BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
December 8, 2004
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton and Anna Morrison present.† Peter Sorenson was present via telephone.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Hampton will leave at 11:00 a.m.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Terry Sue Wright, Veterinarian Practitioner, spoke on behalf of the Lane County Veterinarian Medical Association about the rabies vaccination certificate.† She said the LCVMA is in support of measures to increase pet licensure but they have concerns about the practical implication of the measure.† She said veterinarians are concerned about confidentiality of the pet records and the clientís personal information.† She said there could be situations in which an outside non-governmental party could have free access to the information.† She said that was due to the Oregon Public Information Law.†† She said the OVMA is considering legislative action to allow protection of veterinary records similar to that of medical records.† She noted that pet limit laws have not been addressed as suggested prior to enactment of vaccination reporting.† She thinks the measure should be uniform for all of Lane County including incorporated cities and unincorporated Lane County.† She hoped the Board would reconsider implementing this measure until the points are clarified.
Van Vactor indicated that state law doesnít apply inside the incorporated limits because of the police power.† He said if the ordinance is enacted, they would write every city council to ask them to pass a resolution. He thought that would be well received by the cities in Lane County.
Wright was concerned if the vet didnít report properly that they would get punished.
Wilson indicated that it is the location of the veterinary office, not the client who is responsible for the reporting.
Lisa Arkin 1192 Lawrence St., thanked the Board for going through the process of the West Cascade Energy Siting.† She asked the Board to contact the West Cascade Energy Siting Council.† She commented that the Board of Commissioners is afforded more input.† She urged the Board to go ahead in the future to interpret the land use criteria to benefit the people of the County.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
5. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor reported they had a successful Performance Counts conference last Thursday at Lane Community College.† He noted that the Management Team would be taking the information and bringing it to the Leadership Team meeting in January.
6. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/In the Matter of Recommending Applicable Substantive County Land Use Criteria to the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council for the Proposed West Cascade Energy Facility near Coburg (NBA & PM 10/27/04 & 11/22/04).
Kent Howe, Land Management, attached a letter to the Energy Facility Siting Council staff and has identified the applicable criteria they know to date.† He presented the letter for direction on whether to send it by December 15 to the Energy Facility Siting Council.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, indicated the Energy Facility Siting Councilís first task is to find compliance with local criteria.† He said if it doesnít meet all of those criteria, they look at the overall statewide goals and statewide planning program to make a determination.† He said it starts with the local criteria.† He said they need to apply the criteria that was recommended to them but how they make the determination of compliance with the criteria is part of the next step.
Morrison asked what would happen if the state determined this application was complete.
Howe responded that the state also thinks the application is incomplete.† He stated once they deem it complete they will provide Lane County with any additional information that came in where they determine it was complete.† He noted that Lane County would have another opportunity to add what criteria might be triggered as a result of the additional information that made the application complete.
Vorhes indicated they might have an opportunity to identify additional criteria to allow the additional time. He added the applicant could choose to submit all of these applications in advance of going through the FSEP process.† He said it wasnít clear that they have to do that. He added when FSEP issues the site certificate and identifies these as permits that Lane County must issue, one of the things FSEP could do is direct them to apply them to Lane County.
Dwyer thought the letter was a good starting point.† He said the criteria is appropriate because they are all site specific.† He commented that it keeps Lane County in the loop.
MOTION:† to move to send the letter.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
b. REPORT BACK/Periodic Review of Goal 5 Riparian Inventory Inside Eugene Urban Growth Area (Site No. E76).
Kent Howe, Land Management, reported the Board directed he and Steve Vorhes to go to Site E76, the site where Debra Jeffries property is located and review the criteria that the Board of Commissioners and the Eugene City Council adopted and applied to the site and determine whether or not it is appropriate to be included in the inventory.† He added they went out with Neil Bjorkland, City of Eugene, and they met with Debra Jeffries on site.† He said they toured the entire site E-76.† †
Howe noted the historic photos convinced the city staff that the entire site was originally part of a natural riparian system that had been altered in various ways, but still meets the Goal 5 Rule and the significant criteria.† He noted the city and county staff looked at the aerial photos and the map and E-76 is a remnant of a natural water system in the area. He noted there had been significant manmade changes to the system, but it didnít eliminate the basis for consideration of the site under the Goal 5 Rule or the significance criteria adopted by the Board.† He commented that this was originally put on the inventory in 2000, but there had been significant development that was continuing.† He said those are relevant under the ESEE Goal 5 analysis of what is going to happen to the inventory site.† He asked if it warranted protection under the Goal 5 Rule because it is intact and a significant site or it has been impacted with development to the point that it isnít a significant site and it comes off the inventory.† He noted that is the next part of the analysis being done by the city.
Howe noted that he and Vorhes objectively tried not to get into the emotional issues and reviewed the criteria.† He thought if they go to the criteria that the Board adopted (Exhibit A), they just had to meet one of those in Tier 1.† They thought it looked like three were met.† He noted under Tier 2,† those required that they be consistent and they thought those were met as well.† He said from a standpoint of inventory he asked if it was a riparian Goal 5 resource feature, (the site as a whole) and they thought it did.† He stated the subsequent analysis under the Goal 5 Rule ESEE analysis would be looking at the development that has occurred to that inventory site and determine whether it still warrants to be designated into the inventory.† He said the Board of Commissioners would have the opportunity to determine whether or not the site or portions of it warrant protection and should remain on the inventory or be removed.
Debbie Jeffries, didnít agree with Howe and Vorhesí conclusions. Her understanding was there were two standards that were needed, the Goal 5 Rule and they looked at the significance criteria test that the city used and that the County adopted.† She didnít understand that if it applies to the Goal 5 Rule and the Board agrees it applies, why there is no acknowledgment that it is a significant alteration.† She added if it is a manmade significant change then it should not be included.† She asked how E-76 meets three of the criteria, because the land is developed and it couldnít meet the criteria.† She said it was her understanding that the area is not in the 100-year flood plain.† She said that she had not seen an inventory of plant material in the area. She didnít think it met any of the three criteria.† She noted there had been dirt that had been moved and she thought it was significant.† She thought the area should have been removed based on the cityís criteria.† She said she was disappointed† She indicated she is meeting before LCDC on Friday.† She said she would be back with an ESEE analysis if this werenít pulled off.† She noted the issue of historical data was not part of the inventory.† She added the history information didnít appear until Emily Jerome in the city wrote a comment from the petition that she wrote following the original agreement.
Green asked what would happen if the Board removed this and they go before LCDC and they sustain it as a bad error.
Jeffries commented that DLCD staff was inclined to allow local government to make their own criteria and their own decisions.† She said their involvement within a local government choice is minimal.
Dwyer noted the evaluation is the result of a Transitional Agreement they have with the City of Eugene that gives them the jurisdiction over this UGB.† He said no matter what Lane County does, the cityís assertion would still be there.† He added the other problem is under the terms of the Transitional Agreement, he wasnít sure they could say anything different.† With regard to the ESEE analysis, he said the purpose of that is that when those sites are identified it gives another way to show that the criteria shouldnít be there.† He noted the ESEE analysis has to come into play.† He said if her claim had merit with regard to the ESEE analysis, she would prevail at that level.
Hampton asked if it was her intention to have the pond area removed or the entire E-76 area.
Jeffries thought the entire area should be removed.† She said it used to be part of the McKenzie Irrigation District.† Her interest is to have the pond removed.† She said the problem she has with the process is she thinks she is following the rules.† She was provided with a state administrative rule that she was told that everyone follows.† She was provided with criteria and was told those are the standards that would be used.† She said everyone wants to state that it has significantly changed but no one wants to say that is undeveloped.† She said it couldnít be both.† She stated the County still represents her, as she is still a County resident.† She said the County adopts ordinances that could be separate from the City of Eugene.
Morrison stated the inventory that was given was not accurate and they will see more of these types of problems.† She didnít think the process of going through an ESEE analysis was fair to the people.† She said this property should never have been included in the inventory.
Dwyer suggested that they need to clarify how development is defined.
Vorhes noted there were parts of the E-76 site that have been developed with houses and other things that might affect the riparian habitat in that area.† He noted there were other areas that were still not developed and the debate is that it started out as a natural feature and the degree of manmade change is where the difference lies.† He said the instruction received from DLCD was if there was a breaking point and if something was entirely manmade, they were taken out of the inventory, but if it was an original feature that had been altered in some fashion by man to use for irrigation or other purposes, that wasnít enough to take it out of an inventory.† He noted the whole area had been to DLCD to appeal and was upheld when the city took action on the inventory.
Jeffries said the County was maintaining that the pond was created when the McKenzie River supply dried up.† She noted it was a natural creation.† She added it went from a 20-foot creek to a 300-foot wide, 15-foot hole.† She added there is no water.
Dwyer asked what would happen if they took the pond out.
Vorhes responded from a process standpoint, they could get to that point and if that is the inventory that is adopted, he said it might end the inquiry.† He said what the Board had in front of them when they took action was the inventory by an ordinance.† He said if there is an interest, he recommended discussing how they move forward to get it back to the Board to consider at the inventory stage.
Dwyer was concerned about the process and treating everyone fairly.
Vorhes indicated if there was an interest in revisiting this at the inventory stage, he recommended coming back to discuss the sites or all of the sites in the urban growth area.
Hampton didnít view the pond being any more special than any of the development that had occurred on the east side of the road.† He asked why they wanted to protect something that was not natural.
Howe noted the site is the entire feature, not just the pond or portions of the site.† He indicated there was development that had occurred in the site.† He stated that development is impacting the integrity of the feature.† He added all of that would be reviewed under the ESEE analysis to determine whether or not portions of the feature should remain on the inventory or the whole part should come out of the inventory.
Morrison commented that this property should have been removed but the city staff wonít acknowledge that.
Vorhes recommended amending the ordinance to provide the opportunity to speak on the change to the ordinance.
Dwyer said whatever they do, it would not impact the cityís ordinance.† He said it doesnít impact the Transitional Agreement and he didnít know how useful it would be at DLCD or any other subsequent hearings.
Vorhes explained the process would lead to hearings in front of the Board on the issues of removal of land at that site.† He said they could try to limit the focus on the particular site, but there would be the potential that anyone interested could ask for their property to be put on as well.† He added it would give the city direction on what to do with the ESEE analysis but if they disagreed he didnít know if the city had a strong recommendation to the County on it and they might see it again.† He said if they want to look at removing that the Board should give clear direction on the ESEE analysis.
Howe indicated the City of Eugene was performing the ESEE analysis.
Jeffries commented that an ESEE analysis does not remove anything from the inventory; it qualifies whether something is to be protected.† She stated she wanted to be off of the inventory.
Vorhes stated his understanding of the ESEE analysis is that it could result in the removal of a site or portions of a site from the inventory.† He added when they do an ESEE analysis, if it shows changes have occurred or a site no longer fits, it comes off.† He said it is intended to come before the Board with a revised inventory to adopt as part of the Metro Plan.† The intention is to remove those things that, as part of the ESEE analysis as shown or to narrow the focus on the site, indicate the quality of the sites and if they should be considered part of the inventory.
Jeffries understood the City of Eugene is doing a whole ESEE analysis without public input.† She noted there was no information released as to their methodology and they were limited by money.
Green asked if there was a majority of the Board willing to withdraw the site in question from the inventory.† He supported it.
Sorenson favored an hour briefing by the advocates trying to protect the process so they could give a briefing on why they had been struggling to get the compliance in place.
Dwyer was not in favor of changing the process.† He thought the process would be closer to meeting Jeffriesí goal the way it is than by changing and starting another process that would be subject to appeal and would be drawn out.† He thought the process currently in effect would be the quickest way to resolve the problem.
Green noted there was not a majority of support for what Jeffries wanted to do.
Jeffries noted that Hampton was out to the property and agreed with her that this didnít belong on the inventory.† She was disappointed that he reversed his decision.
Hampton stated he was supportive of removal of the pond.† He thought when the ESEE analysis comes back that there might be more evidence on Jeffriesí side to remove the pond than there is now.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:† None.
B. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 04-12-8-2/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Sign a Contract with White Bird Clinic in the Amount of $259,278 for Mental Health Crisis Services for the Period October 1, 2004 Through September 30, 2005.
C. Public Works
1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-12-8-3/In the Matter of Setting a Public Hearing on the Proposed Surrender of a Portion of Lincoln Avenue (County Road Number 1131) and a Portion of South 10th Street (County Road Numbers 1163 and 1930) to the City of Cottage Grove.
MOTION:† to approve the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
8. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-12-8-4/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 4 of the Lane Manual to Update Investment Policies (LM 4.015 Through 4.020).
Mike Barnhart, Management Services, requested an amendment to the Lane County Investment Policy, located in Chapter 4 of the Lane Manual.† He noted that currently their investment policies limit securities to a maturity of three years.† He noted the purpose of that is too keep their portfolio liquid and to reduce their exposure to interest rate risk.† He said the negative affect of the policy is that it limits the ability to invest in a longer-term maturity that might yield higher investment returns.† He noted that ORS would allow them to extend the maturity for more than three years if the Board approves it for specific issues.† He said the amendment they are proposing will remove the strict three year barrier and will provide them the opportunity to analyze their investment strategies.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-12-8-4.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
b. REPORT/GFOA Award. (PULLED)
9. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/Evaluation of County Administrator. †
Green commented that this year he had received less written comments.
Hampton indicated the form was tedious and he would rather have topics instead of having someone comment with their own words.
Dwyer stated he doesnít do written evaluations.† He commented that Van Vactor is open and accessible and applies himself.† He said he understands the big picture and delegates responsibility.† He commented that Lane County is lucky to have Van Vactor as their County Administrator.
Morrison† commented that Van Vactor has the ability of making people feel comfortable in situations.† She noted that Lane County is lucky to have Van Vactor and she feels fortunate to have him.† Her concern is the succession planning.† She said they have to start working on that.† She thought it was a good year and she appreciated Van Vactorís work in implementing the Strategic Plan, keeping them focused on performance measures and giving direction. †
Hampton appreciated the fact that Van Vactor will express his opinion about how things should go.† He appreciated his guidance, and that is where institutional memory comes in to play.† He said that Van Vactor balances all the needs of all the departments.
Sorenson stated his comments were put in an e-mail on November 22.† He commented that Van Vactor is a caring person who tries to do the best for the people of Lane County.† He agreed that they are going to have to work on a succession plan for that position.
Green agreed with what everyone had said.† He indicated he increased Van Vactorís score this year as he has been pleased with Van Vactorís progress on the diversity issues.† He enjoys working with him and stated that Van Vactor has a great sense of humor.† He thought the Board should start thinking about who would be ready to take Van Vactorís job.† He thought it should be a priority for the Board.† He wanted to discuss this on a quarterly basis.
Van Vactor stated he enjoyed his job because Lane County is a wonderful place to work.† He thanked all of his staff that helped him look good. He added it is the relationships with the people he has worked with over the years that make it a good place to work. He stated he had no plans to retire.† He said his contract expires at the end of December.† He said he would be ďat willď with an obligation on his part to give the Board 90 days notice.
Wilson recalled the way the contract is written is that while the term of the contract ends for Van Vactor the end of December, the terms roll over on a month-to-month basis.† She said looking ahead, if they were to grant a COLA to the organization at some point in the future and he would still be on a month-to-month contract, the terms and conditions would include his getting a raise.
Green indicated that based on the comments,† the average rating was a nine which is exceptional on the scale.
Van Vactor recommended having Greta Utecht make a report on succession planning within the next 90 days.
b. Letter from Pauline Rughani
Green read the letter into the record from Pauline Rughani who resigned from the Planning Commission.† He noted the Board went through a process and they reviewed the applications.† He suggested talking with Kent Howe to appoint Mark Herbert for reappointment. †
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 11:00 a.m.