BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
October 2, 2002
Commissioners’ Conference Room
Commissioner Cindy Weeldreyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present. Bill Dwyer was 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
Dean Mordhorst, 91662 N. Coburg Road, Eugene, asked the Board not to move the Saturday Farmers Market to the fairgrounds. He submitted a “hitching post poster” into the record. He thought moving the market to the fairgrounds was a bad idea as it is not as attractive as the downtown location and it would impact the Saturday Market.
George Wickes, 1160 Barber, Eugene, was also against the farmers market moving to the fairgrounds. He said the Farmers Market has a life of its own and is a vital part of Eugene. He added that moving this to the fairgrounds would destroy the intimacy and would damage the Saturday Market. He urged the Board to keep the Farmers Market in downtown Eugene.
Bryce Krehbiel, 775 Monroe, Eugene, stated he represented NEDCO, who has been engaged in discussions with the Lane Economic Development roundtable. He noted in the needs and issues inventory they had submitted a request for Lane Alliance for Community Economics. He said it was a collaboration created through the Board of Directors at the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation and directors at OUR Federal Credit Union to create new access to streams of project development funds that could be paired with other funds to create economic opportunity.
3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. ORDER 02-10-2-1/In the Matter of Appointing One Member to the Public Safety Coordinating Council.
Morrison explained this was a proposal to recommend the replacement for Wayne Laut, (the superintendent of the Blachly school district) who retired in June. She noted the superintendents recommended Bob De La Vergne. She added he was the new Blachly Lane Superintendent. She noted he was also approved by the full PSCC on September 12.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-10-2-1.
b. DISCUSSION/Ranking of Needs and Issues Projects.
Peter Thurston, Economic Development, said this has to do with the Needs and Issues process, which the State of Oregon asks that counties and jurisdictions throughout the state complete. He noted this would not be repeated for two years. He said they decided to send out a request to the Board for input that came by e-mail. He passed out the responses. (Copy in file). He noted the needs and issues inventory is an Oregon Economic and Community Development department sponsored process that is carried out annually to identify the highest needs and issues in communities. He added it is not an application for funding; it is a listing and prioritization of activities. He stated federal and state agencies use the list when they look at their funding sources. He said being on the list was important.
Natalie Androsoff, Intern, Economic Development, explained they started with the previous year’s prioritized list published by LCOG and reviewed the top 20 to see if any had been finished or had already received funding from various sources. Also, to carry over any previous year projects that still needed funding. She said they removed all projects from the countywide list in Attachment B that were already sponsored by the Cities of Eugene or Springfield or by LCOG. She communicated with the cities of Veneta, Junction City, Coburg, Creswell, Cottage Grove and Florence to inform them of the needs and issue process and asked projects to be placed on the County list for prioritization. She added they included unincorporated cities. She noted the list contained about 34 possible projects.
Mike Meyers, Intern, Economic Development, noted that some of the project notification forms were better than others. He said they assisted in writing some of the projects.
c. ORDER 02-10-2-2/In the Matter of Prioritizing Projects to be Sponsored or Listed by Lane County in the 2003 and 2004 Needs and Issues Inventory Process.
Thurston stated they also asked departments in the County if they wanted to have listings. He noted the last five projects listed in Attachment A are County projects.
Green said he wasn’t clear how much money they were working with, as there were no dollar amounts.
Thurston explained they were trying not to duplicate any efforts at LCOG or cities that had significant staffing capacity. He said they attempted to look at the communities in Lane County who had no staffing and were small. He added it was not like rating and ranking an RFP process, it is a needs and issue list and a recommendation for raising it to a higher level in the listing. He stated it was not a requirement that the Board does this, it was an opportunity to give emphasis to certain projects.
Weeldreyer noted it came out of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative where all of the communities that the federal government would help would have to get a project on a list. She said if the project was on the list, then any federal agency that had dollars would look down the list to fund projects. She noted the project list was going forward and it was a way that everyone has a common blue print of identified projects.
Morrison said she couldn’t rank the projects without looking at the proposals. She noted there was no tie in to the Oregon benchmarks. With regard to project readiness, she stated some of the applications showed there were dollars to be allocated but she asked how much of those dollars accomplished what was on the project list as far as feasibility studies and readiness. She wasn’t comfortable with her rankings with the information she was given. She questioned how some projects got onto the list.
Sorenson asked how much of Lane County’s money goes to projects within the cities.
Thurston responded there is no Lane County money committed to any of the projects. He said it is a listing that had continued to roll forward that was required by some agencies and not by others.
Morrison noted some projects already received money. She wanted to know how the monies were spent against the construction costs.
Weeldreyer took a poll of the top County projects. The Public Health building was chosen as the number one project.
MOTION: to move to identify the Public Health building as the Board’s number one County project.
Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Weeldreyer noted the rest of the projects reflect they are being offered to the Lane Economic Committee by the Board for consideration because they lacked enough information on the specifics of the projects.
Thurston stated he would bring back an order reflecting the Board’s number one project, with the Lane Economic Committee doing that job.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-10-2-2.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Green asked how the Lane Economic Committee would determine the priorities with the ranking.
Thurston stated they had appointed a subcommittee that would look at staff recommendations of the list and bring the recommendations back to the Lane Economic Committee.
Morrison noted that each project should be tied to a benchmark.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor acknowledged the agency fair kick off of the Charitable Contribution Campaign.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. RESOLUTION AND ORDER 02-10-2-3/In the Matter of Choosing an Option of Assessments Between Lane County (Lane Code, Chapter 15) and City of Eugene (Eugene Code, Chapter 7) for the River Road (County Road No. 200) Project Between MP 7.747 and MP 7.366 and Requesting a Director's Report. (NBA & PM 7/31/02)
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, recalled the Board approved a design concept for this project on August 14. He said the design concept discussed and identified specific features of the roadway. He added the Board approved putting together a right of way plan for acquisition of properties. He noted the Board did not feel comfortable giving staff authority to assess for portions of the project until they had a discussion on the City of Eugene’s assessment policy versus County policy and some of the issues surrounding the properties.
Don Maddox, Public Works, explained in reviewing the tapes of the Board Meeting of July 2, 2002, he prepared a comparative analysis for the Board. He noted the principle differences are that Lane County assessment policy only assesses for curb, gutter and sidewalks. He added the city, in addition, assesses for some pavement costs. He stated the County has a policy of deferring assessments on properties that do not take direct access onto the county road that is being improved. He said a deferral would sunset after 20 years if no access was applied for or taken. He indicated that if a landowner chose to ask that a deferral or lien on a property be removed for personal reasons, or they sought access, the deferral assessment would become active.
Maddox noted the city’s policy does not have a deferral program like the County’s. He said the city assesses frontages to be no less than 50 feet. He added they also assess for up to the first 100 feet of frontage along the given road as an active assessment and if there are partially developed properties of one-half acre or more, the additional frontage beyond the first 100 feet is a delayed assessment that would become active at the time the property was converted to a more intensive use (subdivision, partition, etc).
Maddox explained there are inconsistent policies and it is difficult to match the two. He said the City also requires developers to sign irrevocable petitions when they develop subdivisions adjacent to a public road, whereby the developer agrees to participate with the cost to improve that county road when the road is upgraded. He noted there are two county roads in this project that are in that category, River Road and Beacon Drive. He said there are three active subdivisions and the title companies are putting the liens of the irrevocable title petitions as an encumbrance on the lots fronting the public roads. He indicated developers postpone development costs until the future, then subdivide the properties, and sell off the smaller pieces as lots to an unknowing buyer. When the property is improved, the lot owner is notified of an obligation. He noted the County has a deferral policy where no direct access is taken and a condition is access will not be given on the roads. He said legally these lots couldn’t take access on River Road or Beacon Drive.
Weeldreyer noted staff was recommending Option 2, accepting the attached resolution and order to direct public works staff to prepare a director’s report, and assess in accordance with Lane County’s special assessment policy, and to seek the City Council’s permission to assess properties within the City of Eugene plus an assignment of the necessary rights to exercise the irrevocable petition authority.
Chickering explained if the Board decided to pursue those assignments of rights under the irrevocable petition, it would not provide any relief to county residents on the opposite side of the road.
MOTION: to approve Option 2 of RESOLUTION AND ORDER 02-10-2-3.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Maddox noted in doing this analysis and the irrevocable petition, an issue came up. He asked that staff review the Irvington Road project because of the same issues that didn’t surface on active subdivisions.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes.
B. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 02-10-2-4/In the Matter of A Refund to Monaco Coach Corporation in the Amount of $118,084.41.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 02-10-2-5/In the Matter of Awarding the Contract for the HSC Safe & Sound Substance Abuse Services For Homeless, Runaway, and At Risk Youth, To Looking Glass Youth & Family Services, in the Amount of $68,766, for the Period from October 1, 2002 Through September 30, 2003.
D. Public Works
1) ORDER 02-10-2-6/In the Matter of Vacating the Public Alleys Between Hallett Street and Kelso Street, in Blocks 2 and 3 of Zumwalt’s Addition to Irving, as Platted and Recorded in Volume W, Page 396, Lane County, Oregon Deed Records, Without a Public Hearing, and Adopting Findings of Fact (17-04-03-33).
2) ORDER 02-10-2-7/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 323 (Central Road) (18-05-04).
3) ORDER 02-10-2-8/In the Matter of Releasing, Dedicating, and Accepting Parcel “C” & “D” Virgil’s Subdivision, Book 39, Page 8, a Parcel of County Owned Real Estate, as a Public Road (17-04-23) (Compton Street).
4) ORDER 02-10-2-9/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Orchard Road (County Road No. 1204) (17-05-03-4).
5) ORDER 02-10-2-10/In the Matter of Amending Board Order Nos. 02-7-24-2 and 02-9-11-3 to Change the Membership Structure, Representation and Appointment of Members on the Land Management Task Force.
E. Youth Services
1) ORDER 02-10-2-11/In the Matter of Approving a Contract Between Looking Glass Youth and Family Services and Lane County, Oregon in the Amount of $824,413 for Juvenile Drug and Alcohol Services and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Contract in Substantial Conformity With This Order.
2) ORDER 02-10-2-12/In the Matter of Approving a Contract Between Looking Glass Youth and Family Services and Lane County, Oregon in the Amount of $650,971 for Juvenile Shelter Care Services and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Contract in Substantial Conformity With This Order.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Green, MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
9. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 02-10-2-13/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 60 of Lane Manual to Revise a Health & Human Services Fee (LM 60.840) Effective October 2, 2002.
Betsy Meredith, Health and Human Services, stated this was an amendment to the Lane Manual to revise a Health and Human Services fee. She noted that after July 1, they discovered they were having an increase in certain sexually transmissible diseases and there had been a change in tests. She explained the cost for the test is $24.00 from the Oregon Medical Lab and would be budget neutral for public health. She asked the Board to pass this order so they could start offering this test for STD clients.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 02-10-2-13.
Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
10. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Morrison read a thank you letter from Food for Lane County thanking County Administration for helping harvest 1,039 pounds of food. She announced that the District 5 meeting would be here on Monday and Lane County was hosting it.
Sorenson announced he and Sheriff Jan Clements addressed the City Club about the parks measure.
Weeldreyer stated she would be attending the National Rural Telecommunications Conference next week.
11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
12. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Weeldreyer adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.