BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

February 26, 2003

9:00 a.m.

Commissionersí Conference Room

APPROVED 4/9/03

 

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

 

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

 

Item 6 b) will be rolled to March 18.

 

#2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Rob Jerome, 2848 Friendly Street, stated he was concerned about the $3.00 parking fee at Mt. Pisgah for revenue generating. He said since it was in such close proximity to Eugene that a lot of people use the park on a regular basis. He thought it would be a hardship for a lot of people to pay the fee. He said if funds were needed to maintain the area, he would be in support to help with this. He suggested a yearly parking pass instead of a parking fee. He said it would enable those who use the park on a regular basis to continue to do so. He stated he would be willing to serve on a citizen committee or task force. He requested the Board leave the record open.

 

Candy Neville, 2504 Garfield, was against the $3.00 parking fee. She wanted funding to come from other parks. She wasnít opposed to a weekend fee. She also would be willing to be on a task force. She also wanted the Board to keep the record open.

 

Ed Bright, 2660 Praslin, stated he couldnít afford to pay $3.00 to park at Mt. Pisgah.

 

Lynda Duffy, 940 E. 35th, read a mission statement for "Blues for Hues" into the record.

 

Paul Biondi, 61 35th Avenue, Florence, asked for professional support for "Blues for Hues."Jim Weaver, 33893 Seavey Loop, commented that Mt. Pisgah is a holy place and should be left the way it is. He said if there are fees imposed at Mt. Pisgah that the money should only go to acquiring more land; it shouldnít go to paving over the roads. He asked the Board not to spend money on replacing the bridge.

 

Lucy Vinis, 1805 W. 34th Avenue, reported that a year ago she asked the Board to amend the Lane Manual that regulates the annual charitable giving campaign in such a way that would permit Earth Share to participate. She requested that again for this year. She recalled last year in the employee survey that 43% of the County employees who responded wished to have this option of giving at the workplace. She stated it is a question of choice, not a policy for employees. She noted they share a common mission with the County: to protect the areaís natural resources. She thought it was a win-win opportunity for the County. She wanted the Board to reopen the discussion on having Earth Share as a charitable contribution for Lane County.

 

Merle Botkie, 1777 W. 24th, stated she was current chair of the Lane Countyís Park Advisory Committee. She commented the Park Advisory Committee believes it is important to provide adequate maintenance and care for the County Parks and currently there are not sufficient funds to do so. She noted there were no general fund monies supporting parks. She added that most Lane County citizens pay nothing towards County parks. She stated the Parks Advisory Committee supports the proposed increase in user fees and supports Option B with increased picnic, camping and special use fees. She noted there was no safe off-road parking space outside the fee area. She added that Buford Park costs the County money to operate. She encouraged people to purchase a season pass as a great way of supporting County parks.

 

Ray Smith, 170 Coachman, Eugene, disagreed with the fee for Mt. Pisgah. He didnít want to see the parking lot paved over. He wanted to spend time on a committee and would volunteer his time to help maintain the parks.

 

Megan Kemple, 39 Cedar Street, Eugene, read her letter into the record. (Copy in file.)

 

Kevin McGraw, 2192 Hilyard, Eugene, stated he is the President of the Friends of Buford Park. He commented that the Friends of Buford Park has opposed a parking fee in the past and continues to do so. He noted at their February 19 meeting, the Friends of Buford Park unanimously affirmed their opposition to the proposal to charge a daily user fee for the park. He said they were afraid by instituting a user fee, that it would dramatically reduce volunteerism at the park. He said it was not enough to make accommodations to collect fees because once fees are in place, there will be a perception that park users are paying for a service and their volunteer efforts are not required. He added they were afraid of the affect fees would have on low-income families.

 

Bob Hoitt, 85513 McCumber Road, Springfield, was against the daily user fees at Mt. Pisgah. He agreed with an annual pass as long as it was affordable. He thought people who couldnít afford the fee should still have access to Mt. Pisgah.

 

Bonnie Henderson, 48455 Fox Hollow Road, opposed any admission fees to Mt. Pisgah. She said that Mt. Pisgah is a trailhead. She stated it would have an impact on Spencer Butte. She commented that if they start charging for Mt. Pisgah, people would leave and go to Spencer Butte. She said there are too many fees already. She supported raising fees at other parks to preserve places where they donít have to pay.

 

Jan Nelson, 85354 Doane Rd., Crow, read her letter into the record. (Copy in file.)

 

Sabine Dutoit, 1800 Lakewood Court, Eugene, opposed the fee at Mt. Pisgah. She noted she is a volunteer and it would stop her activities there. She said one of the reasons she volunteers is because she doesnít have the money to spend on supporting Mt. Pisgah. She wasnít opposed to being given a free pass for hours of volunteering. She thought that could be a solution for the volunteer problems. She commented it was one of the safest places for a woman alone to hike. She added there was no alternative but driving a car to get to the park. She supported taking buses to the location.

 

John Sundquist, 31139 Lanes Turn Road, Coburg, commented that at last weekís meeting he mentioned some of the most serious criminal abuses of the roadside spray program. He heard no denials from the County. He urged the Board to look at the pattern and follow the money in the following investigations. He stated that two years ago he came to the Board and claimed they supported the best interest of the chemical industries over the health and safety of their citizens. He added in the numerous spending choices of the past, the County had always chosen to fight claims of spray damage instead of settle and had never chosen to reduce the risks of the spray program. He said the County had chosen to fight spray damage claims to the level of the Ninth Circuit Court, attempting to set precedent that would limit the legal protection of the citizens. He urged the Board to invoke the precautionary principle and suspend the spray program immediately, pending reports back from committees and the result of other investigations.

 

Jan Wroncy, P.O. Box 1101, Eugene, passed out materials. (Copy in file.) She said last week the Board was told the bus stops were protected from "spraying," indicating she thought it was misleading. She noted in order for them to be set up as a no spray area, the adjacent landowners have to ask for the no spray area. She stated this needed to be reviewed and all the children needed to be protected from the spraying.

 

Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris, Eugene, urged the Board to stop the spray policy. She asked the Board to stop poisoning the land and water.

 

Riley McLean, 1045 Oakway Road, Eugene, supported no fees on Mt. Pisgah. He said if people had to pay for fees the public wouldnít get much for it, as there is little maintenance performed at the park.

 

3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

 

Dwyer noted that Representative Miller had come back with the self-service gas argument. Dwyer said it was no service. He commented that gas is not cheaper in states where people serve themselves. He said the gas gouge price is not related to the cost of gasoline; it is related to manipulation of the product. He said they should leave Oregonís law alone. He said if they really want it, it should be sent out for a vote for the people.

 

Lininger disagreed with Morrison regarding the OWEB funding proposal they voted on in January. He said she relayed her concerns in Salem. He wanted to discuss with Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, about ways to convey to the legislators the majority of the Boardís position. He said it was an important request for outside funding for his district.

 

Sorenson stated he would oppose Rep. Millerís plan for self-service gasoline. He thought it was a good choice that Oregon had been with New Jersey in stopping the blanketing of the whole country with self-service gasoline.

 

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

 

a. COMMITTEE REPORTS/Legislative Standing Committee

 

Bieda explained the Legislative Committee had met twice since the start of session and will meet every other Thursday at 10:00 a.m. He said the committee hears bills that have direct or potential indirect impact on Lane County. He stated that as a result of the first two meetings, they are bringing forward recommendations on three bills that are on the radar screen.

 

1. HB 2378 Ė Requires state to reimburse counties for the costs of conducting special elections on behalf of the state. Leg. Com. Rec.: Support

 

2. SB 138 Ė Providing for county elections to recover cost from cities for producing a voterís pamphlet for city issues. Leg. Com. Rec.: Support

 

3. HB 2267 Ė Creates statewide transient lodging tax and preempts local government from adjusting current transient lodging taxes in the future. Leg. Com. Rec.: Oppose

 

MOTION: to move to approve the legislative standing committeeís recommendation.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

Lininger asked if everything had to go through the Legislative Committee or if it was by Board majority vote.

 

Bieda responded as a matter of policy that if it is a legislative item and it had not gone through the legislative committee and there is no Board position that had been adopted, he wasnít authorized to do anything but answer questions from individual legislators. He added in terms of testifying or weighing in on a position, he only does it on bills that had been through the process. He said in terms of conveying information to legislators (whether or not that information had come through the Legislative Committee), he would do that at Board request. He stated he does not represent a Board position on a given issue unless it has been through the process.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

b. Guidance Regarding Legislative Process to the Advisory Committee

 

Green reported that on Monday night a majority of the Board met with the Human Rights Commission. He noted one of the questions that came up was the Boardsí limitation in terms of speaking on bills, writing endorsements and letters on certain bills. He said he would get a definitive answer. He hoped that the Legislative Committee would give its best policy guidance around this. He wanted all of the advisory committees (and their affiliations) to have clear direction.

 

Morrison commented they had gone over this before regarding advising the department heads as to the process last session and this session. She noted the department heads are the ones to impart that to the advisory committees. She added that each department is responsible for tracking their own bills.

 

Sorenson suggested the Board authorize Bieda to send out an E-mail countywide to state that the Board strongly encourages them to contact the Legislative Committee so they have a process that helps them meet their needs. He said if the Board does not approve it, that committee is not to represent it as a County policy.

 

Wilson commented that the department directors do understand the process. She said what they will have is an advisory committee that doesnít want to bother the Board to get an official County position and they will represent the advisory committeeís position. She noted that is where there is confusion.

 

Dwyer said they should send a letter to the advisory committees telling them if they want official support or full opposition that they should come to the Legislative Committee with the bill number and requiring them to bring a copy of the bill explaining what the bill does.

 

Sorenson didnít think it was sufficient for a County employee or an advisory committee to use Lane County letterhead. He thought they should be telling the County employees and the advisory committee members to encourage bringing forth their ideas to the Lane County Legislative Committee. He said if they wanted to go the private route, that they do not use Lane County e-mail or letterhead and express their own views. He requested that Bieda bring those items to the legislative Committee to get their guidance.

 

6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. Announcements

 

Van Vactor noted that the Leadership Team meeting for next week had been cancelled. He said the budgets were in and Dave Garnick was able to calculate that the deficit has grown from $1 million to $4.4 million. He explained the average Human Resources cost per person had gone up 9% in the increase of benefits. He added the revenues grow at 1% or 2%.

 

Sorenson requested that Van Vactor put out an e-mail to the Budget Committee so that they receive this information.

b. ORDER 03-2-26-1/In the Matter of Approving a Gain Sharing Pilot Project for Departments Budgeted Within the Discretionary General Fund. (PULLED)

 

7. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. DISCUSSION AND ACTION/Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) Program Policy.

 

Ollie Snowden, Public Works, reported that the herbicide program is a small but important part of the IVM program. He said the chemical portion of the program is about 3% of the Vegetation Management Program and the Vegetation Management Program is about 15% of their overall road budget. He added the amount of money they spend on the Sheriffís Inmate Work Crew to do hand vegetation removal is in excess of the money they spend on the chemicals($700,000). He said it was more complicated than a straight grass-mowing-versus-chemical tradeoff. He stated there are different functions of the chemicals and they have broadleaf applications that are used for blackberries, poison oak, and noxious weeds. He commented the alternative to chemicals for those is not just grass mowing, it would be other mechanical manual functions that are more expensive than both chemicals and grass mowing.

 

Snowden noted risk was an issue that was brought up last week. He said speakers spoke of risks or perceived risks of using chemicals. He added there were risks or perceived risks to not using chemicals. He said if they were to have a vegetation program without chemicals, they would have risk that included increased exposure to fixed object hazards on the roadside and increased exposure to reduce the restricted site distance at intersections and on curbs. He added there would be more exposure to maintenance vehicles operating in the right-of-way and increased exposure to ponding water on the roadway that could create a safety hazard. He said they could have increased fire hazards in grass mowing areas and worker injuries from strains, insect bites and poison oaks. He added there could be loss of native vegetation by the spread of invasive species and they would have increased use of uncontrolled use of herbicides by adjacent landowners taking the spraying into their own hands.

 

Snowden commented there was discussion about what staff expertise they have on board that looks at risk management and chemical issues. He reiterated they donít have a chemist, toxicologist or fish biologist as it is beyond their staffing ability to do that now. He said they rely on larger agencies like ODOT or EPA to help guide them with their program. He noted they had checked other counties in Oregon for their IVM Program, but by and large, other counties in Oregon are looking to Lane County to model their programs after. He passed out the IVM Goal Statement. (Copy in file.)

 

Snowden suggested they take a comprehensive look at their IVM Program to see how they are doing in achieving their goals. He thought it was good business practice to go back on a regular basis to review how they do their work and the assumptions they are using. He thought it would be a good opportunity for VMAC to go back and evaluate the program, including contacting the counties that had been listed. He said that VMAC should ask for input from the Health Advisory Committee and other interested parties in doing their deliberations. He suggested they give the task to VMAC and he could come back to the Board in late May with an interim report from VMAC on how they are approaching their review.

 

Lininger liked the list as a starting point but wanted to add three additional points. He asked what a last resort policy would look like. He didnít understand what it meant to use pesticides as a last resort. He asked if the last resort was defined in terms of economic necessity or just a matter of technology where there is no other means irrespective of costs to get that result.

 

Dwyer commented it would be a program by which they would analyze what they are trying to accomplish. He asked what means were available. He said they should utilize the chemicals as a last resort. He thought it should be based on access, the terrain and proximity.

 

Lininger asked how they would make a last resort policy workable. He was not considering abandoning spray altogether. He wanted the "stick the tools in the toolbox" approach that they are doing now or make it a stronger presumption against the use of pesticides. He asked if there was a spot in his district where they have a road that doesnít have adjacent farmers and doesnít have traffic where they could experiment on a small scale with the no spray techniques used in the Washington counties. He noted there was an audit done in 2000 by the internal auditor that raised two important recommendations, 2 and 4. He stated the former Public Works Director did not adequately address those. He asked if there were areas where they could tighten up definitions in their existing IVM policy and if they could memorialize priorities that apply in different circumstances instead of leaving it up to the discretion of the department. He wanted context-specific priorities that are in the IVM document. He thought they needed to use chemicals only in circumstances where they are safe.

 

Snowden recalled recommendation number 2 of the Dean Stephensí audit stated the IVM policy document wasnít as clearly written as it could be. He said they agreed with that. Snowden stated Stephens recommended that staff re-write that and that is what they disagreed with because they had just gone through a two-year process before his audit to update the IVM policy document. He noted number 4 stated that Lane County should put priorities on its vegetation management activities. He said that to them was inconsistent with the philosophy of integrated vegetation management where they reach a threshold with a problem. He noted if the problem was unacceptable, then they could use different factors. He said a last resort chemical policy was more consistent with recommendation number 4 with priorities added.

 

Morrison agreed with Snowden about sending this back to the VMAC Committee. She indicated she was on the VMAC Committee and noted that each year the VMAC puts together a work plan and on that plan there are specific things they want to accomplish. She noted the first two years she was on the committee their accomplishments were limited. She commented the past year had been phenomenal in what they had been able to accomplish. She noted this past year they had someone come down from Oregon State that gave a presentation for the group that was enlightening. She thought the Board should hear the same presentation on toxicity. With regard to the Health Advisory Committee, she had reservations as to how productive it would be as they had misconceptions about the VMAC. She thought the Health Advisory Committee should have a role in education. She supported this going back to the IVM Committee.

 

Dwyer was skeptical about the OSU scientific study because chemical companies financed the study. He thought the County could be well served to adopt a spray policy as a last resort. He didnít think the County should spray unless property owners notified them of their consent.

 

Sorenson suggested the Board make a process change to the IVM. He noted there were transportation and safety components along with health issues. He suggested assigning this to both VMAC and the Health Advisory Committee and the chair of the two committees should be involved in setting a public process. He wanted them to report back to the Board and as policy guidance, to have spraying and the use of chemicals as a last resort.

 

Green supported the recommendation by staff to take it to the VMAC Committee. He was also in support of including the Health Advisory Committee. He asked at what point is there a level of security or accountability where someone who might be affected had the opportunity to weigh in. He said unless there was some effort being made to address the issues that are being publicly broadcast, it would continue to be under fire. He wanted to send it back with a broad policy recommendation that could be refined. He said if they were going to do something to change, to do it as a responsible accountable body, not as a political body that is doing something popular. He thought that would get the County into more trouble in the future when the composition of the Board changes.

 

Lininger concurred with all of Greenís suggestions.

 

MOTION: to move that the Board direct both the Vegetation Management Committee and the Public Health Advisory Committee to review the following three matters: to review the overall IVM policy document in light of all the considerations set forth in Snowdenís memo; the Board would direct the committees to ask how they could make a last resort policy workable including what it is and how to make it work. He thought costs should be a factor. He wanted the VMAC Committee to consider a small no spray pilot, taking advantage of the latest technology to see how it works.

Lininger MOVED.

 

Green asked Lininger to separate the motions for voting purposes.

 

MOTION: to move that they direct the Vegetation Management Committee and the Health Advisory Committee to answer the following question: "How could they make a last resort policy work when it comes to roadside spraying?"Lininger MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

Dwyer understood they would be defining what a last resort policy would be and what the matrix would be that an objective person would use to ascertain whether or not there is an alternative. He added that cost is a consideration but it is not the final consideration. He thought there might be other public benefits that are not quantifiable. He wanted to know what the policy would look like and what steps staff would take to discern that. He thought it was workable and commented that objective people with the good of the community at stake would overcome their differences.

 

Green supported the motion as it was stated. He didnít think there was a universal definition of what a "last result" would be. He cautioned them when they framed it to give their best professional advice on what the policy would look like based on what other communities geographically the same size as Lane County would have.

 

Morrison was concerned about the costs and bringing the two groups together. She didnít want to go back two years ago when they werenít accomplishing anything. She wanted to move forward to get something done, set timelines and not go on indefinitely.

 

Lininger asked what a reasonable timeline would be.

 

Snowden thought it would move faster if the groups met independently and then came together. He thought they should do this by early summer. He asked what the problem was. He noted there would be disagreement over what the problem is. He thought there would be a disagreement on a threshold as to whether it is actually a problem or not when looking at a last resort policy, economics and an acceptable definition of the problem.

 

Sorenson commented it was a good motion because it had the involvement of the VMAC and Health Advisory Committee. His suggestion was the two groups should work together so the health information is shared with all of the people involved. He thought there should be some public component to this. He agreed this should not be a multi-year process.

Mike Perkins, Public Works, responded if they wanted a timeline of a few months, he didnít think they could achieve that by putting together two large committees with two diametrically opposed views. He said where they were separated in the past was that VMAC was able to look at the technological data, toxicological data and make a determination. He said they shared the same information with the Health Advisory Committee. He thought there was a resistance to accepting science. He thought if they were expecting a short timeline, their best chance would be with the VMAC. He agreed that the Health Advisory Committee could perform a review.

 

Lininger asked if it was consistent with his goal if they requested that the Health Advisory Committee focus on the health piece and make periodic presentations instead of participating in every aspect of VMACís business. He wanted to incorporate that into the motion.

 

Sorenson suggested having the chairs of the two committees ask the committees who want to be involved and they would work it out. He was interested in pursuing the last resort policy. He wanted to have the two groups work together, setting up a process and coming back to the Board.

 

Green supported what Lininger had suggested. He noted staff stated the groups would be more productive if they worked separately and he would support that. He would support the motion if that were what was reflected. He didnít think there was an agreement from the Board as to what the problems are that they should be reviewing.

 

Dwyer suggested not using chemicals. He said they should be used if there was no other effective way to treat things. He said the problem is roadside vegetation management and maintenance. He said they should use other methods to solve the problem and if those methods donít work, then they use chemicals. He commented that using a chemical is a last resort policy.

 

Snowden noted there was no agreement on when they actually have a vegetation problem. He thought a key issue for a last resort policy was to find some way to agree that each of the conditions reached a threshold where it is a problem from the vegetation management standpoint.

 

Green supported not spraying near a bus stop.

 

REVISED MOTION: to move to direct the VMAC and Health Advisory Committee to answer the following question: How could they make a last resort policy workable for roadside vegetation management including considerations of the definitions of landowner preference and cost. He added the involvement of VMAC and the Health Advisory Committee would be reporting to one another and any further interaction that the chairs of the committee believe is appropriate.

 

Lininger MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

Lininger dropped his request of Snowdenís review of all the goals.

 

MOTION: to move to direct only the VMAC to consider where they might do a no spray pilot program within Lane County, away from farms and on a low traffic road.

 

Lininger MOVED.

 

Snowden explained they were already doing that. He noted there are roads they donít spray because there are a significant number of people who have no spray signs. He added they donít spray lower Deadwood Creek. He said there are roads throughout the County where they do not spray. He said they could do a more in-depth look at the consequences of one program versus the other.

 

Sorenson SECONDED.

 

Snowden commented they have to look at their overall goal to reducing their long-term maintenance cost. He said they have had pilot projects where they have tried to establish low and slow growing vegetation. He said they have to assess how successful they had been with it and have VMAC recommend any changes.

 

Lininger dropped his motion.

 

Sorenson stated this would be brought back for an interim report.

 

b. ORDER 03-2-26-2/In the Matter of Reappointing One Member and Appointing Two Members to the Parks Advisory Committee.

 

Fay reported the recommendation from the Parks Advisory Committee is to reappoint the three members to the Parks Advisory Committee: Steven Davis, Damien Gilbert and Emily Shue.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-2-26-2.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0 (Lininger out of room).

 

c. ORDER 03-2-26-3/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 18 of the Lane Manual to Revise Park Schedules and Emergency Rules, to Add Howard Buford Recreation Area and to Increase Fees (LM 18.100-18.115).

 

Lininger believed the Parks Department needed more money. He commented that Mt. Pisgah was a treasure and he didnít want to charge a fee for people to use it. He said charging a fee to go to Mt. Pisgah was for a service Lane County was providing, but nature provides it. He said if they charge a fee there, they would make it inaccessible to a certain part of Lane Countyís population. He suggested a proposal that would be revenue neutral with proposal A. His proposal C would not involve any fee at Mt. Pisgah. He would change Option A by reducing the parking fee at the current fee generating parks. He said instead of increasing daily parking fees to $4.00, they should be reduced to $3.50. He thought they let too many people go who break park rules. He stated in the past year about 1,000 notices were written to people who park without paying, but only five of those people had paid a fine. He thought that parking signs should be enforced. He wanted to revisit their regulation for how the proceeds are divided up. He said if they pursued the fines at the park and used it for park maintenance, that it could generate $15,000 or $20,000 more, that would be between Fayís Option A and his Option C. He recommended a way to meet the needs through taking money from people who are not following rules instead of poor people going to Mt. Pisgah.

 

Dwyer commented that volunteers who maintain Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah are critical. He suggested an annual parks fee of $25 for use in every park in Lane County. He said they need to recognize volunteerism and develop a way to give a park pass that is good for all Lane Countyís parks for people who volunteer their services that would be commensurate with the cost of the pass. He said that property taxpayers were sick of taxes. He thought this was a reasonable way to spread the cost around so everyone could participate.

 

Lininger said if they made all the 1,000 people pay who hadnít in the past and each paid a $20.00 fine, they would get $20,000.

Winter added there are unitary costs. He noted their enforcement philosophy in the past had been voluntary compliance as their goal. He said the fines are a Class B misdemeanor that carries a base fine of $175.

 

Sorenson didnít want a fee for a hiker. He suggested Option C where they look for an alternative to do this.

 

Lininger reiterated that Option C was a $30.00 fee that he suggested.

 

Morrison noted in Option B the actual fees they anticipated generated under the $3.00 at Howard Buford Park are $65,000. She said if they took the $65,000 to prorate it out into increases in all of the other categories under Option A to absorb that, it could bring them to $571,000. She noted some of the rate increases could be bumped up a little to generate the $65,000 without going into Howard Buford for $3.00. She added in looking at the difference between Option A and Option B, it is not $65,000 but $46,507. She said that would make it less that they would have to disburse out.

 

Green commented that Liningerís Option B was not appealing to him. He didnít think the numbers would get them where they want to be because if people wanted to comply, they would. He added some people just donít comply. He was in favor of an annual pass that would not be cost prohibitive to senior citizens, where they would be given special consideration. He was also in favor of a day pass that would reflect a level of an increase. He concurred with Dwyer about the tax measure that didnít pass that would have been paying less than $1 per year to access the parks. He commented without Parks getting general fund support, he didnít see how they could maintain the current level of services they are providing now. He said if they donít do something then there would be reduction in service and he didnít want to do that. He said if people use the parks, then they should pay.

 

With regard to the volunteers at Buford Park, Fay said they did a project cost summary from Public Works and they spent approximately $60,000 with landscape management, janitorial and site clean-up. He noted that volunteer coordination was about $3,400. He said there is a cost to organizing volunteers to get a project done. He noted that currently the annual pass is $30.00 or 20 cents per day.

 

Dwyer suggested they adopt a policy in Lane County where they have a special policy for people 62 years and older, patterned after the federal governmentís program. He also wanted to develop a volunteer equity program where people who couldnít afford to buy an annual pass could spend time volunteering. He thought this was the least offensive way to do this. He added Parks takes credit cards so it makes things easier. He didnít think they could raise revenues from park offenders.

 

MOTION: to move to approve Option B with a passport system that would be patterned after the federal government and have the Parks Advisory Committee develop a voluntary program that would give families passes.

 

Dwyer MOVED.

 

Sorenson suggested creating an Option F, taking the $65,000 figure out on Option B and spread $45,000 of that money throughout the developed recreation including camping, picnic and boat facilities, taking the remainder and piggy back it on additional revenue from taking some of the 1,000 people from parks who didnít pay fines.

 

Lininger was opposed to a fee at Mt. Pisgah. He was surprised that the Parks accepted such a low compliance rate to enforce the existing fee structure. He commented that Mt. Pisgah is one park where people go for a special outdoor experience and he didnít think charging for that was appropriate.

 

Sorenson recalled there was support for the Parks Division staff to come back in two weeks to rework the options. He said Parks should come back with an idea of an increase in enforcement, bearing in mind the unitary assessment, the degree of compliance and cost to the division to do that. He asked them to add costs to various categories, with the overall goal of adding net revenue without the $65,000 line item listed in Option B charging for Mt. Pisgah.

 

Dwyer wanted Parks to consider the gold age passport and define who would qualify. He said they have to have a progressive system to allow families to participate.

 

d. ORDER 03-2-26-4/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute Agreements for the County/City Road Partnership Program for FY 03/04 with Each City in Lane County.

 

Snowden explained the agenda packet outlines the proposal on whether to renew the City/County road partnership and at what level. He said their proposal is to renew it at the same aggregate total as last year, $2.5 million.

 

Van Vactor noted a meeting he and Sorenson had with representatives of cities stated the partnership agreement is important with cities in Lane County. He said the small cities need to know if the Board would do this so they could budget for it.

 

Snowden stated that each city gets $35,000 and then the remaining money is split on a percentage of road miles in each city.

 

Green asked instead of an agreement where they would allocate money to the cities, if they could review this to see if it is cost effective to bring the 700 miles of small city roads into the County and not give them the money.

 

Snowden responded that was an option.

 

Sorenson suggested that all local officials should be working together. He said they should approve this road partnership between the cities and the County in a timely fashion so it could be built into their budget. He suggested increasing the amount of money they put into the partnership that would necessitate a reduction in money they give to the cities and to other programs. He said he hadnít received any adverse comments about this proposal. He said the expectation is the County would continue what had been done in the past. He wanted to increase the amount in the agreement with the disclosure that would show what other funds the cities were receiving.

 

Lininger noted there were three areas where they have to compare what rural and urban cities get. He said one was the $2.5 million and the other is the direct payment for specific projects. He wanted to increase the amount in the mechanical form because it was good for the rural cities.

 

MOTION: to move to ORDER 03-2-26-4.

 

Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

Green asked for a follow-up that Snowden work with Melinda Kletzok, Public Information Office to make sure a timely news media release goes out to indicate the Board had taken the action. He added if the cities need more money, that it is a different discussion. He added it is a long-standing agreement with the cities. He said they would honor the agreement.

 

Sorenson wanted the amount increased. He wanted to add another $500,000 so it would be $3 million. He supported the motion because they want to have the other program in place so they could see that construction occurred. He noted a huge problem with ODOT and the cities is maintenance. He said the money could be used for this purpose.

 

Dwyer supported the motion to let them know they want to continue to have a partnership. He said the funds were important to the cities. He said the cities have a transportation utility fee as well as a passed gas tax. He said they have adequate maintenance given the additional revenues. He was not willing to increase the amount.

 

Lininger supported the $2.5 million. He considered increasing the amount in the future.

 

Green said increasing the amount for the small cities might have merit

 

Sorenson asked Eric Jones, City of Eugene, for the transportation utility fee and the gas taxes for the City of Eugene.

 

Eric Jones, City of Eugene, estimated the gas tax to be $650,000 for each one-cent of the local gas tax, under $2,000,000 from local gas taxes. He added the TUF they indicated in the staff presentation is an example rate of $2.90 per single family home. He noted the City of Springfield set their rate at $1.75 per single family home. He said their task as staff is to put together more scenarios, develop rule making and ratemaking and take it back to their council. He said they have to be prepared for their council to approve the rate. He said at the example rates they gave, the TSMF would yield $5.7 million per year. He believed this council would take a more conservative approach to the actual rate.

 

Green commented the City of Eugene hadnít really demonstrated that they could maintain the roads even with the money Lane County had given them.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

e. ORAL REPORT/Jasper Road Extension.

 

Snowden noted this item was discussed in Executive Session on a number of occasions. He said the issue was Jasper Road Extension, Phase 2. He said the Boardís approval of moving forward with this project was contingent upon delivery of the right-of-way between Mt. Vernon Road and Jasper Road and the five major property owners who would receive some benefit from the road. He said they sent a letter out under the chairís signature in December that gave the five owners until mid-January to execute the agreements with Lane County. He noted at that time he didnít have all the agreements and requested a time extension. He reported they have four of the five agreements signed and in the last two weeks they had meetings with McDougal Brothers representatives. He thinks they are getting close to a signed agreement.

 

Snowden stated the City of Springfield had offered to bring money to the table to help make the McDougals whole for the potential loss of the rail spurs that would be removed by the Jasper Extension. He reported that John Tamulonis, City of Springfield, has to go back to the city council in Executive Session to get authorization for those funds on March 10. He said assuming the council goes for that, they are close to having the right-of-way dedication. He asked the Board for another two-week extension to see if they can get all five signatures.

 

There was consensus of the Board to go ahead with a two-week extension.

 

f. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance PA 1186/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram for Property within the Crescent Avenue Nodal Development Area, with Concurrent Automatic Amendment to the Willakenzie Area Plan Land Use Diagram; and Adopting a Severability Clause (NBA & PM 1/6/03, 1/22/03, and 2/12/03).

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance PA 1186.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

Lininger had concerns about this but still supported the ordinance. He preferred

 

nodal development that brought into one area all the resources that makes it an attractive concept. He added he wanted to see nodal development closer to the city as they lose some of the value of reducing miles traveled if it is on the periphery of the urban growth boundary. He thought nodal development should be integrated into the long-range transportation plan.

 

Sorenson shared the concerns about nodal development being best accomplished closer to the core of the community.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR

 

BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *

 

A. Approval of Minutes:

December 18, 2002, Work Session, Following HACSA

February 12, 2002, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.

 

B. Assessment and Taxation

 

1) ORDER 03-2-26-5/In the Matter of amending Board Order Number 03-01-21-4, Refunding Money to University Commons-Eugene, OR, LTD, by Capstone Development Corporation, to Correct the Account Number.

 

2) ORDER 03-2-26-6/In the Matter of Refund to HMT Technology Corporation in the Amount of $119,075.53.

 

C. County Counsel

 

1) ORDER 03-2-26-7/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 2 of Lane Manual to Increase Fees for Lane Manual and Lane Code Subscriptions (LM 2.050, 2.090).

 

D Health and Human Services

 

1) ORDER 03-2-26-8/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Grant Application to the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for $100,000 to Support the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.

 

E. Public Works

 

1) ORDER 03-2-26-9/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for County Road No. 730 (Sutton Lake Road) (17-12-35-24).

 

2) RESOLUTION, NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER 03-2-26-10/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing Date for the Proposed Vacation of a Portion of Duncan Slough Road (County Road Number 499) Located South of Bernhardt Creek Road Near Karnowsky Creek, in Sections 22 and 23, Township 18 South, Range 11 West of the Willamette Meridian (18-11-22 & 23). (NBA & PM 1/15/03) (Public Hearing: April 9, 2003, 1:30 p.m.).

 

3) ORDER 03-2-26-11/In the Matter of Accepting a Deed of Land to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Pitcher Lane (20-03-34).

 

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * *

 

MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

9. COUNTY COUNSEL

 

a. ORDER 03-2-26-12/In the Matter of Appointing a Lay Member to the Law Library Advisory Committee.

 

Wilson explained the committee had a complicated discussion on the difference between the lay citizens on the law library committee and the bar appointed attorney members. She said the committee decided the Board was looking for non-lawyer professional members for the lay citizen slots. She noted they chose not to interview attorneys or retired attorneys. She stated the committee appointed Melissa Mona.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-2-26-12.

 

Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

 

10. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

With regard to the Regional Investment Board, Morrison recalled that in 1999 she was insistent that they look at a structure and how it was to be managed. She said it revolved around the Cascades West Cog and their ability to provide the services they were supposed to do. She said with the governorís new budget and the lottery dollars being disbursed compared to the economic development budget, she noted what came up was the Regional Rural Investment Fund. She noted there is concern on how effective that has been. She said a lot of the counties are not complying because of the lack of recording on where their dollars are going. She stated that their regional investment board had not been complying. She asked for reports that had been submitted to the state. She wanted that question addressed as to what Cascades West was really doing. She stated that Cascades West should respond to this. She was upset that Earth Share used her name in their letter.

 

Green announced that March 7 to March 9, the state conference for the NAACP would hold their annual conference in Eugene.

 

Dwyer reported that he and David Suchart would be meeting with Gary Weeks of the governorís office about buying the state office building on March 6.

 

Sorenson reported he would be going to Washington, D.C. to attend a NACo meeting and the United Front. He asked the Board to review the Advisory Committee Compliance Report because it showed that one-third of all advisory committees had not submitted their required report. He suggested for future discussion that they think about sending a notice to the committees that had not reported. He thought they should process this as a routine item.

 

11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

a. Letter from AOC/Participation in Back to School Week, April 28 - May 2, 2003.

 

Morrison commented that this had already been brought to the Board in early January. She added that Melinda Kletzok was already working on a resolution and to arrange for the Board to be in classrooms. She said the Board could visit schools either individually or collectively. She suggested each commissioner try to do something on their own.

 

Sorenson reiterated that the Board would not be holding a board meeting at a school during Back to School Week.

 

12. EMERGENCY BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m.

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary