost after that for a house parent. He added it would link the Pathways Substance Abuse program with a transition.

Van Vactor stated this idea may be premature as there is a capital projects facility planning. He added the other issue is the severe lack of space at the Heeron Center for Mental Health. He said it is an immediate need. He said he appreciated Carmichael coming to the Board with creative and good use of the facilities.

Green suggested to refer this to Morrison and Dwyer, who are working on facility needs, to work out the fine details.

Morrison noted they had been looking at different scenarios with the spaces coming available and wanted to add this to the picture. She said with regard to the aftercare, she would like to see it happen, but possibly not in this space.

Carmichael noted this was the type of program that as a community, nobody wants a group of these kids as neighbors. He said his concern is timing as they have the federal dollars approved to do this now and the Pathways program will move over in September.

Sorenson said it was his view that there should be a facilities plan. He encouraged that it be a document integrated plan that people could read and is ongoing and reviewed.

5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

None.

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

a. Announcements

None.

7. PUBLIC WORKS

a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 99-6-22-2 Approving a Project Design Concept and Acquiring Fee or Other Interests in Portions of Certain Real Properties for Improvement of Marcola Road, MP 5.81 to 11.75, Based on the Findings in Attachment A; and Authorizing Staff to Prepare a Right-of-Way Plan Necessary to Construct the Road, Pursue all Necessary Planning Actions, Acquire Right-of-Way and Prepare Plans and Specifications for Improvement of Said Road.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, noted that this project is listed in the Capital Improvement Program in two places, the section from Sunderman Bridge to Marcola ($3.8 million per fiscal year 2000) and replacement of the Stafford Bridge as ($1.4 million per fiscal year 2001). He added there was a stakeholder group on the project and the design concept recommends what the stakeholder group was asking for. He said there was an open house, the Road Advisory Committee had a Public Hearing and on May 12, the design concept was sent out to abutting property owners and interested parties. He added in response to that they received 11 letters. (5 objected to the project, 6 were objecting to one aspect but it wasn't clear they objected to the whole project.) He noted that after their March meeting, they did a tabulation of the comments received and 82% were supporting the project and 18% were objecting to the project. He discussed the designed concept. (Copy in file) He noted the stakeholder group was adamant about the benefits of adding an urban section through town but the issue remains how it will be paid for. He suggested to defer action on the assessable portion of this project and come back at a later date to discuss whether they want to use community development funds to put it toward this project. He said they want direction from the Board on the majority of the project. He said the issue of sidewalks could come back in a couple of months and not affect the scheduling of the project.

Snowden noted that one thing the Road Committee recommended was to consider doing the project in phases. He said the section that includes the bridge to Shadows Drive, will be one phase in 2001. He said there is still 5 miles of road and it may make sense to break that into another phase, to take the urban section through town and do that in 2001.

Dwyer said he had concerns about the assessment aspect, with public benefit vs. private benefit. He added it may be an opportunity in design and engineering to alleviate some of the problems with regard to flooding.

Snowden noted that one thing the stakeholder group recommended was a passing lane from about milepost 8.0 to 8.7. He said the Roads Committee looked at that, there were negative comments from the public, they looked at the level of service and they are recommending not do the passing lane at this time. He added it was a change from what the stakeholder group was asking for. He suggested to add back the turn lane at Sunderman and Hill Road, that was included in the stakeholder's recommendation. He said he received a letter from the Springfield School District asking that the turn lane be put back into the project design concept.

Snowden noted another issue for consideration was section Milepost 8 to Milepost 7, the Weyerhauser rail right-of-way that parallels the road. He said he spoke with a resident that lived near Connely Road and in relooking at what will be taking place, it makes sense to hold the east pavement edge and do all of the widening away from the developed side of the road into the old Weyerhauser rail right-of-way. He added it was an oversight on their part not to include it. He said their recommendation is when they talked about alignment, they included shifting the alignment from 8.0 to 8.7 to utilize the rail right of way. He added it does include replacing the bridge over the Mohawk River near Sunderman Road. He said they are including it because there are no shoulders and they heard from the people that it needs to have additional width, it has a pier in the center of the river that collects drift and it is shifting there, it is a maintenance problem and when ODOT did a seismic assessment of the bridges, that bridge was one of the top in Lane County in terms of seismic vulnerability. He added if the Board wanted to defer action on the assessable portion of the project, then he would recommend on the Board Order that they delete the last "RESOLVED" and last "ORDERED." He suggested to come back to the Board to revisit the issue in September.

Weeldreyer recommended to the Board since it is not clear on what the actual impact will be to the Hill Road intersection, since they are deferring the assessments, that they also defer the piece of it to make sure that the turn lane is there and she wants more information from Public Works that is more definitive so the Board knows what the design impacts to the corner will be. She said she agreed with the stakeholders group that they need a turn lane there as it is a major intersection for the road. She said for the remainder of this, she is ready to recommend that the Board move ahead with approval.

MOTION: to approve RESOLUTION and ORDER 99-6-22-1 with the deletion of the last RESOLVED and the last ORDERED.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

Weeldreyer stated she needed more assurance with regard to the turn lane and the impacts. She said she knows the residents in the area would like that too.

VOTE: 5-0.

b. PUBLIC HEARING Lane County's Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) Program Policy Document.

Green clarified the purpose for the public hearing. He apologized as some of the public may had been misinformed on what the Board was doing. He said the public hearing is about the policy as it relates to the Integrated Vegetation Management Program. He said the discussion on the May 25 meeting is a separate issue about the road maintenance performance audit. He added that this is not a public hearing on the merits of spray vs. non-spray, it is intended to be a housekeeping issue. He said it was Dwyer's request to have public comment so a separate document on standards and guidelines could be developed. He said it is not to engage in increasing spraying techniques.

Snowden said the documents the Board received on May 25 represented a condensed consolidated version of the 1990 Integrated Vegetation Management policy document accepted by the Board years ago. He added the Board then requested that no significant changes to the program were to take place. He said they prepared a more readable document that eliminated redundant material from the original 1990 report as well as out of date material. He noted it takes the 1990 report and separates it into two documents and the document in front of the Board today is a policy document and (called Appendix E in the original 1990 document,) would be put into a Standard and Guidelines report that will follow the policy document.

Green said in regard to the process, there had been statements that the Board was hurrying up the process. He noted on April 14, the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee voted in the majority to forward the document to the Board. He added it had been close to 30 days where information was available.

Mike Perkins, Public Works, gave a presentation on the Lane County Integrated Vegetation Management Program Policy document. (Copy in file.)

Jan Wroncy, 1101 Eugene, stated she was a former member of the VMAC Board for eight years and is disabled by chemical sensitivities. She said she is unable to tolerate exposures to modern man-made chemicals. She noted she had examined the IVM document and the principles of IVM is to monitor the program, evaluate its functioning and change it if necessary. She invited the Board to carefully examine some of the new information over the last ten years. She added that some of the information is related to the toxicity of the chemicals. She said that 30% of the population has multiple chemical sensitivities. She noted the County boundaries now contain three major watersheds that have listed salmon runs. She said the National Marine Fisheries will be examining programs for the impact on the fish. She added the Board needs to examine the real costs of using toxic chemicals in the environment and releasing them into the environment. She said it deserved a full hearing with 30 days clear notice so people could prepare and gather documentation needed. She said she is concerned about the misinformation in the IVM plan and one of the statements made and proved in the policy was the risk to the motoring public was not significant. She said that statement is false and was not determined by scientific method. She urged the Board to take a more careful view to ask the public to bring forth the information about the salmon concerns, the chemically sensitive people’s concerns and the toxicity of the chemicals being used.

Pollyanna Lynn, Information Services Coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternative to Pesticides, read her letter into the record. (Copy in file.)

John Sundquist, 31139 Lanes Turn Road, Coburg, commented about the hearing process. He said in this case an important consideration was left out, the audit of 1997. He noted the audit was clear, that it cost $100,000 with the County paying $86,000. He added it had numerous recommendations including County Vegetation Management, where a change of spray policy could be recommended. He said the report said spraying costs five times as much per acre as mowing. He said the $400,000 is used by the Sheriff’s work crew for vegetation management and was not mentioned anywhere in the policy document. He added recommendations from the original draft had been completely left out and current work on the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee is also not covered in the policy. He said when VMAC was developing the current policy, they were directed not to change any of the language or policy options and now from legal staff, there are changes they are proposing that may be adopted later without a hearing, have changed the roll of the accountability in the herbicide spray program. He asked if once there is a policy set out, if it would be followed by the Department of Public Works. He added Lane County spent more than $400,000 each year on roadside vegetation management practices accomplished by the sheriff’s inmate work crews. He said the efforts need to be acknowledged in the document and coordinated through official policy. He added the 1999 document does not include the essential elements of the original 1990 report encouraging citizens to adopt road strategies. He said VMAC is currently developing adopt a road strategies, native plant establishment and recovery planning needed for current and endangered species. He said the changes that legal staff are recommending will fundamentally change things.

Judy Van, 89205 Old Coburg Rd, stated she is a native Oregonian and Eugenian and lives in an area that is rapidly expanding. She said she had always been proud to be an Oregonian from Lane County, but in the past ten years she had not been as proud. She added she had lived on the same street her whole life and for the last 20 years she said it was like being in an armed camp. She said she always asked not to be sprayed because of the animals and her activities outdoors. She added despite their wishes, they had often been sprayed. She said the County didn’t put up any signs to indicate that an area had been sprayed so they never knew if an area was sprayed. She said it bothers her that the County is spraying as they could be mowing or using other methods. She said she objects to the chemicals and to anything that is imported into the area. She added there is a better way to work together to make it right.

Charlene Simpson, 1992 Lake Isle Dr., Eugene, stated she was a former member of the VMAC Committee, having served two non-continuous terms. She added she was a botanist and a 20 year member of the Native Plant Society of Oregon. She requested that her comments be entered into the public record. She applauded Lane County’s vision for their IVM program. She said she sat on the advisory committee for six years and saw its polarized perspective. She said the committee has to adopt the strictest application protocol and standards. She said she views unchecked growth of vegetation and unwanted vegetation in the right-of-way as unacceptable, not only as a hazard to the driving public, but because of the damage to the capital investment, contamination of adjacent properties by seed dispersal and the displacement of native flora by aggressive weeds. She said to deal with the safety, economic and aesthetic concerns, she supported judicious use of herbicide application. She added efficacy and risk must always be evaluated and the IVM policy requires a case by case evaluation, however the IVM is not a spray program and it is not a no spray program. She urged the Board to empower via the VMAC Committee to reaffirm its commitment to integrated management as well as to the updated program.

Jim Mishcot, 2115 Ridgeway, Eugene, stated he was in favor of the IVM program and update. He said the IVM update that was submitted in April by the VMAC Committee was a result of two years sincere effort to remove excessive verbiage and more clearly define IVM policy. He said the time spent was not intended to change the program, the intent was the mechanisms by which the program operated in any manner. He added the document is not perfect nor will it ever be, but it fits as far as the current program is concerned. He said it was troubling to him that close to 100% of the committee’s time was spent debating a portion of the program that represents less than 2% of the program from a cost standpoint. He said the applicator truck is underutilized because the program uses herbicide judiciously and only when necessary. He said when comparing herbicides to mowing, (taking into consideration costs of labor, equipment costs and materials) the use of herbicides is far less expensive. He urged the Board to accept the policy.

Cindy Gates, stated she believes and understands the County’s needs for the level of spraying they do, but also believed that supporting people to work is more valuable to improve social growth, than to the chemical companies.

Steve Cornacchia, former Lane County Commissioner, 4464 Jessica St., Springfield, expressed his support and appreciation for the many hours the VMAC Committee put into the product that is in front of the Board. He noted it was a two-year exercise that received continual reaffirmation and confirmation from the Board. He said they had lengthy discussions about the validity of the program and at each term the commissioners said they liked what they had, wanted to continue and reaffirm the policies that were set and created in 1990. He added the policy was a direct result of the intense debate that went on over the use of herbicides in 1988, 1989 and 1990, that led to the establishment of the IVM program. He stated the program is expensive, but a program that has no spray requests, protection and restoration of native and wild plant species and hydroseeding will be expensive. He said there are not enough tractors nor people to cut everything on the County roads that need to be cut. He noted the IVM program is a vast improvement over practices in the past and the VMAC’s work is an improvement to the program and in his opinion deserves praise.

Dwyer asked Cornacchia why the audit was delayed so long.

Cornacchia responded that he had been through a variety of audits and more times than not, when the audit got to the Board, it came half-completed. He said he got the auditor’s report and the department’s response. He added there were three recommendations in the audit that had significant impact on employees at the sign shop, vegetation crews and the zones, he said the audit should not come to the Board in the traditional way and as Chair his efforts were to get the audit back to the employees, requesting written reports from each of the affected departments plus written reports back from the union as to what they thought about the audit and how the recommendations and suggestions should be implemented or not.

Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris, Eugene, stated the Board needs to consider costs. She said the Board was obliged to take the opportunity provided by the publicly funded audit at a cost of $100,000 to taxpayers. She said the 70 page audit was authorized by the Board to review the Department of Public Works by a professional Portland audit firm, TKW. She said the report analyzed that it was 20% as expensive to do mechanical mowing instead of roadside vegetation chemical spraying. She added it was a direct contradiction to the earlier speaker who said it was more expensive to do mechanical spraying. She said cost savings alone warrant the selling of the County truck and chemicals. She said with regard to jobs, it is important to put youth and others to work which is a prime concern of voters today. She said to cut government costs and put citizens to work are essential reasons why the Board should take steps to utilize the professional advice of neutral paid consultants. She added it is a public health issue and not a vendetta by environmentally sensitive persons. She said there is a lack of public health concerns in the document that was emphasized in the 1990 document. She said she is concerned about the health of public employees, landowners and the animals and environment.

Ellie Dumdi, former Lane County Commissioner, 29535 Dane Lane, Junction City, stated she was supportive of the VMAC’s report as the work the staff had done on the programs was a balanced program that would benefit all of Lane County. She said the program had been carried forward in an objective manner. She said the clarifications made by legal staff should be implemented and integrated into the report. She added the report follows the position of the direction that they requested 11 years ago, and should be carried forward.

Elaine Fairchild, 88648 Winterland, Veneta stated she was a past member of the advisory committee. She noted it was hard for the committee to keep focused on the objective of the meeting. She said that the Board looks at the document that was presented and decides whether it was a clearly written document that presents the program as it stands today. She said she thinks the document is clear, accurately written and has had the excess verbiage removed. She encouraged the board to stay on track and go forward with this well written document.

Dwyer thanked all the citizens who came to testify. He noted there are always controversial issues when it comes to chemical applications and this is not unique to the committee. He said he is not anti-chemical, but thinks there needs to be a judicious use of chemicals that have to be used as a last resort if they are trying to make a difference in trying to preserve the fish, environment and all the unknowns associated with chemical application. He said the policy document can more clearly express the Board’s desire to utilize creative methods of vegetation control. He applauded the committee for the good job it is doing to move the committee toward other applications of roadside native plants. He added he thinks the County is moving in a positive manner that will benefit all of Lane County and there is always room for improvement.

Weeldreyer asked why the policy did not include an adopt a road strategy that was discussed in the past.

Perkins responded that rather than a solid piece of policy, if they were to choose to do certain aspects of an adopt a road policy, it would something that needed to be flexible to change from time to time.

Weeldreyer asked if it would be a technique that would be used and encouraged.

Snowden responded that the original Board (when they set up the no-spray program) discussed mandatory maintenance by the abutting property owner of that area that was listed no-spray and the Board decided they didn’t want to get into that. He added adopting road contains liability issues that are concerns to Public Works.

Sorenson said Linda Pauley faxed a letter stating she couldn’t attend the public hearing on the IVM policy and as a concerned citizen and as a member of the VMAC, she requested more time for this issue to be heard before the policy documents to be refuted by the public. He added only several days notice had been given and it is inadequate and detrimental to the public involvement process. He said all of the work deserves a public hearing with at least 30 days notice. He added he received a telephone call from Shawn Winkler Rios who was on the VMAC. He said with regard to Mr. Sundquist, the Board would be open to receiving additional written material about this and that should be made part of the public record when it comes in.

There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.

Green noted the Board would not be taking action today, they are getting public input and staff is present for direction.

Weeldreyer echoed many of the points that Charlene Simpson made in her testimony. She believes that there needs to be some degree of chemical spraying to maintain all of the roads that Lane County has and it is the most cost effective treatment in certain areas. She encouraged the department to look for other alternatives.

Dwyer noted the chemical sensitivity issue in Lane County is a real issue. He said the Board is moving in the right direction.

Sorenson stated the information presented was helpful. He said he thinks more attention should be placed on the human health issues and the environmental issues. He added greater attention should be placed on the costs and benefits of various treatments. He said the audit made recommendations that could be helpful. He suggested to have a policy of using chemicals as a last resort and strict protocols in the way it is used.

Morrison stated as a recent member on the VMAC Committed, she commended people on that committee for their willingness to continue.

Weeldreyer stated the IVM policy is trying to find a middle ground, a balance and wanted to honor the process by encouraging the Board to move forward and not refight the issues and have Lane County adopt a policy that as things are being learned, to adjust the processes and operations to protect both the human and natural environment. She added she would have no problem leaving the record open before adoption for more written testimony from the public.

Green said he wanted to honor the integrity and the work of the people who had done the work that is before the Board. He noted there was a vote of the VMAC committee and it was in the majority. He said he was in favor of language that does no harm, but protects the County and keeps the Board accountable for what they do. He said he wants to be sure Lane County uses the best practices and providing notices in advance. He added he wanted herbicide sprays used judiciously. He said with regard to the legal language, he wanted it kept so it made sense so the average citizen could understand it. He wanted to take in considerations they heard from the public hearing around the sensitivity pieces of the document. He noted the Board is not scheduled to take action on it because they separated the issue as it related to the audit. He said when it is brought back to the Board, they will be in a better position to make the best decision of everyone’s interest in Lane County.

8. REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS

None.

9. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

ORDER 99-6-22-3 Establishing a Five Ton Weight Restriction on Wildcat Creek Covered Bridge (Austa Covered Bridge)

Snowden noted that every two years they inspect the covered bridges or a consultant inspects them and in the course of the routine inspection, they found decay in one of the lower truss chords. He said their consultant engineers are recommending lowering the posting to five tons at the direction of John Goodson, but need Board authorization to make that semi-permanent.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 99-6-22-3.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 12:25 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

 

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices


Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 11/02/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.