BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' WORK SESSION
July 12, 2000
Harris Hall Conference Room
Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., and Anna Morrison present. Cindy Weeldreyer was excused. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
There will be an emergency business item.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Van Vactor stated Commissioner Weeldreyer would be listening to Public Comment via telephone.
Judy Robinson, 85582 Glenada Rd., Florence (presented public comment via telephone) stated she was confused and concerned that the denial of the proposed alley vacation is being considered. She didnt think that Weeldreyer could have the same information as the other commissioners because she didnt see the pictures of her property. She explained that her property overlooks the Siuslaw River, Highway 101 over the river, the sand dunes and a glimpse of the Pacific Ocean. She added that at the Coast, views are everything and they impact property values and quality of life. She said allowing the alley vacation would create a feasible building lot and when that house was built, it would be directly in her view. She added there are ecological issues. She contended that everyone in the Glenada area has septic tanks and wells and the system had been delicately balanced so the septic tanks are not adversely affecting the wells. She said that one more septic tank placed on the property would have a negative impact on all surrounding areas. She asked the Board to consider the fact that at the last hearing, they were given enough notice to appear in person to explain their concerns to the Board. She requested the Board to uphold the original decision.
David Primrose, 2677 Friendly, Eugene, reported the chip seal issue has become a problem with cyclists. He said Hill Road and Sunderland Roads are unacceptable for cyclists because of their rough nature and safety concerns with the condition of the roads. He noted with chip sealing, the chips come loose from the adhesive and loose gravel is hazardous for cyclists. He wanted Lane County to revisit the issue and testing the new surfaces to make it more compatible for cycling.
Jean Wendling, 85598 Glenada Rd., Florence, stated he was concerned with the road vacancy, Block 20 on Glenada Rd. He reported his property abuts it and the request for the vacation is on the western portion. He noted the people that had requested the vacation had indicated that they intend to build. He said he is concerned with the eastern portion of the vacation, as it would impact his property. He indicated his well and septic systems are located there and if a driveway would be installed, it could disturb the well. He stated he was against the County vacating the alley. He noted that they are applying for a vacation on the eastern portion and requested that the entire alleyway be vacated at one time to alleviate any construction problems.
Jim Baker, 51013 McKenzie Highway, Finn Rock, said the Board should take care of County business and leave the roadless areas to the Forest Service.
Nicole Czamomski, 32555 Beymer Road, Eugene, said with regard to the roadless initiative, there were many processes in which roadless areas were reviewed in the national forests. She said the plan is not destroying anything, it is maintaining things the way they are. She said there had been many opportunities to provide comment. She said over 550,000 people commented on the roadless policy across the country. She said she collected over 800 comments in Lane County and they were all for the roadless policy and for further protection in roadless areas. She encouraged the Board to drop the letter, and if they couldnt, to consult the Forest Service asking them to answer questions so the Board could make an informed decision.
Jan Wilson, 1260 President Street, Eugene, said the roadless policy is part of the big picture and the Forest Service had thought it out. She stated they are not making any changes to the existing situation. She noted they dont have enough money to maintain the roads they have. She asked the Board not to come out against it, and let the Forest Service make the decision.
Sorenson noted the letter that was proposed last week said: The Commissioners of Lane County request that you immediately withdraw the proposed rule and draft EIS and delegate the decision for disposition of roadless areas to local officials, forest supervisors of your organization using the Forest Plan Revisions or an amended process. He stated the timber industry was using soft political money to run big ads attacking the roadless policy. He asked Jan Wilson if she was in favor of the roadless EIS going forward and if she was opposing the provision in the letter that: That the Lane County Commissioners request that you immediately withdraw your proposed rule.
Wilson responded that was correct. She said they didnt want the policy derailed as they have been working for many years with the Forest Service to get a policy that makes sense economically. She noted the local decisions are okay, but the forest plans are not up for revision until 2004. She asked the Board to spend money on important things.
Sorenson read a letter into the record from Julia and Jeff Greenwald, 92555 Alvadore Road, Junction City in opposition to chip sealing.
(Weeldreyer terminated telephone connection.)
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
4. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORAL REPORT Oak Street Child Development Center.
David Suchart, Management Services, recalled that they came before the Board in May to request making changes to expand space in the Bus Barn and to make funding changes. He noted after that meeting they met with members of the Busy Barn Board. He said they rented the space the day care center did not want to use. He said they were checking possible options for funding, which they will not know until August. He stated members of the Busy Barn group were checking on other options for funding, expansion and remodeling that needs to be done. He noted the group had withdrawn its request to waive the rent and to move the funding that the Federal Government gives into the remodeling project based upon the information that is acquired in August. He stated he would forego the Countys portion of the rent if the feds pay for their half of the expanded space. He said in the long-term, it would be about a $4,000 loss to the general fund per year and he favors the operation. He added it is a good thing for County employees. He noted that he gave a draft of the survey (where Dwyer had asked certain questions of employees) to the Busy Barn people and they are revising it so it could be sent out to employees. He said once everything is balanced, they will meet with the Busy Barn governing body in August and with the Board again in September for a Board policy decision.
Kathi Wiederhold, President of Board, reported they are continuing to work with the General Services Administration of the Federal Government to share the tenant improvements with the County on the new space. She added the parent group had prepared a grant application to the Oregon Community Foundation for tenant improvements. She noted the application is due at the end of July and they will find out the results in September. She reported they have an interim arrangement with the YMCA and they hope to make a decision on a long-term arrangement for a provider. She noted the remodel expansion plan would allow the ratio to shift in the higher age group, bringing down numbers in the lower age groups that should improve their financing.
Morrison appreciated the additional information. She said it shows that over 50% of the children are coming from outside of Lane County and the Federal Government. She asked of the 21 scholarships listed, who was actually receiving them.
Cindy Bellamy, Director, Oak Street Child Development Center, reported the scholarships have been made to people who wanted to use the center but couldnt afford to use it.
Morrison asked of the 21 scholarships, what percent would be attributed to staff.
Bellamy replied 10 percent.
Morrison asked what the timeline would be for the survey of County employees.
Suchart said he would send it out with the next paycheck. He wanted to find out what the benefit is for all Lane County employees.
Dwyer stated he had opposite concerns of Morrison. He said there had only been 21 scholarships throughout the years and he is worried about having subsidized government childcare for families who could handle the amount themselves. He wanted to know the family income of the people enrolled. He said the intent of the scholarship should help everyone proportionately. He said he has problems with eliminating scholarships. He said they need to apply for grants that are earmarked for single moms or low income families.
Sorenson asked if the Board could do anything to be more supportive of the needs of the child care center.
Wiederhold said they wanted to defer until the results of the survey and funding.
Sorenson asked when they should be coming back to the Board with the results of the survey.
Suchart responded in September, when he knows about the surveys and funding.
Sorenson said his concerns are scholarships and if the money is going to people who need it.
b. UPDATE Facilities Capital Improvement Projects (no material).
Suchart reported that the work will begin on the courthouse roof next week. He said that tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 p.m, he will be opening the bids on the Plaza and there may need to be a special board meeting to get the Board award completed so they can stay on schedule with the project. He noted that Drake Chambers is working on the solicitation of proposals for the demolition of the Skipworth building.
c. UPDATE Forest Service Letter.
Sorenson reported that at last weeks meeting, he would try to revise Morrisons letter on the roadless issue. He stated he E-mailed a copy of that letter to everyone.
Morrison noted that a draft letter had gone out, but she never saw a final form. She asked if that was the final that the Board was to be considering.
Sorenson responded that it was.
Morrison reported that Sorensons letter didnt say enough. She noted on the original letter there were concerns raised. She said in the beginning of April, she gave each commissioner a copy of the letter from the National Federation of Federal Employees Forest Service Council that represented over 14,000 forest service employees. She said the last sentence in the document says: We are asking that a moratorium be placed on this initiative and that all sides initiate honest communication to diffuse unpleasant situations. She noted in the four-page document, questions were raised. She added she placed in everyones boxes the comments from the Forest Service employees from the Rocky Mountain region, comprising 12 pages of concerns in regards to the DEIS. She said there were concerns that NACo raised and a ten-page letter of comments by Plumas County in Northern California in regard to the plan. She said there is documentation stating the concerns by a large number of people and the Forest Service employees themselves. She said on the original draft last week, there were concerns about the 180 days, and one sentence. She said she would be willing to change that to the 120 days and delete the one sentence, if that would be acceptable to the rest of the Board.
Dwyer said he could support her revised letter. He said the issue is not simple, it affects real people and their lives.
Green said he was in favor of the original letter that Morrison brought to the Board for approval. He said she adjusted the concern about the comment period and the language. He wanted to have the Chair sign a letter representing the Board. He didnt want a division of the Board on this issue. He noted that Weeldreyer had expressed support for the letter. He said he would support Morrisons letter with the changes.
Sorenson stated the environmental impact process is undertaken for public comment on a proposed federal action and not a matter of legislation. He said the proposed letter is part of public comment and puts the Board on record requesting that the Forest Service immediately withdraw the proposed rule and draft environment impact statement, delegating the decision to the local forest supervisors. He added that was not the way the Forest Service was planning on doing it. He said his letter extended the time for public comment and steered the Board away from being drawn into it as an entity. He said he had sent a letter to the Forest Service urging them to protect roadless areas. He resented the use of political soft money to run ads telling people they should be against this. He proposed in his letter that the Board request additional time for public comment. He said he and Morrison disagree on this issue as Morrison thinks the Board should oppose the roadless issue. He urged the Board to either sign the letter asking for the 60-day extension period or scrap it and not be a pawn of those who want to try to terminate this proposal. He said it is a good proposal. He is opposed to a letter that is against the roadless proposal that the Forest Service is floating.
Morrison disagreed that the tone of her letter does not support the roadless policy. She said they need to review what the overall implications will be long-term and she didnt think the Forest Service had done an adequate job of addressing those within the document. She stated she had been through the document but believed Sorenson hadnt. She suggested sending a letter with the corrections under the chairs signature.
Sorenson asked her what sentence she was referring to.
Morrison replied that it was the last sentence, and changing the 180 days to 120 days for public comment. She added that it was the wish of the Board for Sorenson to sign the letter. She asked why Sorenson was not complying with the direction of the Board.
MOTION: to send the Roadless Letter with the corrections of the number of days from 180 to 120 and the deletion of the last sentence.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Green asked if there is a majority position by the Board, the Chair needs to sign the letter. He noted when he was Chair he signed letters that he was not in agreement with.
Van Vactor responded the practice of the organization is the Chair signs even though they were reluctant or not in agreement. He didnt know if that was a legal requirement of the duty of the Chair. He added the Charter discusses presiding over meetings and conducting the business of the Board.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, stated he had not done any research. He said it might set up a difficult confrontation between the majority of the Board and the Chair. He said further research would need to take place. He added that parliamentary law would also be available.
Green said he was relying on past practices of the Chair following through with the wishes of the Board.
Dwyer said there is a process to move over the Chairs objection. He suggested that Sorenson just sign the letter and do what is required for the institution. He added that Sorenson could send his own letter explaining how he thinks about the issue. He noted the integrity of the organization holds that when the Board acts, the Chair has to speak for the Board.
5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor said there might need to be a special Board meeting regarding the bids on the Harris Hall Plaza.
6. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 00-7-12-1 Appointing New Members to the Human Rights Advisory Committee.
Laura Yergan, Management Services, reported there were two additional vacancies on the Human Rights Advisory Committee and she posted for them. She noted they received three applications and they selected Autumn Depoe and Charlie Larson. She said that Depoe is replacing Elizabeth Marris, whose term ended in June 2000. She noted Depoe will be serving until April 30, 2004 and Charlie Larson replaced Phil Soriano and his term was up on April 30, 2001.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-7-12-1.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
7. PUBLIC SAFETY
a. ORDER 00-7-12-2 Amending Chapter 60 of Lane Manual to Increase Fees Charged for Fingerprinting Services Provided by the Department of Public Safety (LM 60.839).
John Clague, Captain, Sheriffs Office, explained that the last year was one of transition for the Sheriffs Office with budget and fiscal managers. He said they are now aggressively addressing a number of issues surrounding fiscal management and budget in their department. He said that included cost control, cost accounting and revenue recovery. He noted that Rick Schulz, Administrative Services Manager, Sheriffs Department, discovered the department was not recovering revenue and addressing those issues as well as they should be. He said that fingerprint fees needed to be adjusted.
Schulz said he did not have time to do the analysis so he hired consultant Janice Gotchall to review a number of revenue issues, and this was one of them. She needed to determine which fees could be controlled and adjusted. He said she found revenues that could be impacted by the Sheriffs Office for a total of $10,000. He noted the fingerprinting fee is for non-statutorily mandated fingerprinting. He said the fees they will be increasing would be for employment and pre-employment. He noted they are currently charging $5.00 per card and are proposing an increase to $15.00 for the first card and $5.00 for subsequent cards.
Schulz reported they have sophisticated electronic equipment that does fingerprinting. He noted there is one device at the jail and it was for producing and electronically submitting to the identification services section in Salem, fingerprint cards for everyone booked into the Sheriffs facilities. He added the one they have in the Courthouse is for producing fingerprint records for all concealed handguns license applications and for persons working in childcare and people with disabilities. He explained although the machines were given to the Sheriffs Department, they are responsible for the maintenance costs and they are substantial. He noted the current $5.00 fee does not cover the cost for providing the service. He added the new fee would slightly exceed the current project cost for providing the service. He said in the analysis, concealed handgun license revenue covers a significant part of the operation and the license renewals will increase from two to four years and it will negatively impact the revenue. He said by increasing the fees, they will actually slightly more than recover the cost for providing the fingerprinting. He added he does not want to create profits within the Sheriffs Office, he is hoping they will break even. He noted the County Administrator suggested that these additional funds be earmarked for disseminating public information on this Fall's County Ballot measures. He said he would support that.
Dwyer noted a small fee increase that wont burden people is a perception of government not shared by the taxpayers. He said he would not be willing to triple the increase of the fee.
Schulz stated that almost everyone gets two cards. He said they could have gone to $10.00 per card, but they wanted to set a price for the true cost. He said the first set costs the most, and less with the second set. He noted the net result for most people would be a doubling, as there had not been an increase in the fees for eight years.
Clague reported that the costs would stay the same whether or not the fees are increased or not. He said they are not proposing any new ways to spend the money. He added they had not proposed the money be appropriated, he said if they dont collect appropriate fees, services will drop elsewhere. He said they are trying to keep pace with the service at market cost.
Green said he didnt want to support a fee increase if it was to just generate revenue, but would if it provides for the true cost of services when it is warranted.
Dwyer stated he would support a $10.00 fee increase, but would not vote to triple the fees.
Sorenson asked if they instituted a doubling of the fee to the ten dollars and then had a review or increase the fee further in another year would be a solution
Schulz stated it would be easier at ten dollars per card and it works if it is the preference of the Board.
Green had no problem with the increase in fees, as it is not reflective of the true cost for the services.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-7-12-2 and in the section under Fingerprinting, that the fee be changed to ten dollars and each additional card would also be ten dollars.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1152 Naming a Newly Constructed Private Road, Whitewater Road (17-15-17-4).
MOTION: to approve the First Reading and Setting Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance PA 1152 for August 30, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
Green MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
(Weeldreyer connected via telephone.)
b. ORDER 00-7-12-3 Denying the Petition to Vacate a Portion of the East-West Public Alley, Located in Block 20 of Glenada, as Platted and Recorded in Volume W, Page 261, Lane County, Oregon Deed Records, Located in the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 35, Township 18 South, Range 12 West of the Willamette Meridian (18-12-35-32).
Commissioner Weeldreyer was present for this item via telephone.
Tom Drechsler, Land Management reported this item was regarding the petition to vacate an alley in the subdivision plat of Glenada. He noted it had been before the Board on March 15, 2000 to consider the vacation. He stated staff recommendation at that time was in support of the vacation, but there was testimony from adjoining landowners in opposition and the Board voted 2-2 and the motion failed. In response to that, they prepared an Order to Deny that was initially to be placed on the Consent Calendar. He noted the Board pulled it from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Sorenson asked why this was placed on the agenda
Drechsler responded it was a follow-up for the failure to approve.
Morrison stated with the 2-2 vote, there was no action indicating whether the public interest to vacate the alley was there. She moved to deny the denial and revisit the matter so the full Board could consider it to make a final decision.
MOTION: to deny the denial of ORDER 00-7-12-3 and then revisit it.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Dwyer asked when it was appropriate for a commissioner to take photographs on their own in regard to land use matters when there are two sides. He said it could cloud the issue when one party takes initiation.
Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel responded that in a land use context, where they would be dealing with a contested case and they are sitting as an adjudicated body, it is appropriate. He said in this case they are not an adjudicated body, and it is not an adversarial-type proceeding.
Morrison said when they did the original public hearing, the opponents had photographs that were submitted and it was not a true picture of the situation.
Sorenson asked if there were photographs the Board could consider that were not presented in a public hearing.
Morrison stated it was not new evidence, she was supporting staffs verbal comments in their report to the Board as to the terrain and where the actual alley was.
Green stated there was a recommendation from staff because they thought the applicant met the test for the vacation of the alley. He noted there had been an objection from one of the abutting property owners because it would impact their view.
Drechsler noted the public interest is in a form of an easement and the ownership of the actual underlying fee title belongs to the adjoining properties. He noted that public easement would be given up.
Morrison noted that one of the people who had testified this morning talked about the water source and sewer issues. She said the applicants water source is right on the easement and her water source would be impacted.
Sorenson asked if the decision was to reverse the denial of the vacation and to grant the vacation. He asked if it would enable the opponents to say with the additional information the Board relied upon that they didnt have an opportunity to comment, or review. He asked if it would undermine the efficacy of the Boards decision.
Kardell said there would be a potential for that. He said he provided Weeldreyer with a copy of the tape of the initial hearing of March 15. It is his understanding that she had reviewed that. He said there would be no problem with re-opening the record.
Drechsler reported that Mr. Wendling, who testified this morning, came to his office and picked up an application for a vacation and was interested in vacating the same alley from the east end.
Weeldreyer said she listened to the audio tape and reviewed the minutes and the agenda material.
Green asked what the publics benefit would be with the vacation. He asked how staff came to their decision. He asked about the long-term benefit for the public.
Drechsler stated it is not being used and there are no public utilities in the right-of-way, and it is not needed as part of the public road system. He said staff recommendation was that it be vacated.
Kardell said the other portion of the vacation came on a petition by the adjoining property owners of the easement. He said the other individual that wants to vacate another portion of the easement wants to also petition the county to vacate another portion of the alley.
Sorenson said the motion wouldnt do anything because it is not granting the vacation, it is denying the denial.
VOTE: 3-2 (Sorenson, Dwyer dissenting). (Weeldreyer voted via telephone.)
Green suggested contacting the property owner and the neighbor that called to let them know about the action that was taken. He said to roll this item and have the agenda team reschedule it for some point in the future.
Kardell recommended the Board move to keep the record open until a time certain or until a date for a hearing.
Green stated to keep the record open for 30 days and come back for deliberation and discussion.
MOTION: to keep the record open for 30 days and come back to the Board for deliberation and discussion.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0 (Weeldreyer voted via telephone).
(Weeldreyer terminated telephone connection.)
c. ORAL REPORT BACK Chip Sealing.
John Goodson, Public Works, reported the chip seal program is a preventative maintenance program used by highway departments, counties and cities throughout the United States. He said they receive complaints right after the chip sealing is done. He added this past year they had a failure in the oil that was used on a number of roads so the controversy was due to the failed roads. He noted once a road is overlaid or chip sealed, it brings it up to an excellent condition. He stated that chip sealing cost is $1.00 in preventative maintenance as opposed to $4 or $5, if they go further. He added doing preventative maintenance preserves the life of the road for six to ten years before they need to do another treatment. He noted they contract with ODOT for chip sealing some of their roads. He said the program is effective and on most County roads, unless it had been overlaid within the last ten years, it had been chip sealed.
Goodson proposed having the Roads Advisory Committee and the Board take a tour of chip sealing as it is taking place. He described the different ways of chip sealing. He noted one of the disadvantages of the asphalt emulsion treatment is that it takes longer to cure and they have to sweep it to get off the rock that had broken loose. He said the advantage of using the asphalt emulsion is that it is less expensive. He noted they use the asphalt emulsion on the lower volume and speed roads.
Goodson explained that using a hot mix, a different type of oil and rock pre-coated with asphalt, is the same type of process as hot asphalt. He said the advantage of the hot chip seal is that it stands up to heavier volumes of traffic and higher speeds and it sets up quicker. He said the disadvantage is that it costs more. He said they have gone to a smaller chip size, providing for better drainage and for a safer road surface.
Goodson noted the roads that were requested in the letter for repair were Little Fall Creek Road (an average daily traffic volume of about 850 vehicles) and Old Pengra Road. He said Old Pengra is a frontage road that is adjacent to Pengra Road and Old Pengra was planned for an emulsion seal and the bicyclist did not have a problem with that. He said the other roads were Meadowview between 99 and Prairie Road and Kirk Road between Clearlake and Territorial. He noted that Meadowview is a minor collector and has an average daily traffic of 500 vehicles per day and Kirk Road is a local road with 170 vehicles per day. He added they were planned for the asphalt emulsion.
Goodson reported the cost for the pre-coated asphalt chips is $23.00 per ton and the added cost for the hot oil is $320 per ton, over the cost of providing the asphalt emulsion. He said it would be about $21,000 in addition to the emulsion. He added the variable is asphalt-coated chips.
Goodson said that road maintenance would try to improve the roads for bicyclists by using a steel wheel roller instead of a rubber tire roller to get additional imbedment of the chips, eliminating the problems with the chips coming loose.
Green asked Goodson if there was any litigation against the County because of the use of chip sealing.
Goodson stated they had checked with other agencies, and there were no lawsuits filed, nationally or locally.
Green stated he wanted the departments best management practice at the most cost-effective way in repairing the roads.
Goodson explained they have hot oil seals set to begin between now and July 26 and then they will begin the emulsion seals that are planned for the three roads listed in August.
Dwyer said he wanted to accommodate the bicyclists to the greatest extent possible. He asked how they could construct the roads to create the greatest opportunity.
Green asked to find out which roads the bicyclists would be using for their race.
Goodson said they would use the emulsion seal process. He said he is estimating the cost will be $21,000 for those three roads.
Dwyer stated he had no objection spending the money on the roads, using it as a test case, where they use a different type of application.
Green said he wanted to increase bicycle safety and minimize the Countys risk.
Morrison suggested taking one of the roads where the costs were cut and then use two roads with a steel roller to compare.
Sorenson asked if the bicycle committee could be apprised on the change that is being made.
Goodson stated if it was acceptable to the Board, he wanted to get the bicyclists input on which roads to experiment with.
Morrison wanted to be cautious because of the dollar situation and the declining revenues.
9. YOUTH SERVICES
a. ORDER 00-7-12-4 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement Between Lane County and the City of Eugene in the Amount of $100,000, Delegating to the County Administrator Authority to Execute the Agreement, and Appropriating to the Budget of the Department of Youth Services $50,000 in Revenue Derived from the Agreement.
Dick Lowarly, Department of Youth Services, reported the contract before the Board is an opportunity for the Department of Youth Services to grow their community service program. He said they want to provide more services to adjudicated youth who are on formal accountability agreements with the Department of Youth Services. He said the program services 450 youth per year who do community service as a condition of their court ordered probation. He added they also do it for restitution. He noted this year they had paid out $15,000 in restitution from the community service program. He said the monies will pay for a supervisor to run a crew, and $13,000 will be set aside for restitution.
Ronnie Carper, Department of Youth Services, explained the contract is for $92,000 per year with ODOT and it pays for the supervisor, equipment and can provide up to $25,000 a year for restitution from the one contract. He said the contract with the City of Eugene would be similar providing a supervisor and work crew to the City of Eugene for the next two years. He noted they are positions that would not be provided in the County general fund budget without the contract money. He added they were working as part of the Lane Arts Council graffiti abatement.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-7-12-4.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Lowarly mentioned this was supposed to be for three years and they may come back with a different contract.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
March 15, 2000, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
March 29, 2000, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
April 3, 2000, Board Retreat, 9:00 a.m.
June 14, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 00-7-12-5 A Refund to Seneca Sawmill Company in the Amount of $103,459.77.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 00-7-12-6 Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a State Outcome-Based Supportive Employment Grant Application of $82,000.
2) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 00-7-12-7 Accepting Revenues from the State of Oregon and from the City of Eugene in the Amount of $23,000; To Increase Appropriations and Expenditures in the Amount of $23,000 in Fund 785 for FY 00/01; to Delegate Authority to the County Administrator to Sign Subcontracts with Looking Glass Youth and Family Services in the Amount of $23,000.
D. Management Services
1) ORDER 00-7-12-8 Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Stephen C. Jaqua for $8,000 (Adjacent to 94505 Hwy. 101, Yachats, Map #16-12-03-00-00300).
E. Public Safety
1) ORDER 00-7-12-9 Authorizing a Professional Service Contract with Dr. Nicholas Telew, M.D. for the Purpose of Providing Psychiatric Services to Adult Corrections Inmates.
F. Public Works
1) ORDER 00-7-12-10 Vacating a Portion of the Exterior Boundary Line of Lot 1 of Parsons and Butlers River Road Tracts, as Platted and Recorded in Book 6, Page 4, Lane County, Oregon Plat Records, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (19-03-13-21).
2) ORDER 00-7-12-11 Vacation of a Portion of Scott Avenue, Located Between Block 8 and Block 9 of A.C. Bohrnstedt Company Addition to Creswell, as Platted and Recorded in Book 4, Page 55, Lane County, Oregon Plat Records, Without a Public Hearing and Adopting Findings of Fact (19-03-14-22).
3) ORDER 00-7-12-12 Amending the Professional Services Contract with BRING Recycling for Waste Reduction and Recycling Education Services (#0000103355) by Extending the Expiration Date to June 30, 2001 and Increasing the Total Two Year Contract Amount to $66,560.
4) ORDER 00-7-12-13 Vacating a Portion of Glenada Road (County Road Number 503) from Spruce Street Southeasterly 1,390 Feet, and a Portion of Geo. H. Colter Road (County Road Number 611) from the Intersection of Cedar Street and Colter Street Southeasterly 1,230 Feet, Both Being Located in the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section 35, Township 18 South, Range 12 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County, Oregon Without a Public Hearing and Adopting Findings of Fact (18-12-35).
5) ORDER 00-7-12-14 Accepting a Deed of Land as Public Road Easements for County Road No. 503 (Glenada Road) and County Road No. 47 (Mills Road) (18-12-35).
6) ORDER 00-7-12-15 Vacating Mehl Road (County Road Number 1147, A.K.A. Mabel Park Road), and Also Vacate any Public Interest in a Portion of the Traveled Road Located in Section 5, Township 16 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian and in Section 32, Township 15 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (15-01-32 & 16-01-05).
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
11. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
To take place in the afternoon.
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at 12:25 p.m.
Back to Board Notices