BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer present.† Bobby Green, Sr., excused.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Norman Maxwell, 79550 Fire Road, Lorane, commented on Lane County Land Managementís policy concerning the preliminary land use decision.† He said it doesnít work well.
Kevin Kelly, 79524 Fire Road, Lorane, said they are under appeal and the hearingís official rendered a decision.† He noted that Lane County appealed his decision and sided with the applicant.† He said Lane County didnít know the applicant didnít follow the land use code.† He said the current policy is not working and they need something that works.
Janet Cromwell United Methodist Campus Pastor, University of Oregon, 1744 Victorian Way, Eugene, urged the Board to vote yes on the resolution on workplace justice.† She asked the Board to allow young adults to organize to create a decent living wage.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. DISCUSSION Update on the Public Safety Coordinating Council.
Morrison explained that members of the Public Safety Coordinating Council decided in a discussion with Judge Kip Leonard, that there had not been a presentation to the Board on the direction of the PSCC.† She added it would be a good opportunity to share the information with the Board.
Myra Wall, PSCC, reviewed the statutory requirements of the PSCC.† She said the first requirement was that the PSCC (under Senate Bill 1145) would coordinate policies between the criminal and juvenile justice systems.† She noted that prior to Senate Bill 1145, the County received resources for corrections and the budget was $15 million biennially.† She continued, noting that the PSCC puts together a plan and presents it to the Board on how the money should be spent.† She said using state and local resources in serving local juvenile offenders is a priority because of the Juvenile Accountability and Incentive Block Grant (managed for the County by LCOG) and Juvenile Crime Prevention Partnership funding (the governorís high-risk planning money.)† She said they provide coordination of communitywide services aimed at crime prevention.† She said the council is also considering prevention activities for children before they are involved with crime.
Wall noted that the PSCC Committee is composed of six county agencies, cities represented by police, urban and rural police and mayors, city councilors and managers, three state representatives, the courts, the Public Defenderís office and the District Attorney, plus seven citizen representatives.
Citing accomplishments, Wall pointed to the development of standardized operational procedures for law enforcement that resulted in common guidelines for issuing citations in lieu of custody.† She added that the PSCC had developed a regional public safety training plan for law enforcement and an agreement between the District Attorney, Probation and Parole and the Sheriffís Department on intermediate sanctions for revocation hearings.† She also noted they completed a review of the Community Safety Information System between agencies which was funded by a grant.
Wall explained they are on a two-year work plan.† She said their goals are creating a system that monitors, evaluates and recommends improvements to the system.† She added they are working on a governance model for continuing services and sanctions to youth and adults which promotes healthy behavior and reduces crime.
Weeldreyer wondered if Lane County was better off because the PSCC was created.
Van Vactor responded that having no evaluations was disappointing.† He was concerned about all the staff resources used for this.† He wanted more evaluation.
Morrison was frustrated about obtaining information that would make a difference.† She said it was impossible to track items.† She said when they are trying to hold agencies accountable for spending, LCOG should also be responsible for what they are doing and for obtaining service delivery outcomes.† She noted the data was underused, with overlaps and duplication.† She said they needed to work more effectively and efficiently.
Jan Clements, Sheriff, stated there had been an investment in resources to help LCOG pay resources.† He said it is hard to determine staff costs by participating departments, but it needs to be examined.
Sorenson stated there should be an increased evaluation process.†† He lauded the emphasis on obtaining federal and state money.† He said if they were to consolidate police services in the metropolitan area under one police agency, it would be controversial, but may result in savings going into services.† He said the structure (which the Board had approved) is so large that the effectiveness of the council is affected.† He recommended a reduction, with short-term task forces investigating specific problems.
Dwyer was concerned with minimizing turf battles.† He said not everyone was tied to the PSCC, and coming together to solve problems will be difficult.† He said they need to be cost effective and efficient to provide the most safety and rehabilitation possible within current financial restraints.
Weeldreyer said that not having data necessary to discuss discontinuing the Passages program left elected officials at a disadvantage.† She declared that data keeping was important.
Clements stated that in the Sheriffís Office, they have to examine what they are getting in return and how much is invested in administration and planning. He said that they have to examine the criteria and use the money wisely.
Wall suggested that she report back on a more regular basis on what the PSCC is doing.† She noted that the PSCC created a governance committee to do what the Board is asking.† She said if staff is cut, the process is cut and what had made this PSCC so effective was having staff to run the operation.
Morrison noted there were challenges ahead in getting the job done to make the community understand what was going on.† She noted that she sits on the Governance Committee and will report back to the Board on how this will move forward with the PSCC structure.
5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor stated he had successful discussions regarding Tony Seese-Bieda's employment as Intergovernmental Relations Manager.† He noted that salary was significant in order to stay even with the salary he was currently making.† He said he reviewed the issue with Personnel and they concluded they were conservative in allocation of points and could support moving the position up two ranges. †He added additional tasks would be added.
Van Vactor gave an update on PERS.
6. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION AND ACTION Lane Code Requirements for Legal Lot Verifi≠cations and Property Line Adjustments.
Tom Lanfear, Land Management, asked for direction from the Board regarding lot line adjustments and legal lot verifications in the county.† He noted they currently do not have clear procedures in the Lane Code for processing legal lot verifications and Lane County does not regulate lot line adjustments unless they are in a platted subdivision.
Lanfear explained that once a parcel is created legally, it remains a discreet parcel, so the review of legal lot status requires (through the chain of deeds) a determination of when a parcel was first described and then a comparison with regulations in effect on that date.† He added the review of ordinances could require the exercise of legal judgment that pushes it into a land use decision, but there are no provisions in the code for sending out notice and providing opportunity for appeal to surrounding property owners.† He said they process these lot verifications as preliminary advisory opinions only, and defer on the final land use decision until a subsequent decision is made.† He said it creates problems.
Lanfear stated they received a LUBA decision from Lane County on whether this is a land decision or not.† He said because of the disclaimer of preliminary status that was upheld at LUBA there are requests from people that deal with real property, requesting a service from the County, and providing legal lot verifications up front, so the issues could be cleared up before subsequent expenditures.† He added that property owners have been coming in to see if their lot is legal before they purchase it, and they have no way to get a final determination from the County.† He noted once they have a legal lot, there are circumstances to adjust property lines and the statutes are clear about adjustment of property lines within a plat, but when a parcel is created through a leaps and bounds description from the past, there is a void in the statute that governs moving the lines.† He stated the strict definition of a property line adjustment is the movement of one common property line.
Lanfear noted they had identified benefits to citizens if they decided to go forward and they had been working with professionals in identifying components in statutes and Lane Code in bringing forth revisions.† He added they had received a letter from LCDC staff supporting the effort, looking at adopting provisions for legal lot verifications and property line adjustments.† He stated they are proposing to take this to the planning commission, working up the policy issues and code language and then bringing it for public hearing at the planning commission and the Board.† He included a list of issues that needed to be incorporated into the code (copy in file).
Kent Howe, Land Management, reported that 20 years ago this was not an issue but now it is.† He said language is limiting the ability to do future patrons or land zone density increases.† He noted it was an area for legal dispute and Land Management considered recommendations for the Board.† He added it would be a good time for these considerations and the Board to give direction to either proceed with developing proposed code language or having a clear policy.
Don Nickels, Planning Commission, was concerned about the cost factor.† He said the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that certain requirements do not require a review.† He said people had done property line adjustments that could have been reviewed earlier.† He noted that this process would help.
Dwyer asked how many lots would be involved in making the adjustment for land that was not considered a legal lot.
Nickels said that legal lots had to be created for the majority of Lane County in 1975.
Howe noted they were not looking at creating any new parcels.† He said they were changing the process to make it clear on what the process since the code is silent.
Sorenson asked how much staff time would be involved.
Howe responded it had been an effort provided by the outside community who volunteered time and effort in putting before the Board the recommendations to move forward.† He added that staff had attended those meetings once a month for the last year.† He said that the legal community is also interested in providing assistance to the County and there is no budget for this.
MOTION: to approve Alternative Option C 1 in the Board Packet.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Dwyer said there was no choice as they have a responsibility to the citizens that the process is open and fair with understandable rules.† He said they are doing the right thing.
Howe stated he downplayed staff involvement because Land Management has limited resources.† He added because of the extensive interest outside of county government, he hopes there would be volunteers.† He noted there is no timeline, but proposed they would finish by the end of the year.
7. COUNTY COUNSEL
a. DISCUSSION Potential Charter Amendments.
Teresa Wilson, County Counsel, said she had done research on potential charter amendments.† She stated with regard to Section 15, the election of the chair, that it is a problem since the charter requires that the chair is designated at the first meeting of every year.† She said the potential exists for incoming board members to not take office until after the first regular meeting of the year.† She said within the past 20 years there had not been a problem, but it is fixable with either a charter amendment or a change in the Boardís rules in the Lane Manual.† She didnít think it warranted asking the voters to change the charter to fix the problem.
Wilson stated there is a two year residency requirement for an elected county official.† She said courts throughout the United States had reviewed residency requirements for a variety of events and two years is recommended.† She said if the Board wanted to change the charter amendment, she would suggest changing it to a year as a risk reduction measure.
Wilson explained the process for nomination and election of county officials.† She noted it was the only place in the charter that used a male pronoun.† It was cleaned it up and she didnít recommend placing it on the ballot.
Wilson said that the County Charter states if there is only one person running for office, the name does not appear on the May ballot, but it is in November and that is contrary to state law.† She added the County has the choice to do it the same way as the state.† She said if a candidate receives a majority of the votes at the primary election, Lane County charter requires that their name be placed on the November ballot and state law would have them elected at the May election.
Wilson explained with the obsolete provisions of the charter, they have to indicate what the four year cycle is for each commissioner position and that is what the old language did.† She explained if they were to go forward with deletion of obsolete provisions, they would be describing the authority to establish administrative departments.† If they were going to do that, she recommended renumbering at the very end of the charter as a provision that discusses the effective dates of each of the charter amendments.
Dwyer stated that Lane County needs to conform with state statutes as much as possible and remove archaic language so everything is gender neutral.† He added that they should change the charter to conform.
Wilson noted they could place this on the ballot without placing it in the voterís pamphlet, as it holds down costs.
Weeldreyer agreed that they have a duty to review periodically the governing documents to clean up obsolete language.† She said this was an issue of timing (and if the budget is bad) she could not justify spending that much on a housekeeping task.† She said she would vote no.
Morrison concurred with Weeldreyer on voting no.† She wanted the other measures to be supported more.
Sorenson suggested putting this on the Future Agenda for an Oral Report from County Counsel in October 2001.
8. REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS
9. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Weeldreyer stated she received a phone call from a constituent in the Bloomberg Road area and there is activity going on for the armory.† She added there was an item on the LCC Board agenda to pull dollars to upgrade the sewer lagoon system so it could be a shared resource for both facilities.† She suggested the Board of Commissioners send to the LCC Board what their position was on the site and how the neighborhood would be involved.
MOTION: to move that the Board direct Public Works to convene a coordinating steering committee for the LCC basin for the armory project.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-0 (Sorenson left).
Dwyer reported he went to the Eugene City Council,† and they unanimously opposed the Boardís idea of referring the issues of wetlands back to the planning commissions.
10. OTHER BUSINESS
Wilson said the justices of the peace received a Board order increasing their salary and pointed out an error in the order.† She noted there was discussion at the Budget Committee that their increase of $43,609 was to be effectively July 1, 1999, but the board order adopted by the Board on May 31, had the increase effective the date of the Board Order.† She said there was a question from the Budget Committee and there was a question about when the increase would be effective.
Dwyer said the Board intended it to be retroactive to July 1, 1999.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-6-13-6, adjusting the salaries of elected officials.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-0 (Sorenson left).
11. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.