April 15, 2000

8:30 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 8/16/00


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




It was noted that 10. a. should be 00-4-25-15 instead of 14, and 5. b. will be 00-4-25-1.  It was further noted that 3. a. is just a proclamation.




Birgitte BeuuikeWilliams,  P. O. Box 30014, Eugene, read her letter into the record  regarding Mt. Pisgah. She asked the Board to consider keeping the monument off of the mountain and relocate it.


   3.      RESOLUTIONS


a.         PROCLAMATION 00-4-25-1/In the Matter of Proclaiming May 7 through May 13 as Lane County Tourism Week.


Sorenson read the proclamation into the record.


Lisa Lawton, Community Relations, CVALCO, thanked the Board for issuing the proclamation.  She noted that during the week of May 7-13, CVALCO and its members will be celebrating the accomplishments of the Lane County visitors industry.  She reported that more than $426 million is generated for the local economy and it is the third largest generator of travel dollars in the state.


Green thanked CVALCO for making Lane County a destination point and a good place to visit and live.


MOTION: to approve the Proclamation.




VOTE: 5-0.


   4.      EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place after the meeting.




a.         DISCUSSION/Sheriff's Office Budget Issues: 1) 00/01 Funding for the Forest Work Camp; 2) New Support Services Manager Position for the Police Services Division, and a New Communications/Records Officer to Administer the Tow Impound Program; 3) Tow Impound Program Revenues; 4) Funding the AIRS Conversion Through Certificates of Participation; and 5) Internal Cost Allocations.


Jan Clements, Sheriff, reported on next year’s fiscal year funding for the Forest Work Camp.  He noted this year=s funding is being put into next year again for the Forest Work Camp, at 30 beds until a permanent revenue stream is found for 120 beds.  He said their budget will not have a lapse of significance.  He noted on the biennial plan there was a discussion concerning insufficient money to fund the Forest Work Camp at the minimum 30-bed level.  He stated there was a commitment from the Community Corrections Committee wherein the last part of the motion stated:  AThere would be an understanding that the second year of the budget will be reformulated at a later time to include support for the Forest Work Camp through program cuts and/or allocations of funds unexpended the first year.@  He reported the lapse is not evident and there are no unexpended funds.


Van Vactor reported that Rob Rockstroh, Director, Health and Human Services, indicated that the Chair of the CCC Committee does not agree that the lapse would come from just CCA money, but also from the general fund of the Sheriffs Office. Van Vactor asked Rockstroh to prepare a memo so the Board would be aware of that issue.  He indicated that with the second half of the biennium if there are no lapse funds, and there are various CCA programs that are currently operational that PSCC and the Board will have to reduce their expenditure and lower the service level of those programs.


Morrison asked what programs would be cut and by how much.

Clements responded approximately $365,000 is needed to match what had been an ongoing general fund contribution of $250,000 to run the camp at 30 beds.  He noted that he had the text of Mr. Chases motion and it stated that the budget would be reformulated at a later time (not referring to the County=s budget) from the CCA budget for support of the Forest Work Camp. 


John Clague, Captain, Sheriff’s Office, stated he did not concur with Rockstroh.  He noted the discussion was on the CCA budget and how to formulate it.  He stated that in the second year the committee declined to decide which programs would be cut to fund the camp.


Sorenson asked what programs would be cut.


Clements stated the total liability is $365,000 and there had been no discussion.  He said if the Board doesn=t want to make those decisions without input, it would go back to the Community Corrections Committee and then through the full PSCC.  He added that ultimately it would come to the Board for final action.


Green requested a record of the minutes when the Sheriff came to the Board on the same issue.


Sorenson asked if the Forest Work Camp will have to be reduced by size and scope over the next two to three years.


Clements responded that the Forest Work Camp could not be reduced further in this coming fiscal year because that would close it.  Clements declared that Lane County needs to study the measure that the federal government is considering.  He noted there are dedicated monies for forest-related projects and/or programs.  He said another possibility could be a money measure in November 2000. He would have serious reservations running the program at 25% capacity.


Dwyer stated it was doable but he had concerns.


Clements reported that the new Support Services Manager position for Police Services was part of the reorganization plan and it is an ongoing critical need.  He added there is no place that he had identified where there is revenue that would enable the position to be funded.  He said the issue is on the shelf.  He stated he will continue to look for funding.  He said there is no money to fund that position


Clements brought to the Board a recommendation that they create a communications records officer position.   He said they wanted to make sure the revenue stream was stable by using temporary help.  He recommended making it a permanent position and stated he has the money in the budget.

Morrison asked what rate is used and how is it collected when a vehicle is impounded.


Ernie Loy, Sheriff=s Office, explained they had been using a non-preference tow roster created by the Oregon State Police.  He said when they instituted the program, they went to the tow operators informing them about instituting a new program. They also created a new contract and sent it to every licensed tow operator in Lane County. He noted those who agreed are on a Lane County non-preference tow roster. He said the companies have a fee schedule for the average citizen and one for a law enforcement response.  He said Lane County has a restriction that the calls must be responded to within 20 minutes of a call and a higher rate is charged for that service. He noted the administrative fee is $100 which is charged separately to cover cost to the County.


Morrison asked if additional money would be found if the revenue declined.


Clements stated additional money would have to be found or there would be program cuts.


Sorenson asked if there had been a challenge to the impound law anywhere in the state and if so, what was the outcome.


Loy responded there had been no legal challenges.


Teresa Wilson, County Counsel, stated her office researched appellate challenges and did not find any case law.


Dwyer asked for copies of the contracts with the towing companies for both of the fee schedules.  He asked that, as commissioners, if they had a legal right to regulate the practice. 


Wilson responded she could provide a short memorandum on state law that authorizes the Sheriff to participate in the program  She added a county can choose not to participate.


Clements explained the funding of the AIRS conversion through certificates of participation.  He noted they had a discussion with officials from Springfield, Eugene and Lane County about getting the criminal justice system into the 21st century with technology.  He said there is an agreement in principle with qualifications on the part of AIRS partners to move forward.  He stated the mainframe will become too expensive to maintain because of its inability to assist law enforcement and criminal justice programs.  He said the recommendation was to use funding that the Sheriff=s Office generates through the SCAAP funds which has resulted in an excess of $400,000 in the revenue stream over the last two years per annum.  He added this will continue at a gradual decline.  He said this is a good source to back the issuance of certificates of participation.  He noted they would be coordinating the issuance of the certificates of participation with the City of Eugene if they use that mechanism for funding their portion.  He added that Springfield would use it for their portion. He passed out CIP funding and public safety project lists. (Copy in file).  He suggested looking at the critical facility needs in that process.  He said this needed to be adequately researched and brought back to the Board with an order.


Van Vactor reported that yesterday at the meeting with Judy Monahan, AIRS, updated the amounts to include labor to install the system.  He noted Lane County’s share is closer to $4 million because it will include backfill of labor.  He said Lane County would be paying 40%.


Clements clarified that they are dependent on a year-by-year federal budget to apply for money that would be used to repay that.


Van Vactor said they should move to get an initiative on the ballot or wait until after the election because of the Sizemore initiative.


Dwyer asked how long the SCAAP money would last.


Clements responded there is a risk because of no guaranties that it will be included from one federal budget year to another.  He said they have to find the money somewhere, in the general fund, or make program cuts.


Dwyer asked if they could use the impound revenue stream.


Clements stated they were using it to balance their existing budget as well as next  year’s budget.  He said if there is no SCAAP funding, they will have to make other arrangements to fund the responsibilities of the COPs or make program cuts.


Sorenson asked what goes away if SCAAP dollars were used to back up the certification of participation.


Clements stated it doesn=t have to be tied to any program.  He added if the monies are not dedicated through the Board action for the correction remodel, then they do not have an ongoing plan to expend the money.


Clements noted the Sheriff’s Office had several road-funded activities, the road crew had an environmental deputy and the weighmaster program.  He said they tried to develop a higher level of accounting and fiscal responsibility in the Sheriff’s Office through the addition of a higher classified financial officer.  He noted that through the analysis it was clear they were not capturing the full cost from the road fund for the benefit of the general fund for services of the Sheriff’s Office. He reported that Rick Schulz, Sheriff’s Office, did the analysis and determined that  the indirect associated with his salary is allocated to road fund activities. He noted they have to ensure that the general fund as well as the road fund bears its share.


Schulz said they wanted to get to the point where they could get to a program to show what the true costs were to perform the service. 


Green asked what the costs were for funding an officer on the road. 


Schulz said they allocated out all of the administrative costs and support costs on a per FTE basis.  He said with cost distribution, they had all of the contract costs in one contract program.  He reported it costs about $118,000 for one FTE, uniform, vehicle and all the indirects.  He added patrol deputies cost more and they started at $125,000 as there are a lot of training costs.


Dwyer said the impact is on contracts.  He said it was prudent to move toward the real costs.  He said Parks chose to use a non-sworn deputy for less because there are no indirects associated with a private contract.


Concerning full cost accounting for services, Weeldreyer said conversations she had with Public Works about the environmental deputy indicated it wasn=t clear as to what work was charged to the road fund.  She said that accountability was not well documented on how it was shared among Public Works programs.  She would be opposed to seeing the environmental officer position go because the person serves a variety of functions.


Clements stated none of this had been last minute activity by the Sheriff’s Office. He said with regard to Creswell and Veneta, they were given a full year with a status quo that this was where the Sheriff’s Department was going.  He wanted to keep a presence on the coast, but  the dunes and Oregon parks would only provide $50,000 for a deputy, and that would not fund a half deputy position.  He noted that in order to meet County directives--allowing for growth guidelines--the department needs to make program cuts or they will close down a jail bed or lose a road deputy.


Weeldreyer noted the Board had discussion on the compliance division knowing the environmental deputy had been able to respond to compliance calls.  She hoped they will not lose that position.


Morrison praised the Sheriff’s Department for doing full cost accounting.  She hoped the other departments were doing the same.  She said if they think they cannot afford the Sheriff’s Office service, they should find someone who could provide the service within their budget.  With regard to the weighmaster, she said it is not a high priority.


Clements asked if Public Works could find a better way of working with the weighmaster. He noted that if there is an inadequate County weighmaster and state presence they will not be able to comply with the law.  He said the question is saving more than they are using.


Dwyer said he is glad they are doing full costing. He didn't think it was necessary for the weighmaster to be a sworn deputy.  He said it could be assumed by Public Works if they could do it cheaper.  He said there needs to be consistency and fairness and the cost allocations could not be discretionary.


Weeldreyer was not clear about the Forest Work Camp issue.  She asked if it would be helpful for the Board to ask the Community Corrections Committee to look at that.


Clements responded that the Board wanted the Forest Work Camp funded at a 30-bed level for the next budget year.


Dave Garnick, Budget Analyst, said the subcommittee would look at the projections for the rest of the year and make a recommendation on a program.


Clements said the Board could focus and accelerate the activities of the Community Corrections Committee by stating expectations because there is a dispute where the money would come from.


b.         DISCUSSION/Accepting the Proposed Internal Auditor's Annual Work Plan for the Period May 1, 2000 Through June 30, 2001.


Dean Stevens, Internal Auditor, gave a summary of his work plan.  He noted that the Finance and Audit Committee looked at the work plan and recommended the Board approve it.


Green stated the Finance and Audit Committee reviewed the work plan and they supported advancing it to the Board, versus approving it.  He asked Stevens how he would include the early release portion of the jail.


Stevens said he has an outline in the work plan and he had a lengthy discussion with the Sheriff on the review.  He said he would review and try to use the recommendations for managing jail space.


Van Vactor cautioned that operation of the jail and matrix is a complex program managed by the Sheriff's Office. He noted Ernest and Young did a staffing study for the jail and they have a public safety component to their auditing functions.  He didn't think this was an efficient use of the auditor.  He said a better approach would be that the Board work with the Sheriff.


Stephens noted problems gathering data could cause delays.  He said if data is not available, he has to look at alternative methods.


Dwyer said that this wasn't one of his priorities with the independent auditor. 


Sorenson asked Stevens if he thought this was a good use of his time.


Stephens responded he would have liked a cash control element in his work plan because it is critical.  He would not be opposed to taking the jail off his list.


Green suggested having Stephens look at Senate Bill 1145.  He said until capacity is addressed, he would be willing to modify the one proposal and move off of it.


Sorenson noted that Stephens' goal was to determine whether the jail space could be managed more effectively.  He asked about the survey being ten percent of the review and then substitution of cash control.


Stephens responded the 250 hours on the cash control review is one part and the cash collection venue around the County is huge.  He wanted to do an analysis on the riskiest areas.  He asked for more time on this project.


Dwyer said it is critical for the Senate Bill 1145 review.


Stephens stated that the plan is an overview, not detailed.  He said that,  in developing performance measures, John Cole, Land Management, considered what was timely in certain types of permits.  He added he would check with other counties on this.


Clements stated when it is demonstrated that the Sheriff's Department could do a better job, he would be willing to take over fleet services for Lane County.


Morrison wanted more audits and less plans.


Dwyer said the yearly work plan was ambitious.  He wanted results before he gave Stephens extra assignments.


Green said Stephens has been trying to get a work plan since he was hired.  He said in order for the Board to evaluate him, there needs to be a predetermined plan.


Dwyer wanted more results with less effort.


Green suggested that the plan be brought back to Finance and Audit.


Sorenson said there is agreement that there will not be a review but a survey on jail space.  He noted there is no opposition to the risk associated with the federal programs.  He suggested advancing the cash collection control.


Stephens noted the IVM review is complete and is going to Public Works for review.


MOTION: to have the internal auditor conduct a work plan that has a survey, (not to exceed 40 hours concerning jail space management), an audit on vehicle maintenance, efficiency and effectiveness of the building permit process, risk associated with federal programs, coordinating the County's effort to implement a GASB statement 34, working with the internal auditor and external audit, and to train supervisory personnel and work with the Finance and Audit committee to conduct an audit of the cash collection controls


Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Stephens asked if cash control should be at the end.


Sorenson said Stephens didn't have to be concerned with timing.


VOTE: 4-0 (Weeldreyer excused.)


c.         DISCUSSION/Consideration of Draft Letter to Land Conservation and Development Commission Regarding the Proposed Rule on the Application of Statewide Goal 14 (Urbanization) to Rural Residential Areas.


            Kent Howe, Land Management, reported this issue is a result of a meeting with the Board on March 8, where they presented the draft rules of the DLCD, dated March 2.  He said the Board requested a letter representing its position to LCDC on rulemaking regarding the applicability of the Goal 14 urbanization to rural residential designations as it addresses the Curry County Supreme Court decision.  He said there was a subcommittee meeting of the Rural Residential Advisory Committee of LCDC that met on March 28 where a proposal surfaced from the 1000 Friends of Oregon.  He proposed discussing three question areas the rule is trying to deal with.


            Howe noted the first issue was they are keeping amendments to the rule simple and not dealing with creating a complex network of new requirements.  He asked if the Board would be agreeable.  He continued if the Board approved, the next question regarding goal amendments would be grandfathering-in placing a dwelling on all lawfully created lots and parcels in rural residential exception areas.  He said the third issue was freezing the zoning designation of RR2, RR5 and RR10.  He noted this would be going to LCDC this Friday.  He added part of it had to deal with a provision that would allow for establishing requirements that would allow for density increases.


            Jim Mann, Land Management, passed out statistics. (Copy in file.)  He said if they grandfathered-in the right to build lawfully created lots and parcels, they have potential for 1,857 additional dwellings (from 1996) on vacant lots, outside the urban growth boundaries.  He said for Lane County, if the minimum parcel size is five acres, under the current five acre zoning, there would be potential for 164 new five acre parcels.  He added they have potential for rezoning 145 more parcels, for a total of 309 additional parcels if the bottom line is five acres.  He said if there were 10 acres, there would be divisions at the existing zoning for a potential of seven new 10-acre parcels, and if the minimum were 20 acres in Lane County, there would be no land divisions.  He said if the minimum is five acres, then the potential to rezone from five to two would be eliminated and currently under the County’s existing policy there would be 598 new two-acre parcels.


            Howe noted if density increases were allowed (if they were quasi-judicial application initiated plan amendments), or were more of a comprehensive nature under a legislation process, there was a move to simplify the procedure.   He said they could craft a letter based upon the discussion that could be provided for LCDC’s work session on Friday.  He added that the AOC Legislative Committee is meeting on this tomorrow and they will be taking a recommendation that is in line with the same issues.


            Green said that he would agree to one--a simple process.  He agreed with Goal 14, and a freeze in the existing zone.  He also agreed to a quasi-judicial process.


            Morrison agreed with one; and with two, if “exception” is removed because of the 80% build out rule on the urban fringe.


            Howe said the rule is only applicable to rural residential exception areas.


            On number three, Morrison wanted five acres and quasi-judicial.


            Mann noted these areas are 92% developed and it would recognize lawfully created lots with the areas set aside for rural residential development.


            Sorenson asked what the policy rationale was for allowing the rule change.


            Howe noted it is not an expansion of the boundaries of existing exception areas that are zoned rural residential, rather it is an infill of acknowledged areas for rural residential development.


            Dwyer wanted fairness, but he would not allow people to make a killing with a land use contract.  He said on Goals 3 and 5, there are conflicts.  He wanted to analyze the material.


            Sorenson said Land Management should not be spending a significant amount of energy on this.


            Howe confirmed there was no interest by the Board to provide a letter to LCDC for their Friday work session.  He said there might be follow-up by Dwyer.  He said if there are three votes of the Board, they could craft a letter.  He said he could come back to the Board with another work session to bring them up to date.


            Sorenson requested that Land Management provide an e-mailed update to the Board on what happens Friday.


            MOTION: to move that Kent Howe provide the Board with an E-mail update of whatever duration he thinks is appropriate on what happens at the LCDC work session on Friday.


            Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.


            VOTE:  1-3 (Dwyer, Morrison, Green dissenting).  Motion failed.




a.         Announcements


            Van Vactor noted tonight would be the Budget message.


   7.      PUBLIC WORKS


a.         ORDER 00-4-25-2/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to the Resource Recovery Advisory Committee.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-4-25-2.




Ken Sandusky, Waste Management, reported that after the last vacancy, Weeldreyer asked staff to outreach to rural wastehaulers to get representation.  He said they sent a letter out to eight haulers and advertised publicly.  He said the committee reviewed the applications and voted seven first place votes for Betty Tomlin and two second place votes for Garland Burbank.  He said the Board could take the committee's recommendation to appoint Betty Tomlin.


Weeldreyer stated she met with rural waste haulers and they think they don't have an effective voice on the committee that makes recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. She asked the Board to reconsider the motion to allow Garland Burbank to fill the vacancy.  She wanted a seat for a waste management employee.


Dwyer had no problem with having a hauler represented on the Board.  He said he was going with the recommendation of the advisory board.


Green said he was standing by his original motion.


Sorenson said he will support the motion and asked how difficult it would be to add a slot for a rural waste hauler representative to the Resource Recovery Committee.


Terry Wilson, County Counsel, responded it was a Lane Manual change and she

could come back with a Board Order.


Sorenson said he would support the motion with the understanding there would be direction to come back with an ordinance change that would open an additional slot on the advisory committee for a specific slot for a rural waste hauler.


VOTE: 5-0


Weeldreyer recommended keeping a slot that would be an odd number for a waste management employee.


b.         DISCUSSION/Proposed System Development Charges for Parks


Bob Keefer, Director, Parks, reported that in January 1999, he came to the Board with a Parks 2005 plan and set in motion a plan for the next five years.  He said they were setting their maintenance and operations up for the next five years and money for capital development was moving out of park improvement to the operations program, emphasizing improvements on maintenance.  He added if they were going to continue to develop the parks they have and acquire new properties, there had to be another revenue source.  He said they hired Don Gaynor as a consultant to begin the process and during Fall 1999 they completed an inventory of parks and Gaynor drafted a methodology report. 


Keefer said in January and February, he formed an advisory task force of people from the Home Builders Association, the real estate industry and park supporters to review the methodology report and the policies to put into place by County ordinance (notes from those meetings are in file).  He noted the task force did not come to a conclusion on the fee or if there should be exemptions.  He said the advisory committee made recommendations (in the memo) that deal with SDCs for parks.  He noted the advisory committee approved the draft CIP.


Don Gaynor, passed out SDCs  for other agencies (copy in file).


Gaynor reported they went through a detailed process to present the information.  He said the packet report, dated March 8, 2000,  explained the SDC in general and how they came up with the draft SDC.  He said that SDCs are covered by state statutes. He added they have to be enacted by ordinance or resolution and have a methodology with a capital improvement plan designated.  He said there also needs to be estimated costs and timing of projects that will be funded with SDCs separately accounted with challenged procedures.


Gaynor said they looked at the current level of services in the County for all residents in the cities and outside city limits.  He said currently there are two acres per thousand population of developed park facilities.  He added they have passive park facilities of 9.57 acres per thousand for a combined total of 11.75 acres per thousand. He said they also have identified park reserve facilities that may be converted to either passive or developed or maintained as open space, but they are considered to be reserves. 


Gaynor said if they were to maintain those levels of service as population growth occurs for identified developed parks, the County will need between now and 2015, (with the population adding 97,600 residents) under 195 acres and 935 acres of passive parks for a total of 1129.6 acres.  He said they identified reserve park facilities the Parks Advisory Board considered.  He noted that the County does not need additional reserves, that means the County actually has excess park reserves. He noted the amount of excess capacity will be 198.2 acres.  He said if the County does have excess capacity facilities, there is a certain type of system development charge that could be charged.


Gaynor said guiding concepts were acres of parks per thousand persons.  He added they looked at rough portionality by developing the fee on levels of service.  He said there is a level of service of 11.57 acres per thousand and the fee is based on maintaining that level.  He said they are not asking new residents to pay anything more than what is currently available.


Gaynor noted there are two types of SDCs authorized by state statute: a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee.  He said an improvement fee can only be used for new facilities that increase capacity.  He added that a reimbursement fee can be charged if there is excess capacity and those fees could be used for capital improvement.  He said they could be used for the renovation of existing facilities or another type of a non-capacity capital improvement.  He noted that capacity improvements could be additional acres or types of facilities on existing acres.  He said a reimbursement fee could be used for rebuilding picnic structures or renovating restroom facilities.


Gaynor reiterated that this SDC is based on a service driven approach. He noted that state statute requires that if a developer contribute a facility or land used for facility, the County is under certain conditions required to provide them a credit against  SDC fees.


Gaynor reported they have calculated that the growth required improvement costs to meet the population needs for the next 15 years at under $20 million.  He said the fee is per new resident coming into the County and is $201.  He added they have identified the reimbursable cost for the excess capacity in reserve facilities and the amount is $693,000.  He noted that the reimbursement fee per new resident is $7. He said the total facilities cost per new resident is $208. He added there are administrative and compliance costs that are associated with the collection of the fee and they estimated those at 10 per cent of the total cost per resident of $21. He said there is a total SDC per new resident of $229.  He added they calculated the amount per dwelling unit at $229 and multiplied it by the persons per dwelling unit for a total SDC per dwelling of $570.


Keefer noted that the Advisory Committee recommended the rate to be $450, instead of $570.  He said when they polled the task force, the average was $430.  He added that the Home Builders Association and the realtors would probably oppose it. He noted the task force and Parks Advisory Committee recommended that collection of the fees occur inside the cities. He said based on season pass sales and picnic reservations, that between 70% and 80% of the people using the facilities come from the cities.  He noted the Parks Advisory Committee also recommended no exemptions for SDCs for low income as they have reduced the rate as a benefit to all those who pay.  He said the task force and the Parks Advisory Committee suggested to have one fee for an average per dwelling unit.  He said that was 2.94 people per dwelling unit from the 1990 census.


Dwyer declared this recognizes a middle ground and everyone benefits from County parks.  He said the cities would be willing to collect the charges.  He said it is critical that Lane County charge this to maintain the ambience of the County.


Green asked who would bear the cost of the SDCs.


Keefer said they could have charged a higher rate that would be acceptable. He noted the average new home in Eugene is $180,000 and it is not the low-income home that would be impacted.  He said it is a relatively low fee in comparison with the average cost of a new home and the fee would be for new construction only.


Gaynor reported that impact of fees is always an issue.  He noted there are not a lot of funding sources for new parks and to maintain a level of  service for the future, additional acreage needs to be added.  He said one way would be a bond issue. He said the new residents who would be moving here and creating the growth would be paying the fee.


Morrison disagreed that cities would be supportive.  She said the dollar amount is too high. She said she could support half of the amount.  She added they were also looking at imposing stormwater and transportation SDCs and she had reservations about how the dollars will be spent.  She said she had no problem with the capital improvements on what the County currently has.


Dwyer envisioned this as proactive care of the problems near the small cities. He said it will be a beginning, it will be fixed for five years and he would be supportive.


Keefer said he needed general direction on how to proceed.


MOTION: to proceed with implementation of SDCs for Parks as recommended by the Parks Advisory Committee and holding a public hearing on the SDC ordinance within 60 days.


Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Green had no problem with staff getting direction.  He suggested to get the conflict worked out between the cities prior to a public hearing.


Keefer mentioned that if the Board wanted to move ahead, one of their work plans would be asking the cities to work with them.


Sorenson suggested accommodating the motion by deleting 60 days out of the public hearing so the Board would be giving direction to proceed with the implementation but not to hold the hearing, to give time for increased talks with the cities.


Dwyer agreed to amend the motion.  Sorenson SECONDED.


Dwyer agreed with the need for involvement with the smaller cities.  He said if they show the benefit to the citizens as a result of the charge it would to their advantage. 

Weeldreyer echoed Green’s concern about people who live in cities being assessed a park fee and working out an option for cities which have an SDC.   She wanted an option for those cities that oppose the County.


Morrison stated she was agreeable, except with the cities and the amount of $450 per unit.


Keefer said that concern would come up during the public hearing and the Board could decide the fee.


Van Vactor said there is an equal protection and uniformity taxation issue with cities that may make reducing it just for urban residents difficult.


Wilson said the only way there would be a possible reduction component, would be if a city is already collecting an SDC would have the same administrative costs to collect two.  She said there may be a reduction but beyond that it would be risky.


VOTE: 5-0.


c.         FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 3-00/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 4 of Lane Code to Delete Car Rental Tax Exemptions for Large Vehicles and Temporary Replacement Vehicles and to Revise the Distribution Formula (LC 4.205, 5.250, and 4.255).


            MOTION: to approve First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing  for Ordinance No. 3-00.


            Wilson noted the citation of 5.250 should be 4.250.


            VOTE: 4-0.




A.        Approval of Minutes:

February, 9, 2000, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

February, 15, 2000, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

April 12, 2000, Joint BCC/Eugene City Council, 6:00 p.m.


B.        Assessment and Taxation


1)         ORDER 00-4-25-3/In the Matter of a Refund to PCB Service Corp. and David E. Carmichael, Attorney, in the Amount of $15,712.25.


C.        Health and Human Services


1)         ORDER 00-4-25-4/In the Matter of Accepting the Recommendation of the Mental Health Advisory Committee; Approving Exhibit A (1997-99 Community Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Developmental Disability Services Plan for Carry-Over Funds); and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Plan.


D.        Information Systems


1)         ORDER 00-4-25-5/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 3 of Lane Manual to Revise the Function and Membership of the Technology Management Team (TMT) [LM 3.515(3)].


E.         Public Safety


1)         ORDER 00-4-25-6/In the Matter of Applying for a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Continuation Grant for $181,000 and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Execute Grant Documents.


F.         Public Works


1)         ORDER 00-4-25-7/In the Matter of Awarding Requirement Contracts to Various Contractors to Establish Unit Prices for Dust Oiling Material (Lignin Sulfonate), Delivery, CRC Distributor and Operator Needs During the Period of June 1, 2000 to September 15, 2000, Contract No. 00-M&S-50.


2)         ORDER 00-4-25-8/In the Matter of Accepting a Right of Way Grant from the Bureau of Land Management for Land that Lies Within Quaglia Road (County Road Number 1063) and Granting the County Administrator the Authority to Sign the Right of Way Grant.


3)         ORDER 00-4-25-9/In the Matter of Extending the Delegation of Temporary Authority to the County Administrator or his Designee to Acquire and Record Interest or Title in Property for the County.


4)         ORDER 00-4-25-10/In the Matter of Authorizing the Parks Division to Apply for a Local Government Grant to Construct a Large Group Picnic Shelter at Richardson Park and Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign the Grant Application.


5)         FINAL ORDER 00-4-25-11/In the Matter of The Alteration of a Portion of County Road Number 538 (Commonly Known as South 6th Street) From the I-5 Interchange Northerly Approximately 3920 Feet to Johnson Avenue, Being Located Within Section 33, Township 20 South, Range 3 West and Section 4, Township 21 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian.


6)         RESOLUTION AND ORDER 00-4-25-12/In the Matter of Amending Board 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 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.


G.        Youth Services


1)         ORDER 00-4-25-13/In the Matter of Approving a Contract for Services with Willamette Family Treatment Services Inc. in the Amount of $164,980 and Delegating to the County Administrator Authority to Execute the Contract.


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.


Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.


9.               COUNTY COUNSEL


a.                FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 4-00/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 5 of Lane Code to Modify the Noise Enforcement Penalty Provision and to Declare an Emergency (LC 5.990).


            MOTION: to approve the First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 4-00 May 20, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.


            Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


            VOTE: 4-0.


b.         ORDER 00-4-25-14/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 1, 3 and 5 of Lane Manual to Modify Enforcement Provisions.


            MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-4-25-14.


Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


            VOTE: 4-0.




a.         ORDER 00-4-25-14/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to Fill a Vacancy to the Health Advisory Committee.


            Sorenson stated one person applied, Nola Nelson.


            MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-4-25-14.


            Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


            VOTE: 4-0.




            Green announced a Brain Development Workshop for tomorrow night.  He stated he was a judge at the Willamette High School “Mr. Wolverine” contest for the Children’s Miracle Network and they raised $16,000.  He reported he was also a judge for the United Way Golden Rule recognition of volunteers.


Dwyer reported he attended a meeting on the Beltline-Gateway expansion.


Sorenson reported there will be a dedication of the Juvenile Justice Center at 5:00 p.m. on April 28.  He announced that he will be attending a Placemaking Meeting at the City of Eugene on Thursday, April 27.






There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 3:50 p.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary



go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices

Contact the

Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement

Updated: 11/03/05


Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.