July 2, 2003

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 8/20/03


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.




MOTION: to approve that Public Comment be switched from three to two minutes per person.


Morrison MOVED, Lininger SECONDED.


VOTE: 5-0.




Jim Gillette, 86340 Needham Road, stated he wanted to donate 400 acres of land to set up a trust fund. He stated he was receiving fines and wants to work with the County and his neighbors. He stated what he was doing is not illegal as he is using his land for recreational purposes.


Hope Marston, 3110 University Avenue, Eugene, commented there might not be abuses in Lane County regarding the Patriot Act, but they don’t know what might happen in the future. She said there needs to be reporting every three months on any federal effort to enlist Lane County employees to help enforce the post 911 abrogation of the Bill of Rights. She passed out a form that could help County employees to make the reporting requirements (copy in file.) She didn’t want County tax dollars supporting the Patriot Act or other violations of the Constitution. She asked the Board to pass this resolution so Lane County could take a strong stand in support of human rights.


Bob Avery, P. O. Box 580, Junction City, urged a no vote on the resolution against the U.S. Patriot Act. He thought it should be re-named the Terrorist Protection Act of Lane County. He was upset the Board would consider this and thought the voters would feel the same way when they learn about the details. He noted this was a matter of national concern and should be addressed in the U.S. Congress, not in Lane County. He added if the U.S. Patriot Act is truly unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court will address it at the appropriate time. He thought the resolution would tie the hands of local law enforcement and created un-needed red tape and cost taxpayers more money. He urged the Board to not approve the Terrorist Protection Act of Lane County.


Alice Shapiro, 88453 4th Avenue, Florence, stated she represented the Siuslaw Area Bill of Rights Defense Committee. She urged the Board to pass the County resolution to protect their freedom. She submitted copies of signatures from their local city resolution.


William Fleenor, 09359 Highway 126, Mapleton, supported Hope Marston’s position that the County should adopt a resolution that would preclude the use of County resources or taxpayers money to enforce any unconstitutional provision of the U.S. Patriot Act. He urged the Board to use their power and act responsibly and make sure they use the constitutional provisions they already have to ensure their safety. He hoped the Board would pass the resolution.


Patty Chapelle, P. O. Box 1120, Veneta, stated she owns Secret House Winery. She reported she had been conducting events for many years. She received a letter on May 25 that she would have to apply for a special event mass gathering permit. She stated she had never had more than 3,000 people. She thought if they had less than 3,000 people that she could host special events. She commented this is what she does to promote their product and raise awareness. She apologized if there was a breakdown in communication and she stated she filed an application for a permit. She stated in all the years she had events there were no incidents that happened. She urged the Board to grant her mass application permit.


Dwyer reported he received calls from Chapelle’s neighbors stating music had gone on past midnight.


Chapelle commented that all of her neighbors are welcome to her events and she stops the music at 10:00 p.m. She noted there were other people around her that have events.


Scott Bartlett, 1445 E. 21st Avenue, reported there is confusion about the County being responsible for the cattery shutting down. He said on the Budget Committee they appropriated $35,000 and made it contingent that the city participate. He noted the City of Eugene chose not to do that. He said if it is to be remedied the City of Eugene has to take responsibility. He added there are too few resources that are tied to general funds that are shrinking and endangered. He said the need for a constant source of revenue is paramount for LCARA. He said they have to have aggressive license expansion. He said there has to be rabies vaccination reporting by veterinarians to the animal control authority. He asked County Counsel to help prepare a paragraph in the ordinance that would have rabies reporting vaccinations as soon as possible.


Van Vactor stated if the Board wanted to they could ask Management Services to hold a work session on LCARA.


Dwyer wanted to see an effort for an ordinance to be written. He volunteered his time to write the ordinance.


Bartlett added the Board was given a working draft for an ordinance. He said it helps license dogs.


Van Vactor noted the ordinance creates duties for veterinarians. He said the custom and practice is to meet with the stakeholders and impacted groups and draft legislation to minimize the impact. He said it would take time to work with the stakeholders to make sure they have support in their community for the regulation. He thought a work session would be a good way to start the discussion.


Green thought a solution would be to accelerate the work of the task force and then bring that back to the Board.


Lininger thought a work session on July 23 was a good idea.


Dan Stotter, 259 E. 5th, Eugene, stated he was appearing on behalf of the Russell Creek Neighbors Association to address the proposal to amend the intergovernmental agreement concerning the Armed Forces Reserve Center from the Lane Community College 30th Avenue location to the Marcola Road location. He noted the Russell Creek Neighbors strongly support the new site. In addition to supporting the amendment to the new location, he asked the Board to put a recommendation in the ordinance that the Oregon Military Department work with the Russell Creek neighbors to discuss the options that are available for preservation of the wetlands including public and private mechanisms.


Rand Dawson, 82820 Siltcoos Station Wagon Rd, Westlake, stated he was for the Patriot Act resolution. He said the Board’s attempt to review the act and reconsider what it does is an act of courage and something the voters want.

Kitty Piercy, 1372 W. 4th, Eugene, stated she is a member of the Lane County Democrats and they passed a resolution in favor of the Board’s resolution. She noted at the national level there is bipartisan concern with the U.S. Patriot Act. She said they need to establish accountability for what is happening in the county and in the country. She said safeguarding civil rights in times of turmoil becomes everyone’s responsibility. She wanted a report every three months on what is being requested in the county. She added there is concern that the County use no public funds to support the U.S. Patriot Act.


Bevin Gilmore, 1546 Willamette, Eugene, read her letter into the record. (Copy in file.)


Colleen Luellen, 158 E. Avenue, commented that she had concerns about the enforcement of the Patriot Act.


Marjorie Tracy, 839 Crest, Eugene, urged the Board to pass a resolution against enforcing the Patriot Act in Lane County. She was concerned about compelling local people and using local funds to enforce a federal act.


Ken Zimmerman, 82234 Wise Road, Creswell, thanked the Board for considering opposing the Patriot Act and a vote for equality.


Nan Ure, 23671 Suttle Road, Veneta, commented it didn’t matter how many people were at Secret House, it is the volume of music that is not controlled. She said that noise pollution needed to be considered because people move into the country to get away from the noise. She asked the Board to consider the neighborhood. She said if the Board agreed to let Secret House Winery have events then permits should be required and volume regulated.


Nadia Sindhi, 5960 Goodpasture Island Loop, stated she represented the Arab and Muslim communities. She commented that hate crimes have increased for their people after September 11. She urged the Board to pass the resolution against the Patriot Act.


Jerry Smith, 5041 Saxon Way, Eugene, supported the resolution. He urged the Board to vote in support of the resolution.




Dwyer commented that people are well intentioned whatever their views are and if someone doesn’t agree with someone else, they shouldn’t be called a kook or a nut.


Sorenson commented the events in Salem with the state legislators are disturbing. He encouraged the state leaders to step up to try to get the revenues necessary for the state and to make sure the elderly and children are not forgotten.


4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660


To take place after the meeting.




a. ORDER 03-7-2-1/In the Matter of Lane County, Oregon Defending the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties with Respect to the USA Patriot Act.


Wilson explained she took the original resolution that was received from the citizen’s committee on May 14 and revised it to put it in the context that keeps it within the limitation of the Home Rule Charter. She added that Hope Marston passed out a copy where she had made additional revisions. She noted there is one provision in the new material that was handed out that is problematic. She added the other significant change between the two resolutions is the more recent one makes the reporting obligation a continuing one that is a time and resources issue.


Van Vactor explained page 4, paragraph 5 of the resolution, deals with contract agreements. He said they review about 1,200 contracts per year and due to limited staff time; County Counsel only reviews contracts where the cost is over $50,000. He stated this would create a burden because it will require that all the contracts reviewed all the sections of law. He added they might also be applying for homeland security grants and he didn’t know if an ambiguity would be created as to whether any of the laws are impacted.


Wilson suggested making the second sentence parallel to the first sentence in the paragraph so it reads: "No contract or agreement will be approved by the Board if the terms of the contract or agreement are for furtherance of activities under the provisions of the federal law mentioned in the body in a manner that would violate the civil liberties of Lane County residents." She said the Board would not be approving contracts or agreements that are intended to create civil liberty violations. Her concern is the language written as broadly as it is might place a limitation on that.

Van Vactor commented he was not concerned about the addition of reporting every three months because once they initially create the work; it will be straightforward to repeat the information.


Lininger strongly supported the resolution.


MOTION: to move the following changes: with regard to the revision provision, in the whereas clause, page 2 (j), there is an error, he said it should read: "Attorney general’s investigative guidelines promulgated in May 2002." He noted on page 3, section 1 has language that is not as good as the language in the most recent proposal by Marston, dated June 26. He said that is more moderate. He thought it was reasonable to implement. He said page three of the current version and the page three of the June 26 resolution contain four differences: the list of things the County Administrator is to seek is longer in the most recent version. He thought (k) was overbroad. He said the June 26 version that Marston gave was preferable because it doesn’t ask Lane County to seek information from the U. S. Attorney’s Office or from the FBI. He said it only asks Van Vactor to collect information from county departments. He said they should monitor resources that are being used in the anti-terrorist efforts. He added the language wasn’t in the proper format. He commented the Board was elected to run Lane County and manage Lane County resources, not to supervisor federal law enforcement agencies. He suggested taking the entire prior version submitted by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee as Section 1 and put it in favor of the current Section 1. He noted the only thing he is eliminating is (k). With regard to Section 2 and the Sheriff’s reporting obligations, he said the city council directly controls the Eugene Police Department. He said under the Lane County Charter, they don’t directly control the Sheriff’s Department. He said the Sheriff is an independently elected official. He didn’t think the language in the current version would capture all the information. He suggested broader language for the section: Every three months, the County Administrator shall also request through the court from the Lane County Sheriff of any incidences within the past year in which he had assisted in the enforcement or furtherance of the above statutes, regulations and orders by federal authorities.


With regard to (b) he suggested: Pursuant to section 213 of the UPA. He noted that the Sheriff so far had no involvement with this. He thought (c) was too broad. He wanted his motion to include (d), (e), (f) and (g). He commented that the Sheriff had no obligation to provide them with any information. He wanted to also have language about future contracts and agreements.


Lininger MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


MOTION: to move approve to adopt ORDER 03-7-2-1, amended in the following respects: 1) to change the language on Page 2, (j) to get the right name for the attorney general’s order; 2) to substitute in Section 1 of the therefore clauses with the prior section 1 that Hope Marsten e-mailed to everyone on June 26, 3) to substitute Section 2 with language that asks the Sheriff to describe in any way the way he is involved in the anti-terrorist efforts. 4) To limit the counsel’s obligation for review of contracts and grant proposals to those where civil liberties are at stake.


With regard to changes on page 4, Sorenson suggested changing DeFazio’s title to Representative in paragraph 6. He noted in paragraph 7, after Governor Kulingoski, he suggested sending a copy to Oregon Attorney General Hardy Meyers. In paragraph 8 it should read U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.


Lininger accepted Sorenson’s suggestions as an amendment to this motion.


Lininger MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


Dwyer supported the resolution to protect people’s rights.


Green was concerned this could restrict the County in such a way from using public funds to provide necessary public safety, particularly if they were applying for homeland security grants. He supported the resolution because he was against racial profiling.


Morrison stated she had problems with the resolution and would not support it. She thought there were other areas that were not accurate and she didn’t think it was something that Lane County should be involved in, it was something for the U.S. Congress.


VOTE: 4-1 (Morrison dissenting).


b. DISCUSSION/Possible Meeting with Cities Regarding Transportation Funding.


Sorenson stated he and Van Vactor attended several meetings with representatives of the Cities of Springfield and Eugene. He said he wanted to get a level of interest from the Board as to the timing of a meeting.


Van Vactor stated he had been communicating via E-mail with the city managers of all the cities, forwarding spreadsheets. He relayed the message that if the Board were to meet with the cities, it would be with all of them, not just the representatives in the metro area.


Sorenson noted in their initial discussion, Mayors Torrey and Leiken requested that the Public Works Department put together an agreed upon list of revenue and needs from the three jurisdictions, including Cottage Grove as a representative community of the other cities. He noted that process fell apart because the Public Works directors said they were not able to agree on a common methodology to do that. He said if there is interest they would move ahead.


Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, reported that HB 2041 is the major mechanism for funding increases in transportation projects statewide through a combination of increased titling fees, vehicle registration fees and other DMV fees. He added it did not include gas tax increases and it had passed the house for a vote in the senate. He said it is anticipated they will receive the votes necessary for a new revenue bill to pass. He noted it would equate to about $1.43 million in additional money for maintenance and preservation in Lane County. He added there is more money coming to Lane County for bridge construction repair and projects of statewide significance.


Eric Jones, City of Eugene, stated according to the City of Eugene’s calculations over a ten year life of the program, that it would equate to between $7 and $8 per capita, for a total of $950,000 in additional money from OTIA.


Green commented if they were to engage in a conversation with all of the cities, then it would be good to have everyone at the table together. He was interested in the County helping out with deficiencies in their maintenance programs and the cities showing excellent stewardship and accountability of the dollars they had received in prior years from Lane County. He said he was on record as a supporter for the City of Eugene in a number of ways around special projects and road partnership dollars. He said he would commit to helping the City of Eugene finding additional ways to solve their problems. He didn’t want to have a discussion about new dollars or road fund dollars if the City of Eugene’s transportation utility fee remains in effect. He thought a gas tax was an appropriate use for the road funding. He said until the City of Eugene repeals its tax, he won’t entertain a discussion.


Lininger supported allocating to all of the cities as much as can be spared without strings attached. He thought the appropriate way to distribute the money is the road mile formula and not solely on per capita. He believed in a partnership between jurisdictions on problems of regional significance. He commented that transportation is a problem of regional significance.


Dwyer concurred with Green. He was willing to work with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield on a countywide gas tax and registration. He said there needs to be a nexus between the tax and what it is used for. He said he would be willing to work with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield if there was no transportation utility fee. He said he would be active in trying to repeal the tax in Eugene.

Morrison supported setting up a meeting of all cities. She had preliminary conversations with the small cities in her district and there was an interest to participate in conversations about this. She thought there should be parameters around the money so they see something that the dollars are actually going for. She said they need to be concerned about the lack of reauthorization on the federal legislation, if that should happen. She thought strings should be attached with the cities.


Sorenson suggested discussing this over time and waiting to see if the state legislation passes.


Dwyer agreed to wait on this matter.


Sorenson suggested bringing this back on July 30, 2003.




a. Legislative Committee.


Bieda reported the legislature was conducting hearings this week. He noted that Dwyer would be testifying on some revenue options to be considered.


With regard to HB 3013, Bieda explained that this was introduced earlier in the session and cleared the house. He added two weeks ago it was amended, pertaining to the statutes that apply to the extraction of sand and gravel from sites around the state. He noted that both the governor and AOC would be a player in the Conference Committee. He said the primary concern for AOC is that the changes do not lead to a point where the ability of local government to weigh in on land use planning considerations becomes weakened or eliminated as permit requests for mining go forward.


Kent Howe, Land Management, explained that with the Goal 5 Rule, if the site meets certain criteria, then you establish whether it is a significant site worthy of protection and to allow the sand and gravel zoning to be applied and the extraction to occur. He noted the process was done in Douglas County and once they reached the determination that it wasn’t a significant site in the rule, it requires only that the local government maintain a record of that determination. He said once the subject property is found not to be significant by virtue of the rule requirements, it is added to the County’s 1A list and the petitioners could then seek a conditional use permit to mine the site pursuant to the rule. He said Lane County’s code currently allows mining of less than 1,000 cubic yards as a permit process. He said the statute would change in that it would have to be on a significant site or one of the adopted sites. He said the legislation would allow for the definition of inventory. He added it would allow two lists of aggregate resource sites to be utilized.


Dwyer requested that Howe compose a letter and share Lane County’s concerns with the legislators.


Bieda said he and Howe would work together on language that reflects the history and concerns expressed by the Board.


Howe said he would craft a letter, recapping what he stated. He asked if the Board was interested in determining significance of the Goal 5 resource site before allowing mining to occur.


Dwyer responded he was interested.


Howe presented a rough draft letter to the Board.


Howe stated the legislation is explaining that it doesn’t have to be on an inventory of significant sites for a permit to allow mining. He said it is giving the local review of putting sites on an inventory and deeming what is significant after going through the process.


Sorenson stated the effect would be eliminated from the permit process, and they should carefully weigh the concerns. He suggested stating that the Board of Commissioners opposes the change.


Dwyer concurred and amended his motion to add that.


Sorenson suggested drafting a letter stating that the Board of Commissioners asks the legislators to carefully weigh these concerns and oppose the legislation in its present form.


Sorenson reported they would be sending the letter to the leaders of the legislature that recounts the concerns the Board has about HB 3013-A.


MOTION: to send a letter to the legislators.

Dwyer MOVED, Lininger SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-1. (Morrison dissenting).




a. ORAL REPORT/Outdoor Mass Gatherings at Secret House Winery.


Jeff Towery commented that this action and Jim Gillette’s action are updates related to pending planning actions. He stated there was a possibility that either or both of these issues might come to the Board in the future on appeal.


Towery read from a recent LUBA decision regarding mass gatherings.


Sorenson asked how many winery or other outdoor gatherings occur.


Towery responded he didn’t know, but in terms of events that either had been held or advertised they were aware of, the ones proposed at Secret House would be subject to the planning action. He wasn’t aware if any other facilities had scheduled or advertised multiple events over the course of the summer. He added he noticed one other Lane County winery that had advertised a single event.


Dwyer said he would have no objections to the concerts, but if neighbors have concerns about noise and other problems, there needs to be a process that is fair to everyone that gives them an opportunity to comment. He said he had no problem with the process, but with people who don’t feel there is a need for a process and do what they want to do whether the County has a process or not. He recommended heavy fines for violators and for the fines to be carried over from year to year.


Morrison asked if there was an approved application for the Country Fair.


Towery responded what they have is an application that was submitted on Monday that includes the fringe festival and the summer concert series as scheduled. He noted the application is pending and Secret House provided clarifying information upon Land Management’s request. He said they will be reviewing the application and it would be a 30-day process. He added there would be notice provided and an opportunity for comment by the neighbors. He said they would monitor the activities that occur and if the activities are consistent with the application, they wouldn’t expect to pursue any enforcement action until the issue of the application is resolved.


Green asked if people are given the chance to correct the need for the permit, or if they are fined first.


Towery said the process they follow identifies a notification of the issue of non-compliance and a period of time to voluntarily comply, during which time there is no sanctioned levy.


Sorenson requested that Towery include the legal remedies about knowing the status on applications in his report in September.


b. REPORT BACK/Jim Gillette Property.


Towery reported on the status of the application that is pending on Gillette’s property. He stated the record closed on that application this week and they are in the process of attempting to schedule a site visit to confirm some of the aspects of the pending application including its site plan. He noted if they were successful in doing that in the next week, they would expect a final decision on this application by the end of July. He said if the site visit gets set back, it would affect the final decision. He noted there was a prior final local decision regarding some of the activities that are proposed on the property, including paintball. He said they have a prior local decision that states that those types of activities are not permitted and there have been instances where there was paintball on the property. He pursued compliance actions on those activities and even though there is an application pending, any subsequent paintball activities would be subject to an enforcement action.


Sorenson asked about the status of the lien filled on Gillette’s property.


Towery explained the $12,000 lien was accrued based on a series of $600 per day penalties.




A. Approval of Minutes

B. Health and Human Services


1) ORDER 03-7-2-2/In the Matter of Approving the Submission of a Continuum of Care Grant Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Amount of $1,620,066 for the period of January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005.




MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.




VOTE: 4-0.




a. ORDER 03-7-2-3/In the Matter of Approving an Amendment to the Inter-governmental Agreement with the State of Oregon Military Department for Acquisition of the Armory Site Adjacent to the Juvenile Justice Center.


Wilson explained the Oregon Military Department has requested an amendment to their intergovernmental agreement. She said the substantive effect for the County by the amendment is that they would pay out the amount they were committed to pay in order to purchase the current armory site. She said the effect for the National Guard is that they have determined that the 30th Avenue site is not suitable under their congressional appropriations deadline to do the construction and they had located a potential site that they believe would work more appropriate for them.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-7-2-3.


Dwyer moved, Morrison SECONDED.


Dwyer thought it was a win-win situation for everyone.

Sorenson asked what the Russell Creek request was from the Board.


Dan Stotter, Attorney, Russell Creek Neighbors, stated he hadn’t reviewed the specific IGA and didn’t provide any language suggestions. He requested that along with this there would be a move to vacate the land use permit that could only be accomplished by the applicant because the Court ordered approval of that. He said the applicant needed to show good faith by withdrawing 30th Avenue. He added the second consideration he asked from the Board is to put some language in suggesting that the state take some consideration in working with the neighbors to review public or private acquisition opportunities for preservation of the wetlands and natural resources. He thought it would be a win-win situation to get public or private funds to preserve some of the important natural resources.


Lininger supported the motion.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. Direction to Legal Counsel regarding IVM Ordinance


Wilson requested clarification on the direction the Board gave on the IVM ordinance last week. She recalled the Board asked for four ordinances to come back. She noted one ordinance was to be worked on by Public Works IVM, one was to be worked on by Health and Human Services with the Public Health Advisory Committee, and one ordinance was a Bainbridge derivative. She noted there was confusion because there were two Kardell ordinances. She said one was a compilation of what the two advisory committees had worked on in the past. She noted the other was the Bainbridge derivative. She asked the Board which one they wanted to come forward.


Sorenson replied he wanted the ordinance that the two advisory committees worked on.




a. ORDER 03-7-2-4/In the Matter of Adopting the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2004.


David Suchart, Management Services, reported that in the past the Facilities Committee had passed the facility budget but this year he decided to bring the whole issue before the Board. He noted they do all of their capital improvements through the Capital Improvement Fund. He added the fund is funded by the County departments and he divides that into thirds: one-third for capital improvements for the current year, one- third to possible financing of larger projects and one-third into a reserve.


Suchart recalled he sent the Board a ballot that listed projected capital improvements totaling $1.4 million. He added he would have $690,000 to spend for next year. He said those projects needed to be prioritized and the Board prioritized them. (Copy in file).


MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-7-2-4 with the Board’s priorities.




Lininger asked about the status of the Child Advocacy Center.


Doug Harcleroad, District Attorney, reported they had reviewed the budget. He noted they were as much as $20,000 short. He added the numbers had moved in a negative direction. He explained the soft costs have increased and they are $85,000 short. He asked the Board if they wanted to change their minds about going forward with the center. He added they had discussions about the $600,000 with the CDBG grants. He said no one wants to put the money up first and there is a financing issue of $10,000 in building it with County money and then getting it reimbursed. He thought it was too risky to go ahead with the project.


Sorenson asked about certificates of participation and the difference between the Board of Commissioner’s priorities and the facility recommendations.


Suchart responded that the annex roof replacement in the jail was not included in the Board’s priorities or any hazardous materials abatement. With regard to a financing mechanism for the Board priorities (and to meet what was needed) he recommended recommendations one and two (copy in file.) He listed all of the projects the Board had asked for as well as the projects he thinks the County needs to do in taking care of the County resources. He noted the elections relocation was going to be a financing issue. He explained that $150,000 allows him to purchase a facility and remodel it for use by elections. He said they would use this fund and $150,000 per year to finance that portion to do that project. He added they would possibly refinance some of the bonds they currently have outstanding, including the courthouse plaza. He explained the reason for two separate recommendations is that $420,000 would only get a resurfaced courthouse plaza and he would be able to incorporate the Wayne Morse Free Speech project. He said the difference between recommendation one and two would be financing a lower level. He added they wouldn’t be remodeling inside the building, but the entry would be prepared so at some time in the future it could be made into a single entry.


Lininger supported the annex’s replacement and Suchart’s option.


Green supported the facilities recommendation number two.


Dwyer withdrew his motion.


MOTION: to approve Recommendation 2 of ORDER 03-7-2-4.


Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


Morrison commented they need to be careful about the projects they choose to fund and the perception of the public about the money the County has. She approved of Recommendation 2.


VOTE: 5-0.


Suchart reported that besides the Child Advocacy Center and the financing, there would be internal financing in two areas: family law and the dispatch center. He commented the dispatch center is a project that needs to happen as a result of the AIRS conversion. He said the plan is the Sheriff’s Office will reimburse the capital improvement fund for the amount, but the Sheriff couldn’t fund the whole project at once. He noted some of the money would come from Title III and they will need to borrow $280,000 to do the project.


Morrison wanted more information on where the dollars are moving and about the project.


Sorenson requested Suchart bring this matter back to the Board.


Suchart commented they are $85,000 short for the Child Advocacy Center. He noted the state is saying they wouldn’t allow the County to sign a contract with the contractor without having the total financing package in place. He stated currently that he didn’t have the money. He noted the $85,000 would have to be a loan and he would have to add it to the external financing part or finance it internally. Because of all the financing issues involved, he asked if the Board wanted to go ahead with the project to find financing for the project.

Dwyer responded unless they could find the $85,000 they shouldn’t go ahead with the project.


Harcleroad didn’t think they could get the $85,000. He said they should stop the project.


Lininger considered taking money away from the Harris Hall improvements to put toward the Child Advocacy Center. He didn’t want to build the building though if it was going to stand vacant.


Harcleroad commented they have about $300,00 they would get on an annual basis from various sources that would allow them to run it, but it wouldn’t run at a full level unless they had another $200,000.


Dwyer commented if this doesn’t go through they still had the old facility. He said as worthy as the project is, they couldn’t fund everything.


Wilson explained the Board had an existing Board order authorizing execution of a construction contract. She noted there is a contractor anticipating that a contract would be presented for signature. She stated at this point Suchart would have to come back with a Board order withdrawing that authorization.


VOTE: 5-0.


b. ORDER 03-7-2-6/ In the Matter of Rescinding Board Order 03-6-11-10.


Awarding the Bid LCP 2002- 07 Child Advocacy Center Construction




MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-7-2-6.


Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED


VOTE: 5-0.




a. ORDER 03-7-2-5/In the Matter of Applying for a Life Skills for State and Local Prisoners Program Grant.


John Clague, Sheriff’s Office, reported this grant fit in with other initiatives. He added they started to make substantive changes on how they do business with the intent of reducing recidivism. He noted this grant is coming out of the Department of Education. He said it is intended to provide life skills to offenders. He reported they would be targeting the needs for each offender who would participate in the program and providing and addressing the needs though contracts and private non-profits. He said they were not intent on having staff provide the service directly.


Clague stated the areas they are intending to address are self-development and chemical assessment. He said they are going to build on the components they already provide in the jail: English as a second language, adult basic education, GED, job and financial skill development and anger management. He added they were working with Parole and Probation, Lane Community College and different school districts.


Clague explained this was a grant of $475,000 per year, which did not require a match. He said their intention is to continue funding for year two and three if they make substantial progress toward meeting objectives. He said if they operate it correctly, it would be a three-year program. He didn’t know how they would sustain this after the grant period was over.


Green supported this, as it was a first step.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-7-2-5.




VOTE: 5-0.















ORDER 03-7-2-7/In the Matter of Ratifying a Tentative Agreement between Lane County and Lane County Public Works Association Local 626.


MOTION: to approve ORDER 03-7-2-7.


Dwyer MOVED, Lininger SECONDED.


VOTE: 3-0 (Green, Morrison excused.)


There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.





Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary