BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

August 9, 2000

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

 

Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer present.  Acting County Administrator Dave Garnick, Assistant County Council Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

None.

 

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Emma Paviolo, 39413 Deerhorn Rd., Springfield, stated she was concerned about the environment and preservation of nature for nature’s sake and for the protection of fish and wildlife in Lane County.  She said she lives across from the McNutt Island.  She noted her concerns started two years ago from observing (from her deck) some apparent illegal activities taking place on the island.  She thought it was someone from the County doing construction because there was a bulldozer and a chainsaw with someone cutting down trees.  She noted the activities only happened before 6:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.  She stated the activities had been done by the will and the power of one single person who was able to do whatever he pleases with nature and the environment, disregarding any previous agreements with the County.  She added the history of McNutt and the damages caused to the McKenzie and surrounding areas goes as far back as September 1978.  She said she spoke to Sorenson who recommended that if she wanted something for the committee to consider right away, she should present the case herself.  She said she has copies of a tape of this person’s activity and pictures and copies of letters. She added her concern is that something was happening on the McKenzie River.  She noted as early as 1995, the person was found guilty of upsetting the earth and he was asked to restore the earth to its natural shape and he hasn’t.  She said for the past two years she had been trying to get in touch with agencies to try to help her.

Dwyer said he was made aware of some situations that were happening on the river.  He noted the State Police took a float trip down the river and videotaped some of the illegal activity. 

 

Weeldreyer said it falls under compliance issues and this had been worked on.  She noted the letter Paviolo sent was forwarded to Land Management and there are other state jurisdictions involved.  She said she visited McNutt’s island when she first became a commissioner and was aware of the close proximity to his property and the activity on the island.  She noted that other neighbors had done work in the river.

 

Paviolo said she was frustrated because nothing was getting done.

 

Morrison asked for John Cole to e-mail the Board with a report on the McNutt property.

 

Debbie Jeffries, 3800 N. Delta Highway, Eugene, requested delaying adoption of the resolution regarding the road assessment policy for use by the City of Eugene for assessing properties outside of the city but adjoining city streets.  She noted the agenda cover memo stated that the issue is that property owners along Ayres Road objected to the street assessment, suggesting that the board order that was adopted in December was to address the Ayres Road residents only and it was not.  She said the proposed policy before the Board does not ask the public to more fully accept the cost through System Development Charge (SDC) increases.  She noted the City Roads Advisory Committee refused to support SDC increases for transportation purposes.  She stated the policy still asked unincorporated property owners to disproportionately pay for improved transportation facilities they did not ask for or need.  She said if the Board Order is approved (giving the City authorization to assess property outside of the city based on the proposed analysis), the following will happen on Ayres Road: five single family property owners and two vacant property owners will be assessed tens of thousands of dollars for an improvement due to City permitted development of River Pointe and Lake Shore Estates (150 residences using Ayres Road).  She noted that none of the property owners in either development (even those with irrevocable petitions adjacent to Ayres Road) will pay a dime because their access is internal.  She said in the case of Lake Shore Estates, the streets are private.  She said she would be assessed the road assessment when they should receive an SDC credit in the future if their property is developed and takes similar access to Ayres Road.  She said if there are city road projects that must begin immediately, then the city and county should partner together and pay for them.  She added it had been done on West 11th, West 18th, Willowcreek Road, Country Club Road and River Road, all considered projects that had benefited the public good.  She asked the Board not to refer it back to the city in its present form and stated it is not fair or equitable.

Steve Cornacchia, 180 E. 11th, Eugene, stated he was concerned about the charges and request by the council and commissioners to make a recommendation on the Ayres Road situation.  He didn’t believe the end result addresses the issue that the Board originally started with.  He noted in the three situations that the Board is faced with, the old county roads will come under more pressure to be improved to handle all of the development occurring.  He said it was unfortunate that people have lived on these old county roads for decades and have no interest in developing their own properties or are in a situation where they have a long frontage, but a narrow lot.  He added there is traffic that comes into these areas and then these properties are assessed as a benefited property owner.  He suggested using a uniformity consideration.  He urged the Board to re-examine the order.  He suggested having the county use curbs, gutters and sidewalks only. He also suggested assigning a nominal assessment to the properties, having the road funds of the city and County pick up the difference because of the public policy issue.

 

3. PRESENTATIONS

 

a. PRESENTATION The National Association of County Information Officers (NACIO) 2000 Meritorious Award to Mike Moskovitz.

 

Cindy Weeldreyer presented Mike Moskovitz, Public Information Officer, with a plaque for getting a 2000 Meritorious Award from the National Association of County Information Officers.

 

Moskovitz announced that there would be new forms for the public comment suggestion box.  He said they would be distributed throughout the County.

 

4. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. RESOLUTION 00-8-9-1 Approving the Roads Assessment Policy Proposed by the Roads Advisory Committee for Use by the City of Eugene on City Roads Adjoining Property Outside the City.

 

John Goodson, Public Works, reported that in December 1998 there was a Board Resolution that rescinded an earlier resolution relating to the City being able to assess outside the city on Ayres Road.  He noted the Board at that time requested the Road Advisory Committee and Public Works Department provide recommendation on assessments within urban areas to come up with a uniform policy on what the city and County assess.  He said following that meeting, a joint work session was held between the Board and the Roads Advisory Committee and key items that came out of the work session were the direction to staff and the Roads Advisory Committee to look at options to assessments, flexibility for conflict areas, ability to pay and livability.  He said after the work session, there was a subcommittee appointed and that committee worked developing a recommendation involving several meetings.  He noted a preliminary recommendation was submitted to the Board in May 1999 and some of the elements were that the County assess for the same elements as the city does, including pavement and drainage and that there be a deferral for large undeveloped tracks, that there be a minimum assessment on panhandle lots and that consideration be given to SDC’s.   He noted the Board directed the Roads Advisory Committee to set up meetings with neighbors from the Ayres Road and Garden Way areas and the committee did that.  He said the first meeting was held on January 31, 2000 and notices were put out.  He noted that it was not perfect and not everyone was in agreement, but it was something that was moved forward.  He said part of the proposal involved use of the city’s system development charges.  He reported in July, the subcommittee made a recommendation to the Roads Advisory Committee and notice was sent out to all residents of the neighborhood on what this recommendation was.  He said no one showed up, but Debra Jeffries delivered a letter to the Roads Advisory Committee.

 

Goodson explained for a fully developed single family or duplex residential property, the assessment calculation would be a minimum 50-foot frontage of actual deeded amount if it is less than 50 feet, and a maximum 100-foot deeded frontage if it was greater than 100 feet.  He noted a livability factor was introduced where the assessment for pavement would be on a sliding scale: for a major arterial, there would be no assessment for street paving or drainage; minor arterial, it would be for 3 feet; 7 feet for major collector and 10 feet for a neighborhood collector.  He said to pick up the difference in cost, the city would be using SDC’s to cover the additional costs that were not being assessed.  He noted that larger developed parcels (1/2 acre in size or greater) would be assessed for the first 100 feet of frontage for each existing residential dwelling and the balance would be a delayed assessment for curb, gutters, sidewalks, driveways and a portion of pavement that would be collected at the time the property was further developed.  He added vacant parcels with residential zoning would have a delayed assessment until development occurs and then they would collect for curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, and a portion of the pavement with the livability factor.  He noted that industrial and commercial properties would be assessed for the full frontage with no delay of assessment and existing residential developments with irrevocable petitions would be assessed for curb and gutter, driveways and a portion of the pavement (depending on the classification of the street).  He said all other fully developed residential properties along a roadway being improved that take primary access to the roadway would be assessed based on the characteristics of the property in accordance with the livability factor.

 

Goodson announced in all cases, ten-year financing would be available and the City of Eugene would continue to provide a low-income street improvement subsidy program.  He said this provides an improvement over what existed before.  He noted the Board would have to agree with the concept of the proposal and take any necessary action that is not covered by the proposed resolution to rescind the effect of the 1998 board order and the city would have to come back with a request to meet Oregon statute to allow them to assess on specific roads where properties were outside of the city.  He said the resolution would cover the city portion, but they want to see it expanded to cover county roads within urban areas.

 

David Kelly, City Councilor, City of Eugene, mentioned the big change was the livability factor.  He noted that SDC’s would be used for the pavement with the livability factor that was assessed.  He noted the $18,000 on the Clague property would be due only if and when the property was fully developed.  He added the estimate at the current time is $6,900.

 

Gary Pape, City Councilor, City of Eugene, reported this had been a difficult issue.  He said it was not perfect, but it was better today.  He said deferral is an equalizing agent for the people who want to keep their home and not have to worry about assessment.

 

Les Lyle, City of Eugene, recalled that when the Board made their decision in 1998 to rescind the Ayres Road resolution, an area of concern was the deferred assessment concept for large partially developed parcels and Garden Way and Delta Highway.  He noted the city had put together a deferral program at the request of the County and a concern was that it would be a lien against the property.  He said what they will be proposing will not be a lien on the property, but an equivalent assessment that will be collected from the development if it comes in for review by the city.  He added that the livability factor is part of the reduced value that would be assessed.  He noted the only piece that would be assessed as part of a formal local improvement district and liened against the property would be up to the first 100 feet of property length, or $6,900.  He added if the property owner never chooses to develop, there will be no further charges against the property and they would be levying the assessment against the developer, not the property owner.

 

Dwyer asked about the accumulation of interest, where the interest accrued could exceed the market value of the property.

 

Lyle responded that was a possibility, but the timing and determination would be up to whomever owned the property.

 

Weeldreyer asked how equity was being addressed.

 

Lyle responded that they had a proposal that would only assess the first 100 feet of the total length and if and when the property is developed, they would have  responsibility for bearing the equivalent assessment and will pay an SDC if the property is developed.

 

Dwyer stated there needs to be a policy that prevents this from happening in the future.  He said it is a perception of equity.  He said when the city has public motivation, they come up with the cash to do what has to be done.

 

Morrison said there had been a lot of effort put into this and that it won’t make everyone happy.  She added costs had been brought down considerably to all of the property owners from what it was originally.   She wanted to move forward to rescind the original resolution.

 

MOTION: to approve RESOLUTION 00-8-9-1.

Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Vorhes stated that the resolution would approve in concept the proposal as it was developed and recommended by the Roads Advisory Committee.  He noted on each of the road projects involved, those will have to come back to the Board with specific orders. He noted the resolution addresses what would the city do when they deal with properties that involve inside and outside of the city.  He said the County as an entity could look at using the same assessment policy on County projects in the urban area, even if they don’t involve city property within the city limits.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Weeldreyer dissenting).

         

5. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

To take place after the meeting.

 

6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. DISCUSSION Roles and Responsibilities of the Chair.

 

Sorenson noted that for 150 years the Board of County Commissioners had been serving Lane County as leaders. He said the commissioners represent five different districts but the Charter required a leader.  He passed out an overview of what the Chair does. (Copy in file).  He said because of the tradition of a rotating Board Chair, the Charter requires one of the members to serve as Board Chair.  He said the duties under the Charter fall into scheduling and running the meetings, and a specific requirement for ordinances.  He stated that all ordinances that are passed by the Board of Commissioners have to be signed by two people: the Recording Secretary (Ms. Zimmer) and himself as the Board Chair. He said the orders that the Board enacted have to be signed by the chair or the acting chair.  He noted the language in the Lane Code had not been corrected.  He quoted Lane Code 2.017 about creating boards and commissions.  He said that Lane County’s Charter envisions a more collegial board and no board member would assert themself over others because (Chapter 2.01):  “Everything the Board does shall be by Board Order” to prevent a particular board member from having more say than any other member.

 

Sorenson explained that Lane Manual is a compilation of items that the Board had approved by board order.  He said it discusses when meetings are held and who signs board orders.  He added that it talks about the requirement of the commissioners to appoint assistants.  He noted there are no assistants for the commissioners because there is no budget. He found a specific requirement for a Board Chair to be a member of the Eugene/Springfield Metro Partnership Board of Directors.  He said as Board Chair, he found it hard to attend because they schedule their meetings on Wednesday afternoons.

 

Sorenson added that Lane Manual said the Board would hesitate using the formalities of Roberts Rules of Order.  He said that members should avoid overuse of technical points in parliamentary rules.  He said that all ordinances and board orders of this board had been approved.  He had suggestions to speed the meetings up and cut off other Board members who speak too long.

 

Green appreciated Sorenson’s review of the responsibilities of the chair as it related to Lane Code, but he said that was not what the item entailed.  He said he raised this item when Sorenson was out of the country and the agenda team responded to his request by choosing not to discuss this while Sorenson was gone, or when he had just returned. 

 

Green noted the effort Sorenson made to try to couch what the real legal duties were for the chair.  He said he was concerned about what didn’t happen in terms of Board action.  He noted that what Sorenson distributed was in the Board orientation packet when they first became commissioners.  He stated the agenda item was not about any personal self-gratification for himself.  He said there was Board action that had taken place a couple of weeks ago that needed to be discussed in public because the Chair made a comment in public.  Green added any opportunity on his part to try to do anything, as a “payback” for someone’s activities during his campaign is not what this is about.  He said the public’s business should be the focus, and that was what he worked on.  He said the agenda item was about the integrity of the position of Chair on the Board.  He added it is more about future practices for anyone who becomes Chair.  In addition, it is also about leadership in a democracy where the majority rules.  He noted that “the majority rules” means just that: the majority rules.

 

Green explained that Morrison submitted a letter to the Board about the roadless issue that was discussed and voted on by the Board.  He said it was a letter that was sent to the U.S. Forest Service and Morrison eventually signed it.  He said while they were going through the discussion, Sorenson’s comment was that language needed to be corrected on changes that were being made from 60 days to 120 days.  Green said that Sorenson responded to the changes.  (Green said he was talking about the Chair, not Sorenson personally.) He noted that it was suggested that Sorenson sign the letter after the Board voted on the letter and there was a majority vote.  He said the Board passed the letter by a majority.  He said he heard Sorenson say in the meeting that they need to get it right because “you” are going to sign the letter (“you” being Morrison). 

 

Green said he raised the question with legal counsel about when a majority votes on a letter, then the Board Chair signs it on behalf of the Board, whether the Chair agrees with it or not.  Green was concerned about anyone who becomes Chair and unilaterally decides that they will not sign a letter they were in disagreement with.  He said there is a process for that.  He noted that the commissioners have their own personal stationery.  He added if Sorenson disagreed, he could have sent a separate letter on his letterhead stating his position.  Green was concerned about a chair that picks and chooses what they want to sign on behalf of the Board.  He said he had been Chair twice and he had signed numerous board orders and letters that he was not philosophically agreeable to.  He said in his capacity as Chair, he was reflecting the wishes of the majority of the Board.  He said that was the most important thing.  Another issue he noted was whether or not the Chair agrees with the process should be irrelevant, once a vote is taken, they have to move on.

 

Green noted that later that day, there was a TransPlan meeting.  He said the recording secretary presented Sorenson with the letter along with board orders and certificates for his signature.  He said it was his understanding that Sorenson chose to sign the certificates of appreciation and not the roadless letter that was time-sensitive.  He said Morrison had to sign the letter.  He said that Sorenson had the opportunity that night to sign the letter but he chose to sign the certificates.  He noted that Board action required that when there is a time-sensitive situation, it needs to be acted upon.  He took it as an affront to the Board that Sorenson didn’t sign the letter.  He said that Sorenson then returned to his office and wrote an e-mail about all that needed to be done in his absence.  Green noted in the time it took Sorenson to write the e-mail, he could have signed the letter.

 

He said his comments were meant to be constructive to Sorenson and anyone else who becomes Chair.  He declared this type of action cannot become a pattern.  He noted there was another incident in February where a majority of the Board took a position on a letter that was supposed to be signed by the Chair and it was not signed.  He said in the document resource process, the Board’s signatures were on the letter and the Chair refused to sign it or chose not to sign.  Green said he had a solution to the problem: regardless of who is Chair, when the majority rules--plain and simple--it is a majority ruling.

 

Dwyer agreed with Green on how the issue was framed.  He added it was about the duties of the Chair and not against Sorenson.  He noted that as Chair, there are titles and responsibilities, although no more remuneration.  He said it has to be required that the Chair act on behalf of the Board with parliamentary procedures.  He said there needs to be a parliamentarian who may be a regular citizen.  He suggested amending Lane Code and Lane Manual to reflect that it is not only ordinances, but resolutions and all directives by the Board that are to be signed.  He said if the Chair is not willing to do that, the remedies are to sit back and resign from being Chair.

 

Dwyer said the first time someone refuses to sign, there needs to be censure.  He said the second time should be the call of the Board. He noted this is for the integrity of the institution, and not personal.  He said disagreement is normal and healthy.  He said to allow someone to get funny and cute but not pay any consequences would be a bad message for the Board to send.  He put Sorenson on notice regarding policy and procedures and the need for review. He asked that this subject be forwarded to the Policy and Procedures Committee for review for a way to design it so it is fair to everyone and allow people to have issues of conscience.  He said Sorenson asked for the job and accepted certain responsibilities.  He declared Sorenson needed to either accept them or leave.

 

Sorenson asked Dwyer if they should amend the code that requires the Board Chair only to sign ordinances so that this is clear.

 

Dwyer said when this is taken into Policy and Procedures, they will invite comment and have a discussion.  He said it is important that this discussion take place for people who want to talk about it.  He said this is nothing new and there had been remedies but they were not in writing.  He said they need to make it clear what the duties of the Chair are at every level, what the ramifications of not fulfilling those duties are, and what will transpire if they are not followed.

 

Morrison concurred with Dwyer.  She said it had been unclear this past year what the role of the Chair was.  She said Sorenson picks and chooses what he wants to sign.  She noted that Zimmer gave her whatever was left over as the weeks had gone by.  She reported she signed about 80% of the items that had come from the Board as approved.  She noted that Sorenson had attended the Board Meetings but the rest of the time for all intent and purposes, he was not in the office.  She said that the Policies and Procedures Committee was the place and if the role of the Chair needed to be spelled out, then that needed to be done.

 

She said they took action on the roadless letter that morning.  She reported that during the lunch break she asked the Document Resource Center to make the corrections on the letter that they had agreed to as a Board so the letter could be signed and sent out because of time-sensitivity of the issue.  She noted after they came back from lunch, she gave the letter to Sorenson and said the corrections were made and it was ready to be signed.  She said he still didn’t sign it.  She declared if the Board moves forward and there are decisions, they need to know for sure that the wishes of the Board will be carried out by majority rule.   She said there needs to be agreement of what goes forward on a position they take.  She added whether they, as individuals, like it or not, they are representing Lane County.  She said it needs to be spelled out, and they can’t assume that everyone understands what is to be done.  She declared that this issue needs to go to Policy and Procedures.

 

Sorenson said he works hard at being a Lane County Commissioner and on one 12-hour meeting day, he signed over 80 documents the Board authorized.  He didn’t disagree with Morrison that there was a lot of work to be done, but he did disagree that Morrison signed 80% of the documents.  He noted when Green was Chair, he had to sign documents and it seemed like a large number when he [Sorenson] was Vice-Chair.  He said when he became Chair, he realized it was just the tip of the iceberg. 

 

He said he provided the documents for the Board because there are policies in place.  He said the Charter gives certain responsibilities to the Board Chair and so does Lane Code.  He said that every ordinance, board order and letter authorized by the Board had been signed by an appropriate person.  He also said everything had been done according to the policies in place.

 

Weeldreyer stated that for accountability it would be helpful for everyone to be on the same page and include an amendment to the manual or code, not just for orders and ordinances, but all action of the Board, including resolutions and formal Board correspondence.

 

Dwyer stated his respect for Sorenson and said Sorenson does a fine job and has tremendous concern about the community.  He said that Sorenson knows what the role of the Chair is, and he was pushing the envelope and got a response from the Board.  He said the response is that they will make it clear what the duties of the Chair are (as it relates to matters other than ordinances) on directives that are given by the majority of the Board.  He said that Policy and Procedures was the appropriate place to take this. 

 

Green said according to the current policies and procedures, the work has gotten done because the work needed to go forward regardless of what one person may choose to do.  He said he is a team person and the documents he signed or Sorenson signed in his absence were time-sensitive.  He added he understood Sorenson’s resistance with the roadless letter because Sorenson may have future political aspirations that he didn’t want his name associated with.  He said they are responsibilities of the organization and Sorenson had the wherewithal to write his own letter.  He said that Policies and Procedures was where he was recommending this be sent.  He stated he had to sign board actions when he was Chair that he did not agree with, but  the Board voted for it and he had to sign it.

 

Sorenson stated he had never refused to sign either an ordinance or an order.

 

Green noted that Sorenson chose not to, and whether he refused is another matter.

 

Sorenson reiterated that he always signed all ordinances and orders that he could.

 

Dwyer stated that it needs to be clear that resolutions and other directives that are passed by a majority of the board need to be signed by the Chair.  He said the Board has the power to vacate the Chair at any time simply by motion.  He noted that the Chair serves at the pleasure of the Board and when Sorenson gave the Board displeasure, there were consequences.  He said convictions are one thing and ministerial responsibilities are another.  He said that Sorenson needs to balance both.

 

Morrison said board orders are also supposed to be signed in a timely fashion.  She added the Chair must wait until the Board takes action before he signs board orders or ordinances.

 

Zimmer reiterated that as soon as everything is voted upon, she presents the Chair with a full packet for signature, but not before the meeting.  She added they also need to be signed and processed within four days, so there is a timing issue.

 

Weeldreyer stated she wanted to include as an item for the Policies and Procedures Committee plats and subdivisions. She agreed there were times when there were personal reasons for not wanting to see their name on a document in the public record, because all of the issues are not necessarily reflected in that document.

 

Green requested that this matter proceed to Policy and Procedures, including the packet that Sorenson presented, for updating of changes with a report back to the Board in a timely manner.

 

Dwyer added when there is disagreement in the future (and someone wants to set the record straight), it should be placed in the record so that the vote explanation becomes part of the record to indicated they are signing something that they do not agree with.  He said it is their responsibility as government leaders to develop a solution.

 

Sorenson said this matter would be referred to the Policies and Procedures Committee for any changes or suggestions to the Board regarding the role of the Chair.

 

7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

David Garnick, Acting County Administrator stated there would be an Executive Session after the meeting.

 

b. ORDER 00-8-9-2 Approving the Intergovernmental Agreement Creating the Benton-Linn, Lincoln, and Lane (BL3) Regional Investment Board (RIB) Bylaws of the Regional Investment Board; and the Intergovernmental Agreement Designating Cascades West Economic Development District as Administrative and Fiscal Agent.

 

Milo Mecham, LCOG, reported that Cynthia Van Zelm would be taking the lead in the Economic Development Activities at LCOG.  He noted this item concerns the regional investment board and the procedures setting it up, the latest process the state has created for spending Economic Development Funds.  He said it involves the creation of a number of regions around the state and the state delegates its decision making and financial responsibilities to these regional investment boards.  He stated that Lane County had decided to join with Linn, Lincoln and Benton counties to form the four-county regional investment board (BL3.)  He noted Lane County had been participating with the other three counties in an informal process. He said the informal process had been to delegate responsibilities in terms of recognizing who the members of the regional investment board for Lane County will be and setting up procedures to begin the process.  He added the state expected all the monies to be expended within the biennium and because of the delays in getting the process started, there is a limited amount of time.  He said these agreements create the formal process.  He noted they have to designate a fiscal agent, to get the money from the state and distribute it out as the regional investment board thinks is appropriate to spend the money properly and handling the overall administration of the process.  He said the fiscal agent would be Cascades West Cog.  He noted the by-laws needed to be adopted.

 

Morrison stated she had no problem moving forward on this.  She noted that everyone understands the importance of having some kind of a structure and holding Cascades West accountable for what they are supposed to provide for the money that they are getting paid.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-8-9-2.

 

Morrison MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

Weeldreyer stated her only regret was that Lane County came late to this process and the decision to have Cascades West be the fiscal agent for the district reduced LCOG’s role in administration of the regional investment board.  She encouraged the Board to approve this and keep the process moving forward.

 

Mecham stated the overall focus of this is on job creation.  He said the kinds of jobs projected are family wage jobs. He added they generally don’t create low-end jobs.

 

Weeldreyer noted the goal is to create family sustaining jobs and a level of flexibility but the goal of the regional investment board was to attract high wage jobs to the area because everyone benefits.

 

Morrison reported on the rural investment portion, it focused on rural areas that are distressed trying to create some job opportunities that will change the dynamics within the rural areas.  She said the dollars need to be examined with regard to strings being attached.  She noted in reality the dollars would be able to create the family wage jobs.

 

Weeldreyer stated that Lane County cannot access any money that is waiting in the Economic Development Department until there is a plan that is approved by the governor’s office.

 

Van Zelm noted the amount owed to Lane County is around $2.2 million and that will not be able to fund a big project that might help regionally.

 

Green asked how much actual money was available.  He said the people in the communities where this is supposed to benefit are wondering where the real money is.

 

Mecham responded there had been a problem dealing with Cascades West Cog and getting all the information from them.  He noted they were able to get a breakdown for the finding: the regional investment fund for the four county area has $1,560,992.  He added the rural investment fund had $1,076,000, for a total of $2,637,000 for the region and there is another $247,000 for multi-region projects.  He said the total is around $2.8 million that the regional investment board is empowered to spend on projects.

 

Green asked what the time frame was for job development so families could start benefiting.

 

Mecham said assuming all the agreements are in place, they are hoping to have a project in September or October and a solicitation process, so by January 2001 the projects are supposed to start spending their money.  He added there would be a preference for projects that will be completed by July 2001.

 

Green said if he was going to continue to support this, he wanted to see benefits: jobs and things that are needed.

 

Dwyer concurred with Green.  He said he had concerns with things that are grant driven actually coming to the people.

 

Mecham said the process is supposed to work to address the greatest needs.  He said there had been time spent on this but not money and less than 10 percent of the funds will go to administration.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Approval of Minutes:

May 2, 2000, Work Session, Following HACSA

June 27, 2000, Work Session, 1:30 p.m.

 

B. Health and Human Services

 

1) ORDER 00-8-9-3 Appointing Designees of the Community Mental Health Director to Direct a Peace Officer to Take a Mentally Ill Individual Into Custody According to ORS 426.233.

 

C. Public Safety

 

1) ORDER 00-8-9-4 Approving Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Springfield for the Purchase of Space for the Confinement of City of Springfield Prisoners in Lane County Adult Corrections Facility.

 

D. Public Works

 

1) ORDER 00-8-9-5 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 2227 (Greenwood Drive) (17-15-01).

 

E. Workforce Partnership

 

1) ORDER 00-8-9-6 Adjusting the 2000-2001 Budget for an Office Assistant II Position From One Month to a Full Fiscal Year (Workforce Partnership Department, 3737-110) Fund 249.

 

2) ORDER 00-8-9-7 Appointing a Member to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.

 

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES

 

a. ORDER 00-8-9-8 Establishing the Classifications and Salary Ranges for Chief Deputy District Attorney and Major Crimes Division Chief in the District Attorney's Office.

 

Charlie Van Deusen, Management Services, reported the order is for two new positions in the District Attorney’s office.  He said there are two current positions that are trial team leaders that the District Attorney had requested to be reclassified into Chief Deputy District Attorney and a Chief in Major Crimes Division.  He noted they have no way of getting where the District Attorney wants to in terms of salary because the current system doesn’t have the capability to go beyond the department head level.  He said the request was for an increase of ten percent over where these people are now.

 

Doug Harcleroad, District Attorney, indicated his office had been running this way since 1998, where they had four trial team leaders and him.  He noted that over the years the job of District Attorney had changed.  He said there are other duties that require that he be out of the office.  He said they gradually changed things around and he had turned over more responsibilities to Kent Mortimore.  He indicated an issue was getting their organizational structure consistent with what they are actually doing in the County compensation plan.  He noted they have a Chief Deputy job and a Chief in the Major Crimes Division that they don’t have classifications for approved by the Board, but they are operationally doing that.  He said the other issue is the salary concern.  He added they downgraded some other positions to generate the dollars so there is not an impact in the next few years adversely to the general fund.  He noted they are the two most important jobs in the District Attorney’s office.

 

Greta Utecht, Budget Analyst, stated at the proposed level, they are looking at a department director’s salary.  She said it further exacerbates the problems with the current classifications and compensation system.  She added when the District Attorney submitted his budget, he did describe his reorganization plan and they were aware of the problem.

 

Dwyer said they reorganized at their own volition.  He said when they make decisions that impact the budget and create questions of internal equity, it creates problems down the road and he doesn’t want to do that.  He noted people know what the job is when they take it and they know the salary ranges and responsibilities.  He said it was a bad idea and it needed to be worked through.  He said he would be voting no.

 

Harcleroad said he had reduced one trial team letter down to a deputy DA 1, a beginning job, taking an $85,000 position to make a $36,000 paid position. He added they also had two people in his department retire.

 

Kent Mortimore, Deputy District Attorney, stated the expectation in the office is that people who are doing the supervision of the staff should be compensated higher than the people they are supervising.

 

Harcleroad said they want a professional staff of prosecutors with longevity as experience equates to value.  He noted the lawyers were not on a compensation plan (point system) when it started.  He remarked the point factor system is out of date and it needs a rework, but it will cost more money.  He added the point system does allow for adding additional points.

 

Green stated he thought the Leadership or Management Team should have a discussion, but that there is not complete buy in by the Management Team to go forward.  He said the problem needs to be fixed.

 

Suchart noted there was strong support from Management Team to proceed.  He added there are opinions to the contrary.

 

Morrison said there needs to be a discussion about what will happen with the compaction issue and the classifications.  She said she was not supportive of this at this point in time.  She wanted to maintain the pay equity for all employees of Lane County.

 

Weeldreyer asked if there were studies done by other counties that had similar job classifications.

 

Suchart responded there were too many other complexities.  He said they would wind up picking and choosing and further eroding the system.

 

Van Deusen stated it has to be done for the workforce as a whole.  He added it was an involved complex project and there are no internal resources to do it.  He noted a recent issue is that the labor market is so tight that everyone is having problems with external competitiveness.

 

Suchart said he was frustrated because he had been dealing with this issue for three years and it is a broken system. 

 

Dwyer noted the timing was poor.  He said the Board should wait for passage of Senate Bill 1608.  He said the whole conflict needed to be repaired and he did not want to create interdepartmental bickering.

 

MOTION: to table the request.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 3-2 (Green, Weeldreyer dissenting).

Dwyer said the motion to table the matter would give them time to work this issue out.  He noted it was not intended to be a fatal motion, just to give the Board time.  He said it would be difficult in the beginning but better in the long run if they can get to internal equity and reclassification countywide. 

 

Sorenson suggested that the County Administrator convene the Management Team for a recommendation to discuss the problem and then forward it to the Leadership Team.

 

10. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

Dwyer noted with regard to the listing of the lynx, a study was performed and it was shown that there are no lynx in the State of Oregon.

 

Morrison reported that the Scandinavian Festival would be taking place in Junction City.  She noted with regard to the article in the The Register-Guard regarding attendance, she questioned what the purpose of the article was.  She said they missed the mark as to what the commitments are and having 100% attendance was not a true indicator of someone performing their job.

 

Green reported about the AOC meeting in Canyonville.  He noted the priorities were still intact.  He announced the Fall Conference meeting would be in Eugene.

 

Weeldreyer stated she attended the AOC Board meeting in Canyonville.  She reported on the Western Oregon Exposition in Cottage Grove.  She said she got to put a pie in Mayor Darrel Williams’ face.  She said there is a public hearing for the Regional Investment Board tomorrow at LCOG.

 

Sorenson reported that the agenda team changed the October down week to the week of October 24.  He said he was appointed to the NACo Health and Human Services Committee.  He reported the Lane County Fair would be August 15 to August 20.  He noted that at 2:00 p.m. they would be cutting pies for the senior citizens at 2:00 p.m. at the fair.

 

11. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

                                                                       

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

 

 

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices