minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

 APPROVED 11/27/00


June 7, 2000

(following HACSA)

Harris Hall Main Floor


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




Sorenson noted that 4. f. had been moved to an undetermined meeting in August 2000. 




Bruce Waller, 1080 Patterson, stated he was a graduate teaching fellow.  He reported the University of Oregon was dragging its feet with regard to the union.


Curt Wilcox, 2887 Lydick Way, asked employers to deal fairly with the unions and that the Board consider passing the resolution.


Sara Jacobson, 2552 Alder, Eugene, stated she was a student at the University of Oregon working with student groups against sweatshops.  She said it was important for the workers to have a voice in the workplace.  She asked that the Board support the right to organize.


Dr. William Loy, 2683 Eleanor, Eugene, said that the neighbors had agreed to approving the renaming of Chicken Whistle Creek to the Westfork Battle Creek.  He hoped the Board would approve it.


3. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place after the meeting.




a. REPORT Status of Meetings with AFSCME Concerning the IS Classification Reviews.


b. ORDER 00-6-7-1 Amending the Classifications Salary Ranges of Programmer Analyst 1, Programmer Analyst 2, Senior Programmer and Systems Analyst, PC/Network Technician (Retitled Information Services Technician), Computer Operations Specialist 2 (Retitled as Computer Operations Specialist and Lead Computer Operations Specialist (Retitled Senior Computer Operations Specialist), and Establishing the New Classifications and Salary Ranges of Information Services Analyst, Senior Information Services Analyst, and Database Administrator.


Ed Ruttledge, Management Services, gave a presentation about the Information Services Classifications Reviews (copy in file.)


Sorenson asked if the classification review was an appropriate place to introduce a change in policy.


Ruttledge responded that the internal classification was out of line with the market and the entire classification system needed reviewing. He noted the problem was money for outside consultants.


Dwyer stated the analysis has to be done across the board.  He wanted the analysis so there would be an understanding on costs.


Green noted the internal equity system had not kept pace with the private sector.  He asked if there was any information where the Board could influence the internal equity system.  He said he would want to review the policies.


Ruttledge responded that the internal equity system had not kept up with selective classifications because of the design of the system.  He added if they do a market analysis, they may find some classifications with large numbers of employees who are over market.  He noted the internal equity does not factor in the employer’s resources, comparing jobs with certain criteria between each other within the county system.


Flo Byrne, Information Services, reported one way would be looking at the factors to fold into ten areas.  She said they came up with factors that came to a range level.  She added based on internal equity, if the range was too high (even if it was justifiable) they couldn’t do that because it would place them above lawyers or other classifications.  She said it was difficult working with the system, but there is subjectivity.  She said the factors were based on their best analysis, talking with staff people doing the jobs and working within the internal equity system.


Sorenson asked what would happen if they would just take a middle position.


Byrne said it would be acceptable.  She noted they suggested something that was less than what Sorenson suggested, based on internal equity.


In terms of the technical knowledge not included, Ruttledge noted there are ten factors within the internal equity system, with the first being job knowledge.


Cheryl McCawley, Management Services, reported in the current system, there are some factors that don’t have as much weight. She noted that job knowledge had a fair amount of weight


Sorenson said because Lane County was not using market factors and salary was not an issue in the allocation of points, then stress could be involved.  He said the real issue was money, but they were trying to get around it.


McCawley responded the points added up to a particular amount on a grid.  She said they haven’t kept up with the market because when this classification system was put into effect, Lane County would continue having regular cost of living increases.  She noted that if they had received them every year through 2000 they wouldn’t be in the present situation, which is part of the problem.


Sorenson said the market showed that employees could be making more money elsewhere and there is trouble recruiting for the positions.


Dwyer stated that these are specialty jobs that didn’t exist ten years ago.  He wanted to do whatever was required to provide a level of service that the people in Lane County have come to expect at a fair market price.


Ruttledge said the employees think they are paid under market and the remedy would be looking at internal equity.


Green said the changes are proposed because the workers are actually doing work that is either not in their job classification or they believe they should be compensated for it.  He suggested focusing on correcting the problem.


Ruttledge explained if they subjected the six classifications (where there are continuing disputes) to true market analysis, there would be different answers for each of the classifications.  He said the market is not uniform with the positions.  He noted that today they were just discussing the six classifications that the classification committee was unable to resolve.  He said they did discuss whether or not the internal equity system was appropriate.  He noted if they go to a market based system, there may be classifications they would find over market.


Morrison said whether it is private or public sectors, there are still internal controls about what each job is about and how it is weighed.  She said she would be hesitant to bring some jobs down that are overmarket within the organization.  She asked how much it would cost to bring in an outside consultant.


Charlie Van Deusen, Management Services, responded that a study reviewing a system had come up before.  He suggested obtaining a consultant to look at the pros and cons of the current system and determining what else might be available and how the system might be improved.  He noted that study would be around $60,000.  He added that if the consultant concludes (and Lane County agrees) that the system is not viable anymore, then an internal study would have to be conducted with in-house staff or a major revamp putting in a class comp system.  He noted that would be about $300,000.


Green said he was concerned that the study would come back in disagreement and there would not be unanimous support.  He said it would create more of a division and the money spent could have been put to employees’ benefits.


Dwyer said the problems needed to be recognized.  He said a complete market study shouldn’t be considered as there is no money for it and people would have to be laid off to do the study.  He said with regard to these six specific classifications, there is a problem in terms of subjectivity and he thinks the Board could come together and move on.  He added that they are in agreement (except for six positions) and with changing technology it is difficult to maintain employees.  He suggested being objective and with more discussion, they could narrow the gap.


Green echoed Dwyer.  He asked how they move from the subjective to the objective.


Sorenson said the whole change in the classification system countywide was either premature or is not affordable.


McCawley said they would like to have the Board approve classifications and at their first meeting, AFSCME indicated they would not oppose the classification, it was the salary ranges.  She asked the Board to approve the classifications and approve the three with the salary ranges that have been agreed upon and then approve the other salary ranges.


Byrne noted that the union and the classification were not in any disagreement about the way the classifications were written.  She said their only disagreement was how the point factors were applied.


Green suggested approving the classifications.  He added there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the factors and finding a middle ground.  He suggested a board work session.


Morrison asked where the money would come from if they go forward.


Ingram responded it would be absorbed within the department. He added they would cut material and supplies.  He said unless they run over the material and supplies, then they would not go back to the other departments to ask them to pay more money.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-6-7-1.


Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.


Dwyer stated he would support the motion as they are willing to work in good faith. 


Green emphasized in order to recruit and retain employees, Lane County needs to be competitive.  He wanted the focus to stay on keeping good employees in the organization and compensating them fairly.


Sorenson asked what the impact of the Board’s decision would be to establish a range and the significance of the word "tentative" in a job description.


Wilson responded that in the collective bargaining agreement there is an opportunity for negotiation.  She noted where there is no word “tentative” used, agreement had been reached.


Byrne said that approving this motion would be appropriate.  She added that with the direction the Board had given to continue dialogue, the union and the County can continue to discuss the six classifications and come to an agreement about where the salary range should be.  She added the union has contractual right to negotiate the salaries on new classifications.  She said an option is to negotiate to decide if they should do that.


Greg Schneider, Counsel Representative for AFSCME, stated he supported this motion.  He noted that bargaining was tied to the internal equity system.  He said he heard the Board indicate a need to look at the subjective values in the internal equity system.  He added they are still bound under the internal equity system through the contractual process.


McCawley stated that the Board needed to be aware they are going through the same class review with the nursing positions.  She said the issue on the nursing classifications is market and there are other classifications in the County that are problems.  She said they would be back to the Board with the work they had done on the classifications.


VOTE: 4-0.


c. ORAL REPORT BACK Market Place Changes in Medical Plan Coverage.


Jerry Eisland, Benefits Consultant, Willis, stated a year ago the Board asked the question about market conditions for group health insurance and how other methods might be used to reduce County costs to provide group insurance to County employees.  He said at that time the issue came up about being self-insured or contracting directly with providers to reduce costs.  He said that last year he recommended not moving to self-insured plans because of unstable conditions.   He noted the market hadn’t changed much from last year.


Eisland said they had concerns about the providers renegotiating contracts and limiting the number of carriers.  He noted the networks they are accessing are becoming less and less. He said the question at this point is whether Lane County should consider self-insuring.  He said it could be done and is available as an option, but  there would be greater risk to the County.  He added the County is already gaining some advantages from self-insurance.  He was concerned about the Patient Rights Protection Act and the potential liability that exists to employers.  He recommended not self-insuring because of unstable market conditions.


Dwyer asked if it was possible to join with other local governments.


Eisland said joining together with other public employers was always an option, but the difficulty is common ground with benefit design and merging labor contracts.  He said they would realize lower administrative expenses.


Sorenson asked what Lane County should do with the medical plan and if there were incentives for employees to exercise more and use alternative health care.


Eisland responded that health related activities are not cost effective.  He said in order to save (by promoting health related activities) they would have to change the existing employee’s lifestyle.  He added people who have maintained a healthy lifestyle do so without incentives.  He noted the greatest savings Lane County could realize was in education and prudent health care purchases.  He added the more that could be done with education, the greater the savings.


Green asked if it would be beneficial to be self-insured.  He also asked if the organization was paying for Eisland's services.


Eisland responded that fees were based on a bid. He added the fees were offset by commissions they receive on certain products offered through the County and the commissions exceed fees so in essence service to the County is not costing anything.


Eisland continued that being self-insured had different components.  He said they would have to increase staff to administer a plan, and the savings are not there.


Eisland said he would come back in late April to look at fixed costs and items to push in the direction of self-insurance.


Dwyer wanted a list of factors for self-insurance.  He wanted to review the information and suggested designing something and working with partners as being cost effective.


Ruttledge noted the issues were negotiable and more complicated than straight money.  He added it is the second most expensive item in any labor contract.


d. UPDATE Facilities Capital Improvement Projects.


On the Juvenile Justice Center, David Suchart, Management Services, said they are continuing warranty work.  He said they would be demolishing the Skipworth Building in August.  He reported that electrical distribution work continues and they are working on the courthouse plaza.  Regarding the CIP budget he asked different departments about their needs.  He noted the Sheriff’s Office responded with additional projects.


On courthouse roofing, Suchart said it would take place this summer.  He noted the budget was $300,000 and the bid is $302,000.  He added they are going with the work camp roof at $56,250.  He noted the electrical distribution system is $100,000 and will be built into next year’s budget, to be phased in over a three-year period.


On Mental Health, Suchart reported the project is $6.7 million and they may not have to spend any CIP money in the current year.  On the Extension Service, he reported they are sharing the expense of the boiler and roof which are critical for that facility.


Dwyer stated there needs to be a capital reserve account and a maintenance reserve. 


Green concurred with Dwyer about a reserve.


Van Vactor said the health building at the annex needs to have attention within the next year.   He added that facility might be appropriate for a bond measure.


Morrison was worried that the County has exterior problems that will sustain more damage.  She said there is match money from the private sector for the courthouse plaza and Lane County is not committed.  She added that some of the projects which are not high-ticket items will be more expensive the longer they are delayed.  She suggested shifting projects.


Suchart noted there would be two roof projects that would not be funded: the 88-jail annex roof and containment of electronic equipment for the Sheriff's Department.


e. ORDER 00-6-7-2 Award of Bid LCP 2000-03 Construction Purchase of Courthouse Roofing Replacement.


Suchart reported they received the bids, and they came in at $302,000 which was within $2,000 of the budget.  He recommended proceeding with the courthouse roof project.  He reiterated they were not funding containment of the Sheriff’s communication equipment on the roof.  He said they were not aware the equipment was on the roof until they were dealing with other issues and that is why it was not in the original scope of the project.  He said they could keep the equipment there, but there is a risk in not having the equipment in a weatherproof structure on the roof.  He said the added cost would be $59,000, and if it wasn’t done this summer, it would be more expensive next year.  He stated there is no funding for the project and the board order only funded the base project.  He recommended repairing just the base roof.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 00-6-7-2.




VOTE: 4-0.


f. ORAL REPORT BACK Status of Fiberoptics.






a. Announcements






A. Approval of Minutes:

May 9, 2000, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.

May 16, 2000, Regular Meeting, Following HACSA

May 16, 2000, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.


B. Assessment and Taxation

1) ORDER 00-6-7-3 A Refund to Trust Joist MacMillan in the Amount of $75,939.04.


2) ORDER 00-6-7-4 A Refund to U.S. Bancorp Leasing and Financial, Inc. in the Amount of $11,137.58.


C. District Attorney


1) ORDER 00-6-7-5 Applying for Grant Funds in an Amount Not to Exceed $75,000 from the Violence against Women Act Grant Program Available Through the Oregon State Police.


D. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 00-6-7-6 Awarding a Subcontract Amendment in the Amount of $77,236 to ACES for Gambling Addiction Treatment and authorizing the County Administrator to Sign the Document.


E. Public Works


1) ORDER 00-6-7-7 Approving Proposed Geographic Names of "West Fork Battle Creek" and "Chicken Whistle Creek".


2) ORDER 00-6-7-8 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Dahlin Road (17-11-31-20) (Tax Lot 303).


3) ORDER 00-6-7-9 Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Dahlin Road (17-11-31-20) (Tax Lot 1500).


4) ORDER 00-6-7-10 Vacating a Portion of a Public Road (Dahlin Road) Located in the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 31, Township 17 South, Range 11 West of the Willamette Meridian, in Lane County Oregon, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (17-11-31-20).


5) ORDER 00-6-7-11 Awarding a Contract to St. Vincent de Paul in the Amount of $30,000 (Estimate) for Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Recovery & Recycling and Motor Stripping Services.


6) ORDER 00-6-7-12 Awarding a Contract to BRING Recycling in the Amount of $85,626 for Full Line Recycling Services at the Glenwood Central Receiving Station, WM 99/00-03.


7) ORDER 00-6-7-13 Awarding a Contract to Weyerhaeuser Recycling in the Amount of $84,000 for Rural Recycling Services, WM 99/00-04.


8) ORDER 00-6-7-14 Awarding Requirements Contracts to Twenty-two (22) Contractors for the Rental of Heavy Equipment to Supplement County Resources for Ongoing Operations and During Emergencies Caused by Floods, Windstorms, and other Disasters, Contract FY 99/00 FS-04.


MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar including item E 5.


Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0.










There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting at 11:55 a.m.


Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary


go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices