minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

Approved 2/9/00

January 26, 2000


Harris Hall Main Floor - 9:00 a.m.

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.


Health and Human Services requested that 9. a. be pulled and added to next week’s agenda.


Jim Bruvold, 25661 Tidwell Lane, Veneta, requested the support of the Board for a comprehensive nutrient management plan. He said he wanted to study the implications of manufacturing environmental restoration products that could be used to protect, enhance and restore riparian habitats. He noted that he has the support of the East Lane Soil and Water Conservation District. He requested a $1,500 contribution to the East Lane Soil and Water District for an economic analysis of the proposal.

Dwyer said it was worthy, but he didn’t thing that government should get involved.

Morrison shared Dwyer’s concerns. She questioned Lane County’s role in contributing $1,500 but noted that if other people are interested, that there might be another entity that could contribute $l,500.

Sorenson agreed it was a good idea and he will follow this up with Ken Sandusky.

Bill Lioio, 747 Kelly Blvd., Springfield, stated his concern is the public’s access to records that are available for public use. He noted the systems have been changed but the usefulness of the records is not very good. He said he gave Weeldreyer information about a private company that sells information to buyers that have a need to access public records. He said he would like the County accessing records from different agencies.

Weeldreyer reported that a meeting has been set of Regional Information Officers to have the company show the search tool that is available to users.

Christopher Dozois, P . O. Box 25325, Eugene, stated he was a member of Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse. He said he wanted to prevent the suffering of people.

Mrs. Ed Huntingon, 90970 Hill Road, Springfield, was present to hear the matter about the pet crematorium.



4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

To be held after the meeting.


a.  Announcements


b.  ORDER 00-1-26-1 Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Cities of Eugene, Portland, and Roseburg; and Multnomah County for the Purpose of Pursuing a Declaratory Judgment Proceeding to Determine Employer Rights in the Public Employees Retirement System.

Van Vactor reported the key fact at this time is that administrative efforts have been exhausted to get PERS to look at the issue and adjust it themselves. He said PERS had made a few changes and there is a new interim director. He noted the interim director made a report to the legislature indentifying three solutions to the problems: pooling, creating a contingency fund and changing certain interest crediting practices. Van Vactor said these were not solutions and suggested pursuing litigation.

Van Vactor stated that all pooling does is determine the normal cost rate and adds onto the normal cost rate, the unfunded liability that is over $40 million and amortizes the debt over 40 years. He said he didn’t view this as a solution, but a continuation of the status quo. He added with regard to the contingency fund, the statute is clear that they are to have one, but asked the attorney general for an opinion on whether it has to be created and its purpose. He said there were errors in changing the interest crediting practices for the variable mismatch and they have an obligation to work to solve that problem. He stated he testified last Friday at the administrative proceedings that Lane County wanted it implemented as soon as possible. He said he doesn’t believe Lane County is at a point where PERS is working on a solution and will try again with the 2001 legislature. He stated should Lane County succeed in the portion of the litigation, it would be his position that they should look for relief (for future years and additional earnings) as a way to solve the liability problem. He recommended the declaratory judgement and adoption of entering into the intergovernmental agreement.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-1-26-1.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED

VOTE: 5-0.


a.  ORDER 00-1-26-2 Designating the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors as the Workforce Investment Board for Lane County Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-220).

Chuck Forster, Lane Workforce Partnership, reiterated that Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act in the Summer of 1998 that replaces the Job Training Partnership Act that ends June 30, 2000. He added in order for Lane County to continue to receive federal workforce funds, there must be a local workforce investment board established and that is what this item is about. He noted the composition requirements of the Workforce Investment Act for local boards are similar to that under the Job Training Partnership Act. He said it requires a business majority and business chair, membership from labor, education, and economic development. He added there is continued representation from local elected officials resulting in a board composition of 39 people, currently at 33. He stated that legislation gave a stronger role for county commissioners and how the implementation of the act takes place.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 99-1-26-2.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

b.  ORDER 00-1-26-3 Appointing Membership of the Youth Council in Cooperation with the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors as Required by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Forster reported that this deals with the appointment of members to the Youth Council. He added it is a committee by the Board and it must be comprised of Workforce Board members who have an interest in youth programs, but it also includes youth, parents, the juvenile justice system and parents of children who have received services.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-1-26-3.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

Morrison stated she would like to have an attendance record to look at.

VOTE: 5-0.


a.  ORDER 00-1-26-4 Authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Endangered Species Act Coordinating Team (MECT) and Authorizing Execution by the County Administrator.

Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that in May 1999, the Board was updated with what the County was doing in regards to the expected Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the spring chinook and the involvement with the formation of the Metropolitan Endangered Species Act Coordinating Team for the urban interests of the Eugene-Springfield metro area. He noted in September they came back and amended the work program for the periodic review of the Rural Comprehensive Plan (as it relates to the listing of the salmon and the Goal 5 implications in land use) and the concerns related to the riparian ordinance. He noted there has been a habitat assessment that has just been completed. He said for the McKenzie, there are three habitat assessments underway: Mohawk Watershed Assessment, Lower McKenzie Watershed Assessment, and the Habitat Assessment. He said with the habitat assessments that are underway, Land Management and Public Works have been involved in providing information and data and working with technical groups in facilitating their review of the County’s policy. He noted besides the MECT memorandum of understanding, there is an OWEB grant that is proposed to do the habitat assessment from the Beltline Bridge. (Where it crosses the Willamette upstream through the urban portion of Eugene-Springfield). He said the MECT provides a framework for the urban agencies to coordinate as they address the ESA.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, noted the agenda packet said that Lane County’s response to the assessment work is spread thin, and he agrees with that statement. He noted there are different ways to respond to the endangered species listing. He said in engineering, they have replaced seven culverts to make them fish friendly and used OWEB grants for that. He noted they are in the process of partnering with the Siuslaw Watershed Council and National Forest to apply for another $200,000 in OWEB grants for watershed management activities as of February 1. He stated Lane County has been a leader in the state in participation in watershed management activities in the rural areas. He added they have worked with ODOT to develop a best management practice manual for road maintenance activities that is included in the Marine Fisheries Federal Register 4 D Rules and they will be working with their maintenance crews to continue to change their maintenance activities so they are consistent with the best management practices that are in the ODOT document.

Howe noted from a Land Management perspective their focus has been on the rural and as the MECT is moving toward an urban facilities assessment, they will be more related to storm water runoff and road building activities. He said they see their role as being more limited.

Snowden stated it was important that they monitor what is going on but they don’t know who they would assign from their department to work on it.

Sorenson asked if there was a way to measure the efficacy of the money and if it will protect and enhance fish.

Snowden responded that he didn’t have an answer but stated OWEB has set up five different categories of grant monies and there is a section set aside for watershed assessment and action plans. He noted it was a small amount as most of the OWEB money is going toward culvert replacement, education and monitoring. He stated that OWEB sees value in doing this.

Dwyer asked what Land Management will be required to do once the memorandum is signed.

Bill Sage, Land Management, responded that the commitment would be an informal one to monitor the process. He said once something is formalized through an OWEB grant and the County is asked to participate in the review of the consultant’s work, someone will then need to be responsible. He noted because Public Works will be in the implementation part, they would be better to do that. He noted that Land Management does not have the personnel.

Snowden noted there are multiple pieces to the 4 D Rules and its exceptions. He said they are funded to specifically look at roads. He said he could come back and give his recommendation on how to respond to the road piece, but someone else will have to respond to the other parts.

Dwyer stated what he wanted to see from Land Management changes to the code or manual that would enhance and protect fish.

Howe noted that fish biologists and riparian specialists are reviewing Lane County’s ordinance and they will come back with a recommendation so Lane County can have a habitat conservation plan. He noted the 4 D Rule is leaving to local government the requirements protecting the salmon. He added if Lane County wants to develop an exemption for a riparian ordinance, Land Management is in the process of developing that. He said they would take it through the federal process so Lane County would not be in jeopardy of rural development along these Class 1 streams and rivers.

Sorenson stated that the response to the March 1999 listing has been too slow and that Lane County is at risk in having the federal government rule against Lane County. He said that Lane County shouldn’t be in denial about the extent of the problem and should be aggressive about responding to it.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-1-26-4.


Green said he will support this.

VOTE: 5-0.

Howe explained that Step 1 is the memorandum of understanding and the next is the level of commitment to MECT and the OWEB grant application. He said the County in the OWEB grant application is not submitting any in-kind contribution. He added it is a grant they are submitting for $100,000 from the state and the in-kind needed to be $33,000. He said the state had already received $37,000 from EWEB and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. He noted they had met their match and at this point in the grant application, the County is not contributing anything in-kind. He noted that on Page 3 of the staff report regarding the level of commitment, the Board needs to either approve a letter in support of the grant and identify additional in-kind funding or approve a letter of support of the grant without identifying any commitment of in-kind services or funds.

Sorenson asked what in-kind services the County was proposing.

Green noted there is an attachment five that staff needs to fill out. He stated he was in favor of in-kind services.

Morrison stated she would be in support of approving a letter for the grant without identifying any commitment of in-kind monies.

Sorenson suggested taking option number 2 to send a letter without specific reference to amounts of money.

Weeldreyer stated she didn’t see any harm in being able to project the amount of staff time that is required and to identify that as an in-kind service, as it only strengthens the grant application. She said she would not support the motion as it is as it significantly diminishes in-kind services to an OWEB. She said it would be a mistake to pass this motion.

Snowden stated from the roads perspective, that the grant is a metropolitan area grant and within the urban growth boundary, and Lane County does not have planning or building responsibilities any more. He said that leaves roads and storm drainage, and because roads are a component of the problem, roads has a small role in the assessment process. He said he wanted to monitor what was taking place, but until he adds staff, he has no one to assign.

Howe noted that Land Management is trying to deal with the rural issues and they are maxed out with regard to work. He added the timing of the urban assessment completion is July 2001. He suggested to complete the rural effort by December 2000 and on all the other assessments of the McKenzie, come back to the Board after they finish the rural side and participate in a higher level with the urban part.

Green asked if Lane County not having in-kind services would weaken the position in terms of the grant. He was concerned that if Lane County gave no in-kind support or commitment, Land Management may came back to the Board asking for money.

Howe responded Land Management intends to do a minimal level of monitoring.

Snowden stated it was the same for Public Works.

Howe noted in order to meet the grant application requirements, he requested to fill in the blanks of the letter and bring it back to the Board.

b.  ORDER 00-1-26-5 Electing Whether or Not to Hear Arguments on an Appeal of a Hearings Official’s Decision Reversing and Remanding a Planning Director Denial of an Application for a Home Occupation Permit to Establish a Pet Crematorium Business (Hagey, File PA 99-5986).

Jim Mann, Land Management, recommended to the Board that they remand the item to the hearings official so he can hear the items that he identified in his decision. He noted there is an ability to do a limited opening of the record to address those issues. He said they received a letter from the opponent’s attorney rejecting that. He added they would like an opportunity to comment on the Board’s action. He said they also received a letter from the applicant’s attorney supporting the direction that they are recommending. He added the direction has been reviewed by Steve Vorhes, County Counsel, who believes the Board would be acting within the authority of Lane Code Chapter 14 to remand this to the hearings official.

Vorhes explained this order does create the opportunity for the Board to send it back to the hearings official to consider the issues that are left unanswered by the hearings official’s decision. He noted it will procedurally preserve the opportunity to argue on the substantive issues and raise the procedural issues before the Board, once the hearings official has reached a decision.

Weeldreyer stated she spoke with the hearings official and asked about the process and the fact that this section of Lane Code, (Section 14, as the Board memo reflects,) charts new territory and it would be an opportunity for the Board to give this back to the hearings official and establish for the process in the future, that the hearings official does have the authority to take limited additional testimony on the record when it is appealed from a planning director’s decision. She said she would support the staff recommendation.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-1-26-5.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

Sorenson noted Weeldreyer moved to approve Option C 1, to not hear arguments on the appeal and to adopt the order that has been proposed.

Dwyer declared that he spoke with the hearings official in ex parte. He said he had concerns about this but would vote for it.

VOTE: 5-0.

c.  FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1140 Renaming a Portion of Holm Lane, a Private Road, to Winding Way (18-02-20) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: March 15, 2000, 1:30 p.m., Harris Hall Main Floor).

MOTION: to approve First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance PA 1140.

Dwyer MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.


A. Approval of Minutes:

November 3, 1999, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.

January 12, 2000, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

B.  Assessment and Taxation

1) ORDER 00-1-26-6 A Refund to Guard Publishing Company.

C.  County Counsel

1) ORDER 00-1-26-7 Amending Chapter 3 of Lane Manual to Remove the Sunset Provision Pertaining to County Counsel Appointment (LM 3.062(1)).

D.  Management Services

1) ORDER 00-1-26-8 Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Thomas M. and Sharon Goins (Map #18-11-30-20-04600, Adjacent to 6259 Skunk Hollow Rd., Florence).

E.  Public Works

1)  ORDER 00-1-26-9 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 1080 (Hunsaker Lane) (17-04-12).

2)  ORDER 00-1-26-10 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 1250 (Deerhorn Road) (17-15-17).

3) RESOLUTION, ORDER 00-1-16-11 AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING Setting a Public Hearing Date for the Proposed Vacation of Lane County’s Interest in the McFarland Cemetery Property Located in Cottage Grove, as Described in Book 106, Page 133, Lane County, Oregon Deed Records, in Favor of the Cottage Grove Historical Society, The Cemetery Being in the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 20 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian (20-03-28-20-1400) (Public Hearing: March 15, 2000, 1:30 p.m., Harris Hall Main Floor).

4)  RESOLUTION, ORDER 00-1-16-12 AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING Setting a Public Hearing Date For the Proposed Vacation of a Portion of the East-West Public Alley, Located in Block 20 of Gleneda, as Platted and Recorded in Volume W, Page 261, Lane County, Oregon Deed Records, Located in the Northwest Quarter (NW ) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ) of Section 35, Township 18 South, Range 12 West of the Willamette Meridian (18-12-35-32) (Public Hearing: March 15, 2000, 1:30 p.m., Harris Hall Main Floor).

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.


a.  RESOLUTION AND ORDER 00-1-26-13 Appointing Two Members to Fill Vacancies to the Mental Health Advisory Committee. (Pulled)


a. ORDER 00-1-26-14 Establishing the Classification and Salary Range for the Developmental Disabilities Supervisor Classification.

Hector Rios, Personnel Analyst, stated a classification was created due to the request of Developmental Disabilities. He noted the person in the position will be working with the Developmental Disabilities manager to help manage the staff in a new created position. He added there was an error in the salary, as they are having problems with the People Soft system. He stated the salary for this classification should be $38,792 with the top of the scale being at $53,435 per year.

Morrison noted the packet states the position would not represent an increase in the budget allocated for staff. She asked what happens when the grant ends for the position.

Rob Rockstroh, Health and Human Services, responded it is a never ending grant that is not a competitive one. He added if the grant money should decrease, they will decide where to make the changes.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-1-26-14.

Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.


a.  ORDER 00-1-26-15 Reviewing the Sheriff's Office Reorganization, and Creating a Support Services Manager Position and a Communication/Records Officer 2 Position in the Sheriff's Office.

Jan Clements, Sheriff, reported there had been a middle management position having responsibility for the dispatch and records units and the front counter operations of the Sheriff’s Office. He added they include but are not limited to records, concealed handgun licensing, fingerprinting, civil process service, towed vehicles releases, processing sex offenders and other duties. He noted that in September 1998, they had a private consultant help determine that a reorganization was necessary and they detailed the elements. He reported the reorganization resulted in three divisions going into two, an establishment of a Sheriff Officer to replace a support services division made of professional or support positions supporting the entire operation. He added one of the captains was moved (not promoted) and by assignment made chief deputy. He said while that was taking the place, the recommendation was for operations support functions (records and dispatch) to move to police services. He said they wanted to assign the counter operations to police services since they are the division that is on site in the main office and they added the support part of the civil section as well as responsibility for overseeing emergency management. He said the process for this went back to January 1999, and a major issue was funding. He said in March 1999 it was moved to a work session of the full Board of Commissioners. He added there was general conceptual approval but the primary issue was financing the proposal and the Board recommended the matter be forwarded to a problem solving process and they selected Finance and Audit as the body to review this. He noted in November 1999, in another Finance and Audit committee, they proposed taking one of the positions (the support services manager) and in the process of finding the revenue to support the position had started a program for towing vehicles associated with offenses. He noted in the process of doing that, they projected what the revenue would be and operating on a conservative note, the proposal is to fund one position Support Services Manager as well as a Communication Records Officer position to provide the administrative support to that program.

Dwyer stated he had not received a report on the impoundment process. He believes that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional. He said he didn’t like the program when it was started because it focused on people of color, poor people and people driving old cars. He said he wanted a report of the color of the people who are being stopped and the value of their automobiles.

Clements stated he does have a report breaking down issues that Dwyer requested. He said the matter is not directed toward any one ethnic, socio-economic or other classification, it deals with people who are violating the law to include driving while suspended and revoked. He said they went to the Finance and Audit Committee with the express purpose of engaging in a problem solving process and they were able to identify revenue from a program they instituted. He added it will not only pay for the support services manager but also the administrative person that would be needed to maintain the program. He said there was a recommendation from the committee to bring this back to the full Board and approve it.

Green noted it came to the Finance and Audit Committee in which he and Weeldreyer co-chair. He said he was comfortable with this, as the Sheriff’s Office has identified the funding and he will always support good management practices. He added it does not impact the general fund and that was a prior concern. He stated he does not support any type of profiling.

Dwyer stated that this should go through the budget process and not Finance and Audit.

Morrison commended the department for finding additional revenue and cutting costs from $93,000 to $76,000. She said she will not support the proposal because the additional revenue could go toward the Forest Work Camp or other things that the public is wanting. She said the department should look at what the public wants and not what they want.

Weeldreyer stated she was in support of the motion as presented as the Sheriff has made a valid argument for the need for the positions. She noted that there does need to be good management support.

MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-1-26-13.

Green MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.

Dwyer stated money was found for these positions and he would like to see money found for the Forest Work Camp.

Sorenson said he didn’t like the tension between the board and the sheriff. He said the Board has to think about the relationship in a harmonious fashion. He said he was impressed that the matter had gone through the committee and budget staff. He said there should be a further less heated discussion about the civil versus criminal forfeiture issue and the efforts to figure out spending the money and the positions. He said there could either be a vote or a further discussion on this.

VOTE: 2-3 (Dwyer, Morrison and Sorenson dissenting). Motion failed.

Sorenson stated he wanted another discussion and will work toward that goal with the agenda team.


a. DISCUSSION AND ACTION Area Commission on Transportation for Lane County.

Sorenson reported that the Oregon Transportation Commission has allowed public officials to approach the Transportation Commission through the Department of Transportation to form area commissions on transportation.

Weeldreyer asked for this as an emergency item so the Board would have an opportunity to deliberate on the creation of an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT). She noted in the packet they have, the State Transportation Department outlines what an "ACT" is, along with its purpose and function. She said there were a couple of ways of creating an ACT. She noted at the LCOG annual dinner, Region 2 Director for ODOT, Gary Johnson spoke and he mentioned that Lane County was the last area within Region 2 that had yet to form an Area Commission on Transportation but there was no requirement to do so. She added the fact that the Oregon Transportation Commission is looking to the creation of these ACTS as an extension of the State Commission on Transportation and that each area was encouraged to consider forming one. Johnson suggested it would be a good idea for Lane County to form an ACT. She noted that LCOG was interested in contracting with ODOT to staff and provide administrative support in creating an ACT for Lane County. She added Lane County is the only County that ODOT had selected to be a single county to form an ACT.

Dwyer stated he saw no advantage from a Board level in forming this ACT.

Morrison said she had conversations with Mr. Upton of ODOT, ( before Bob Pirrie of ODOT) as the region representative and she expressed concerns as to the validity of creating another layer of bureaucracy and meetings when there are already mechanisms in place within the MPC, Lane County Roads Advisory Committee and small cities. She said it was a duplication of efforts that were already taking place. She suggested if this does have to take place, that Lane County Public Works be the entity that pulls the parties together to make this work. She didn’t see LCOG having that knowledge. She noted that she called all the small cities and they were questioning the value of this and that Lane County should be the lead agent to form this, if it has to be done.

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported that Lane County pays dues to LCOG and they make a payment specifically for long range transportation planning. (Either $20,000 or $40,000.) He added there are other employees who participate with the TPC providing in-kind services.

Van Vactor asked ODOT if this was discretionary as he understood that LCOG was going ahead with their proposal. He asked if LCOG decided to do this and Lane County didn’t want that to happen, what would ODOT do.

Pirrie responded the purpose of the area commissions are to get a consensus from elected officials. He added the administration of an Area Commission on Transportation is up to that elected body to form as an ACT and to determine who would administer the ACT itself.

Green understood that ODOT would be willing to pay $30,000 to $40,000 to administer this. He said that Lane County has a roads department and it would be the best place for this to fit in. He said it would improve Lane County’s position if Lane County was the lead agent, especially when projects are submitted. He said by taking the lead on this, it would allow Lane County to design the composition of the group. He added that citizens could be involved with this as well. He noted the disadvantage would be that Lane County wouldn’t have the final say in the matter, but if Lane County is the lead, they could advocate strongly for those projects and get consensus when Lane County does go in front of ODOT. He said he wanted to see Lane County taking the lead and not defer this to LCOG.

Green said if Lane County is the only part of Oregon that doesn’t have an ACT, that is at some disadvantage, compared to the rest of the state. He said the state will view Lane County as less organized for the ability to have funds brought to the community. He favored doing something to be on par with the rest of the state.

Sorenson said if the Lane County Board of Commissioners were designated as the area commission on transportation, they would not be duplicating the existing structure. He said it gives structure and the level of public involvement that is needed. He said it would be an opportunity to get state funding to assist Lane County with its role. He added it would also be a way of increasing relations between Lane County and ODOT.

Weeldreyer stated that ODOT had made it clear that they would not recognize just the Board of County Commissioners as an Area Transportation Commission, so there would need to be other elected officials from the County in addition to representatives from ODOT and Lane Transit District and private representatives. She noted the LCOG board (as it is currently configured) has most of the individuals that are require to be recognized by ODOT as an area commission on transportation. She said with the addition of ODOT, private citizens and LTD, the LCOG Board is a body of officials that meets once a month and administratively would be the best as Lane County is the only entity on the LCOG board with two votes. She added Lane County would still have a strong voice on the way things are handled by LCOG. She said in order for Lane County to be competitive, there should be an ACT.

Dwyer stated his concern is that there is already something in place and he is not convinced that there are any advantages to Lane County forming this ACT. He said

he wanted to read the authority for the ACT so he can see how these ACTs are constructed.

Pirrie explained the way to be chartered would be to work together collaboratively. He noted the goal of the Oregon Transportation Commission is to have a collaborative process among elected officials and special interest groups that can come together as a body to provide advisory capacity to the OTC and looking at long range planing within a region. He added the more people on the committee, the better it is.

Green said he was not comfortable about the administration piece and suggested that Lane County take the lead. He said he doesn’t see the LCOG board as taking the lead. He added that the ACT has to be a single view with regard to transportation items.

Morrison said her concern is that if the gas tax doesn’t pass, that there will be no funding for the ACTS or staffing. She said she doesn’t see the problems with ODOT going away. She agreed that the LCOG Board is not the organization to do this. She said logically the best resource to use to do the administrative piece for an ACT would be Lane County. She added that the ACTs have no power, they are advisory in nature only and the OTC will be the one to make the final decisions. She said Lane County would do their part but wondered if ODOT would do its part. She said Lane County’s Public Work staff is the best qualified to try to guide the County through this. She stated with regard to Sorenson’s concerns about private citizens, she said Lane County Roads Advisory Board is all private citizens.

Dwyer thought this was premature and suggested that this be tabled to wait to see if the gas tax is passed. He suggested that the ACTs are part of a political process to move the County through the May vote.

Van Vactor questioned why LCOG has to act, that a response could be that Lane County was not prepared to approve their proposal tomorrow night and requests that the LCOG Board give Lane County more time to come forward with a position.

Weeldreyer said if and when ODOT gets its funding to support these, the composition of the ACT will be the same no matter which agency takes the lead to staff it. She said she hears from the Board that if Lane County does need to go ahead with this, then they would rather see Lane County take on the responsibility of providing staffing to an ACT.

Green believed the ACT will be used as a model if the gas tax passes or not.

Van Vactor noted the motion was prepared by Public Works staff and they were not focusing on the LCOG meeting and that is why it is under emergency business.

Snowden said he read the guidelines that ODOT put together and there is some flexibility on the agenda of the ACT. He said what the ACT wants to do would drive the structure, talking about operational partnerships, access control and other issues that it deems it wants to discuss. He noted that on the last page of the agenda packet (number 4, at the top) ODOT has suggestions for membership and there are different models that could be used. He noted that the LCOG Board is one model but it may not be the best fit for Lane County.

Pirrie stated that administration of the ACT will continue whether the gas tax passes or not. He said if the gas tax doesn’t pass the list of projects will go back for planning and roads could be carried forward in their normal STIP process. He added they are now in the two year STIP cycle and approaching the time period in mid-May when they will come together and put the priority list together, but there will be a smaller number if they don’t have the gas taxes, but the process will be the same.

Van Vactor stated that roads and transportation are Lane County’s strongest suit and have been for a long period of time. He urged the Board to consider sponsoring an ACT and having it staffed by Lane County government.

MOTION: that Lane County government supports the creation of an Area Commission on Transportation staffed by Lane County Public Works Department.

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

Green suggested that the motion be the message taken to LCOG on Thursday night.

Dwyer said it is important and he will be supporting it.

Weeldreyer asked as part of the motion to expand the February 8 meeting on the Road Partnerships with the cities so she could go to LCOG and tell them that Lane County wants to be the lead agency to form an ACT beginning with that discussion at the February 8th meeting.

Green agreed with that as long as it is framed that Lane County is always searching for partners.

VOTE: 5-0.

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices