BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSí
November 13, 2002
Following Board of Health Meeting
Commissionersí Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present.† Acting County Administrator Dave Garnick, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1.† ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
There will be a 1:15 p.m. time certain for Executive Session.
#2.† PUBLIC COMMENTS
Lorraine Lyles, Springhill Lane, Pleasant Hill, stated she had lived on Springhill Lane for over 25 years and had been waiting for a County road.† She and her neighbors maintained the road, but there are now 11 families, a horse stable and timberland.† She couldnít keep up with the road with the 12 stabled horses and trailers. She asked the Board to consider taking care of the road.
Ken Smith, Springhill Lane, Pleasant Hill, recalled that one of the reasons Lane County recommended declining the road as a county road is that it primarily provides access to lots with limited benefit to the public.† He said when the road was originally put in, it was designed to serve a 100-acre parcel.† He said that seven years ago, Gustinas bought a lot on the road which provides them access to the acreage they own behind Dexter.† They are using the road as access to their timber land and hauling trucks are using the roads.† He added the road had degraded substantially and should be a County road instead of a local private road.
Richard Smith, Police Officer, City of Springfield, said he and his wife have city vehicles they take up and down the road.† He was concerned because the road was causing wear on the cars.
3.† COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Weeldreyer commented she read in yesterdayís paper about alternative sites for hospitals that the City of Eugene planning staff had created.† She was surprised to see that one of the sites was the fairgrounds.† She made the assumption there had been some staff level conversations between the County and City of Eugene staff.† She was told this was a suggestion the city had about a large piece of publicly owned real estate in the City of Eugene.† She hoped in the future the City of Eugene would have the courtesy of discussing it with Lane County before they read it in the newspaper.
Sorenson stated in the past two weeks people had approached him as to why the County put fences in front of the Courthouse.† He said people think it looks like a dog run and there are no trespassing signs on it.† He said people are concerned about the imagery of the fencing.† He thought the signs set a bad tone by stating no trespassing.
Dwyer commented people using the County property should not be destroying the property by using the plaza as a toilet.† He stated they made every effort to reach out, but to no avail.
Green agreed with posting the signs.† He said it doesnít interfere with free speech.† He commented it was not intended to be a place where a person would relieve themselves.† He stated the County has a fiduciary responsibility to the public to take care of this asset.†
4.† EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place at 1:15 p.m.
5.† COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a.† ORDER 02-11-13-1/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Enter Into Agreements with the Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation for the Rehabilitation of the Lowell Covered Bridge and the Construction of an Interpretive Site.
Weeldreyer noted this was one of the projects she wanted to complete before she leaves office.† She said the restoration of the Lowell Covered Bridge was one of the first projects she was assigned in 1992.† She added they were successful at rehabilitating almost all of the covered bridges in Oregon through state legislation in the mid-90ís which allowed for the program.† She noted the Lowell Covered Bridge was not part of that effort because they thought there were other funds that could be used.† She understood that construction would take place in 2004.† She added the monies they had obtained for this came through the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Western Lands Highway Division.† She said the reason for getting forest highway money is that it would be a portal allowing all of the nearby Forest Service roads in the Willamette National Forest to be accessed from Highway 58.† She said the current cost estimate might be as much as $500,000 more than the funding they have.†† She added the grants require Lane County to accept maintenance responsibility when the project is completed.† She said as a result of that, she had a meeting with Public Works staff and Mayor Warren Weathers and the City of Lowell, who wanted to participate.
Snowden commented Lane County couldnít use the road fund for this.† He added the only way they could use the road funds for a portion of this would be to declare the parking area and the toilets a highway rest area.† He added the federal money could be used for historic preservation.
Weathers stated that preserving or maintaining the covered bridge had been on their strategic plan since 1994.† He said the Forest Service helped out by contributing $1 million toward maintaining the covered bridge and developing it as an interpretative center for the surrounding national forest.† He thought it would draw people into the community and help their economy.† He said they would offer volunteers to help clean and maintain it. He was supportive of an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Lowell and Lane County to assist with some of the maintenance responsibilities.
Dwyer asked how long this would be and what would happen if the volunteers couldnít do their duties.† He asked if they would be willing to put in language that if that happens, the City of Lowell would pay for it.
Morrison recalled the last time this project came to them it was about adding the restroom facility and changing the program concept.† Looking at the $500,000 shortfall, she asked where the money was coming from.†
Snowden didnít think there was an opportunity to cut $500,000.† He said they talked to OBEC and the bridge rehabilitation could be as much as $1.5 million.† He said they set aside $200,000 for the interpretative exhibits and there is no money left for the parking and rest area.† He thought the only area they could make substantial reductions to would be parking.† He recalled when the whole project came up, Lane County was concerned about the ingress and egress in the parking.† He suggested the Board give direction to Public Works to look for ways to reduce the costs if they can.
Green supported Option 4.† He thought the citizens of Lowell would honor their commitment for volunteering.† He suggested giving staff direction to look at ways of reducing it.† He wanted to find a way to minimize the cost and still make the project work.
Morrison noted this had not gone to bid. She asked what would happen if the bids came in higher than the $1.725 estimate.
Snowden said the plan is for $2.25 million.† He said they would take more money from the STP allocation.† He explained the STP allocation is federal money and they could take it as federal money getting 100 cents on the dollar or taking it as state money and get 94 cents on the dollar.† He thought they would get $30,000 more in federal money.† He added the money is an annual allocation so they could increase it over a period of time.
MOTION:† to approve Option 4 of ORDER 02-11-13-1.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Dwyer had concerns about finding the money.† His concern was having it turn into a problem and coming back to the Board. He would support it with the understanding they look for other sources.
Snowden shared the same concerns.† He added there is a risk in moving forward.† He said the federal government could compel the County to make them whole if they donít finish this project.
Morrison noted that in the order, the second paragraph discussed routine maintenance activities on the bridge, but it doesnít state anything about† approaches.
Dwyer said they would move to include all the areas where trash accumulates.
Sorenson thought it was important that the County continue to work with the Department of Transportation, the City of Lowell, and the Forest Service to protect the bridge and provide greater access to the community of Lowell.† He commented that all board orders could be altered and they should move ahead with what they have.
Dwyer suggested writing a letter to Congressman DeFazio and Senators Wyden and Smith, asking for a specific federal appropriation that would earmark this money and to tell them that Lane County is going forward, asking how much money is needed for their help in securing the money.
Weeldreyer stated this project was important to the City of Lowell and they are look to the County for help.† She said they had been trying to move this project forward for the past ten years.
†† 6.† COMMITTEE REPORTS
Policy and Procedures Standing Committee
a.† CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND ORDER 02-10-16-1/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 2 of Lane Manual to Revise Provisions Pertaining to the County Logo (LM 2.700-2.755, 2.765).
Melinda Kletzok, Public Information Officer, reported that at the last meeting they discussed the logo.† She added it was given to County Counsel for†† recommendations by the Sheriffís Department or the District Attorney regarding the logo design.† She recalled the public information office was directed to prepare this logo in the Lane Manual and it has been done.
Wilson suggested using the old board order number originally applied to this.† With regard to the Boardís authority to order the elected officials to use the County logo, she replied there is not authority with respect to the District Attorney.† She added with the Sheriff, because of the issue of identity of a law enforcement officer, and the Sheriff having the insignia on the badges and the cars, they do not have the authority to order the Sheriff to use only the County logo.† She said they did have authority regarding the assessor and the justices of the peace.† She included the responses of the various officials as to whether or not they would use the logo.† She said the District Attorney indicated he would try to incorporate the County logo with the scales of justice when reasonable.† She noted the Sheriff indicated the design was fine and if he could demonstrate a cost benefit to the Sheriffís Office and taxpayers, he would consider incorporating it but would be mindful of the need for public officer authority and associated public safety.† She stated Jim Gangle had voted for the new design and indicated that he would use it.† She added Cindy Cable, Justice of the Peace, had no preference.† She noted Judge Sinclair would use up the old logo stationery but she liked the new logo better.
Green asked how Weeldreyer saw the legacy logo being implemented, consistent with the proposed new logo.
Weeldreyer explained her original proposal that she offered as a compromise honors the diversity of the various departments of Lane County in the services† they provide.† She said they were done as part of a team building effort within the departments.† She noted the compromise is to take the legacy logo (the logo they had been using as the official countywide logo) and incorporate the green circle with the tree and the water into other logo designs.† Her proposal is that Board policy be that the official logo is their existing logo.† She said if they wanted to create another design, they would have to incorporate the green circle into the new logo.† She was against the new change because she didnít want extra expense.† She thought it sent the wrong message to employees.
MOTION: to approve Option One of ORDER 02-10-16-1.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Sorenson liked the new logo.
Dwyer didnít agree with County Counselís opinion.† He said the Board has the legal authority to do the logo, and as far as the Sheriff is concerned, it has nothing to do with law enforcement.† He approved the motion, but by approving the motion, he did not agree to give any authority the Board had.† He said they have the authority to compel any agency in Lane County (with the exception of the state office) to conform to Lane Countyís standards.
VOTE: 4-1 (Weeldreyer dissenting).
b.† DISCUSSION/Bumper Sticker
Green noted an issue arose on the use of bumper stickers on County cars.† He explained Weeldreyer wanted to have a bumper sticker on her car stating:† ďI live in the Willamette Watershed.Ē† He said she wanted the bumper sticker approved and authorized to be placed on County vehicles.† He stated that Dale Wendt was at the meeting and explained there could be some cost implications at the time of resale.† He noted as a committee they discussed it and their recommendation was to allow Weeldreyer to use that bumper sticker on the vehicle she currently uses.† He added it would not be on a list of approved bumper stickers.
There was consensus by the Board to approve Weeldreyer having the bumper sticker on the County car she currently uses.
7.† COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
b.† ORDER 02-11-13-3/In the Matter of Approving Title II Bureau of Land Management Agreements and Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute the Agreements and Task Orders.
Terry Smith, Analyst, reported this is an agreement with the BLM for Title II funds.† He noted this agreement was different than what the Forest Service had done with Title II funds.† He added it is a multi-year agreement that has a 30-day exit clause.† He said in order to implement this agreement for the Forest Work Camp to be sent onto federal land, the BLM will issue task orders.† He added this is the parent agreement that allows the orders to be issued and the Forest Work Camp to charge Title II expenses for materials and supplies to the BLM for that work.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-11-13-3.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
c.† REPORT/ORDER 02-11-13-11/In the Matter of Increasing Funds for Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Title III County Project for Fire Prevention and County Planning for FY-02.
Smith explained they completed reimbursement for most of the Title III projects† approved for fiscal year 02.† He said in the order that was approved for Title III projects, there were six allowable uses for projects and five were approved.† He added they approved a dollar amount for each of the allowable uses.† He noted one set of projects was approximately $14,000 higher than the total amount approved and if they wanted the planning division to recover the additional $14,000 in Title III reimbursement, there is an order that allows them to do it.†
Smith estimated that search and rescue spent about 80% of their time on missions on federal lands, but compared to two yearís worth, the expenses were closer to 65% of mission time.† He said there is the risk of some surprises for the Board in the budget.† He proposed in building the search and rescue budget in FY 04 year, assuming only 60% of their expenses will be Title III reimbursable, but when considering a Title III project for search and rescue, they consider it a 85% of their expenses so there is always enough money to fully reimburse the projects.
Smith commented the Forest Work Camp might fight fires on federal lands.† He said when they do, their expenses fall under the first allowable use of Title III funds that includes fire fighting paid by a county sheriff.† He noted in that circumstance, Title III might pay the materials and supplies expenses consumed during fire fighting.† He recommended in the supplemental budget an additional FY 03 Title III project for the Forest Work Camp fire fighting that would cover the additional materials and supplies expenses for deployment on fires in August and September.
Smith stated as the report notes, they are to end FY 02 with $670,000 in unexpended funds.† He said it was the result of partial year operation of the Forest Work Camp and the forest deputies.† He added the problems of hiring, training and staffing to fully consume the funds that were approved took longer than staff expected.† He noted there is an issue about how far the Forest Work Camp crews can travel into eastern Lane County to perform work.† He said they allocated Title II funds to each of the four jurisdictions based on the total geographic area within Lane County.† He noted there are some portions of the Willamette National Forest in the east to work.† He didnít know where the limit was.† He thought they should consider this question.† He feared they would be unable to accomplish enough work between snow and distance on the Willamette that they either leave money or the crews are being assigned to do junk projects to build Title II.† He said they had to maximize the effectiveness of the work they do.† He recommended a small reallocation among the four agencies to make sure they get best use of the Forest Work Camp crews.† He said he would bring back an order regarding considering increased funding for the plan.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 02-11-13-11.
Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.
d.† ORDER 02-11-13-4/In the Matter of Convening a Local Government Group to Determine Whether or Not the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Ought to be Considered for Official Recognition by Lane County.
Mike Meyers, Intern, Community on Economic Development, reported the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is requesting official recognition by Lane County.† He said they have already been recognized as one of the five river basins in the county and Lane Manual has the process by which a watershed council becomes officially recognized by the County, including meeting a set of criteria.† He noted the order requests that proposal by the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council be sent to LCOG for review and to provide the Board with a recommendation.† He added after receiving the recommendation, the Board would evaluate the watershed council based on the criteria in Lane Manual and consider the recommendation from LCOG.† Then the Board decides whether or not to grant official recognition.
Dwyer asked what LCOG charged for this and who pays for it.
Meyers responded there would be no charge from LCOG as there is no staff time from them.† It would go before the LCOG Board and they will ask questions of the watershed council, then make a recommendation.
Morrison was not opposed to this going forward.† She noted in looking at the criteria, that funding was being cut to most of the watersheds because of not being responsible under the Countyís charge and a lack of oversight.† She said that Lane County receives no financial information from the watersheds and that was raised at the legislature.† She added that the watersheds are supposed to be reporting to the Board once a year but no one had.
Dwyer stated he received a report from the McKenzie Watershed Council.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-11-13-4.
Weeldreyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Green asked Meyers to make sure LCOG didnít charge Lane County any administration fee for review.
8.† PUBLIC WORKS
a.† ORDER 02-11-13-5/In the Matter of Awarding Annual Trashbuster Awards and Presenting Ken Sandusky the Association of Oregon Recyclers Lifetime Achievement Award.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 02-11-13-5.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
b.† ORDER 02-11-13-6/In the Matter of an Appeal to a Directorís Report Denying County Maintained Road Status to Springhill Lane.
Betty Mishou, Public Works, explained this is an appeal to a directorís report denying County maintained road status to Springhill Lane.† She noted Springhill Lane is currently classified as a local access road in Pleasant Hill.† She stated the petitioners filed a formal petition requesting that the County take over maintenance of the road.† She reported that after review of their petition and a physical review of the road, a directorís report was prepared denying acceptance of the road.† She noted Lane Manual Section 15.4106 (b) stated that roads functioning as local roads within subdivisions or partitions, primarily providing access to lots, shall be established as a private road easement or local assess roads with the appropriate property owner association providing for maintenance of the road.† She noted there are 12 families that use the road, serving the abutting property owners.† She added there are two commercial enterprises that use the road, Skyline Ranch (a horse boarding, training operation) and Gustina Logging.† She noted that Gustina Logging had no formal logging activity planned for 2003.
Mishou commented the petitioners have the right to appeal the directorís report.† She said the Board has the discretion to uphold the directorís report, denying the County maintained road status of Springhill Lane or they accept by order, the petitionerís appeal contingent upon any conditions specified by the Board.† She noted conditions specified by the Board could include suggested improvements to the road to bring it up to standard.† She spoke with a roads maintenance manager at Public Work and he told her the cost would be $150,000 to $200,000 to bring the road up to standard.† She added there is also an alignment issue with the road.
Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel, explained there had been notice given of the appeal rights to the main petitioner and the request that that petitioner contact the other people to let them know about the time and place.† He said it is their opinion to make sure that all of the 12 people who signed the petition get written notice that this chance to appeal will come before the Board.† He suggested rolling this matter for two weeks to give the other people opportunity to submit written comments.† He added the notice had officially gone out to just one person.
Sorenson asked if there was a requirement of a public hearing on a matter of this type.
Kardell responded there is no requirement for a public hearing.† He noted there is a Lane Manual provision that gives people the right to appeal.† He thought that the petitioners should know the appeal is going to be heard on a given date.
Sorenson suggested setting this over to give petitionerís notice.† He wanted to set this up for public hearing.
Green also supported rolling this matter.† He didnít want a public hearing.† He commented they donít have public hearings for this type of matter and he didnít want to start now.
Dwyer requested notifying the people that the Board will be considering in two weeks whether or not to approve this order.
Weeldreyer commented there is a timber operation that put a heavier maintenance on the road beyond personal use.† She didnít want to put the publicís money to maintain a road for a handful of private residences.† She added if it is literally a farm to market road to get out on a harvest basis, she thought there could be countywide value in looking at this with a different perspective.
9.† CONSENT CALENDAR
BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *
A.† Approval of Minutes:† None.
B.† Health and Human Services
1)† ORDER 02-11-13-7/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Grant Application to the Department of Human Services Office of Health Services for the Oregon Child Care Health Consultation Demonstration Program in the Amount of $60,000.
C.† Workforce Partnership
1)† ORDER 02-11-13-9/In the Matter of Appointing Members to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.
2)† ORDER 02-11-13-10/In the Matter of Appointing a Member to the Lane Workforce Partnership Youth Council.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * * *
10.† EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660 †
To take place after the meeting.
11.† EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.