BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

WORK SESSION

June 15, 2004

9:00 a.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 9/15/04

 

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.  County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

  1.       ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA

            None.

 

# 2.      PUBLIC COMMENTS

            None.

 

   3.      COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE

 

            None.

 

   4.      EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

            None.

 

   5.      COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a.         Announcements

 

            None.

 

b.         ORAL REPORT/Strategic Plan Update.

 

            Tanya Heaton, Administrative Services Manager, explained that a Strategic Plan determines where an organization is going over the next few years.  She said the purpose is to set priorities, provide clear direction and establish strategies to achieve those goals.  She indicated in the past year they heard department directors mention business plans and that Lane County should have one instead of a Strategic Plan.  She noted a business plan was different than a Strategic Plan in that a business plan usually focuses on one set of programs or a service or a type of business.  She commented that Lane County is unique in that it has 14 different businesses in that each department runs a separate business.  She said the Strategic Plan was never intended to be a business plan for each division, but a plan to get them going in one direction. 

 

            With regard to accomplishments over the past three years, Heaton said they set priorities, including analytical capability. She said those were things the Strategic Plan Executive Committee identified as the number one thing they should study.  She indicated that departments had done some of those things and others were done countywide.  She said the departments focused on analytical capabilities, management analysts had been added in Health and Human Services, the Sheriff’s Office and in Youth Services.  She noted other departments have added administrative analysts or accounting analysts.  She noted that cross-departmentalized teams have been used in Health and Human Service, Youth Services and the Sheriff’s Office to look at reorganization.  She noted that Children and Families had reorganized and Healthy Start moved into Health and Human Services.  She indicated there was an evaluation done by the PSCC in public safety programs to see how better they can work together to meet their goal.

 

            Heaton explained they have a Human Resources and Information Technology Plan and a Land and Facilities Inventory.  She said these were specifically called out in the Strategic Plan and have been completed.  With regard to rapid process improvement, she said they had several pilot projects and conducted research on methodology and an independent team recommended that rapid process improvement be the best one for the County and approved it.  She noted it has been used in A & T, Public Works, Land Management, Youth Services and Health and Human Services.  She indicated that CAO and BCC used it for the agenda cover memo review process.  She said that countywide they have a Communications Plan and they added a timber analyst and performance and planning analyst.  She passed out a sheet on performance measures (copy in file).

 

            Sorenson asked if the Strategic Plan was used to make budget reductions.

 

            Heaton responded that the Strategic Plan has four areas of service improvement with a list of strategies.  She noted in Section B Resource Planning and Allocation (copy in file) of the Strategic Plan, there is a section that discusses reductions.  She noted that it stated to the extent possible, across the board reductions would be avoided; reductions will be made on the basis of established criteria.  She indicated that one of the strategies that had not been completed has been to establish that criteria.  She indicated in the past two years, budget committees had tried to use the funding priorities in B 3) a), discussing allocating new revenue to make reductions.  She said that didn’t work well.  She added that last summer they worked on establishing reduction criteria.  She said no one could come to a conclusion on what the reduction criteria would be.  She indicated it is one of the strategies that the executive committee established and has to be set, but has yet to be done.  She indicated the Strategic Plan contains over 50 strategies.

 

            Dwyer commented that due to the plan, they need to take the Sheriff’s Office off of the general fund, if they are going to be a government other than a law enforcement agency.

 

            Morrison said if they choose not to use the Strategic Plan as a guide, they wouldn’t get anywhere.  She commented that in this budget cycle there were departments that used the Strategic Plan in making their decisions on where the nine percent reduction would come from.  She indicated there were decisions in some departments to consider incremental cuts.  She said the Board failed to recognize that.  She said the Strategic Plan is a guiding tool.  She thought if they needed to eliminate some programs until revenues change, that is what they need to do.  She said unless they are willing to try some of those things, they won’t be able to deal with the loss of revenue.

 

            Dwyer said if they are discussing eliminating complete services, then that needs to take place in the open, after the budget, prior to the next budget.  He said the Strategic Plan is a tool but they need to structure it so it doesn’t drive decisions where there are unintended consequences.  He wanted to have those discussions.

 

            Hampton wanted to establish criteria so the public has time to prepare or react to it.

 

            Green concurred because applying some of the principles within the plan allow them to inform the public about why they are doing it.  He said they need to live within their means and that might mean elimination of some services to show the impacts.

 

            With regard to performance measures, Heaton explained the outcome results are efficiencies and what is working.  She said that type of analysis and data collection is going to be done as a performance measure.  She noted the Sheriff’s Office uses performance measures.  She commented that the Strategic Plan is just one of many management tools.  She said what was critical is performance measures, quarterly financial reports and analytical capabilities that are countywide.

 

            Green said they need to know what their strengths are, versus what the deficits are.  He asked if the reduction criteria should come back to the Board or if it should go with the Stabilization Task Force.

 

            Dwyer commented that it should go with the task force because a reduction criteria is a way to rearrange the delivery of services.

 

            Green asked how they would get the work done in the interim period after they adopted the budget.

 

            Van Vactor said the Board needed to support whatever reduction criteria they come up with. He reiterated that the Management Team could not reach agreement and wanted the Board to do that.  He thought the scope of the task force was different and didn’t think they could come up with the difficult choices.  He thought the Board, as a management team, should do that task.

 

            Morrison said that the Board should help develop the work plan.

 

            Sorenson asked how the Stabilization Task Force would help advance the Strategic Plan.

 

            Van Vactor stated the Board was clear that they wanted Lane County to remain a general-purpose government.  He commented that Lane County doesn’t have the resources to be a general-purpose government.  He thought an outside group should review to see if Lane County should keep doing that.

 

            Green thought the task force should determine whether they are the right size.  He commented the Board doesn’t seem to be able to get to a point of agreement. 

 

            Heaton thought the task force might be able to give the Board some strategies on the next steps and updating the Strategic Plan for the future.

 

            Hampton wanted an executive summary about the issues and proposals that were discussed and why there wasn’t agreement with the Management Team.

 

            Van Vactor noted there was a list of possible reduction criteria.  He suggested having a Leadership Team meeting where the criteria is distributed and they could hear from the department heads.

 

            Heaton indicated the critical path items were yet to be done.  She added they were in progress and had to focus on them.

 

            Van Vactor noted that in the budget for tomorrow the County Administration budget proposes to reduce Heaton’s position of Senior Management Analyst II, but keep the position so they could move forward.

 

   6.      PUBLIC WORKS

 

a.         THIRD READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. 7-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 13 of Lane Code to Add Definitions Pertaining to Legal Lots and Property Line Adjustments and to Add a Legal Lot Verification Provision (LC 13.010 and 13.020). (NBA & PM 4/28/04 & 5/12/04).

 

            Steve Hopkins, Land Management, recalled the first hearing on this matter was on May 12 and at that time the Board directed staff to close the hearing.  The Board also wanted staff to revise the amendment in order to address the issues that were raised during public comment.  He stated the Board gave direction to staff to polish the wording to make the intent clearer, not to expand the scope of the amendment.  He said the Board didn’t want any more public hearings and to keep the amendment simple.

 

            Hopkins indicated he made several versions and each one resulted in creating new issues that could only be resolved by expanding the scope of the amendments.  He noted the definition of legal lot in the amendment is the same as what is currently in Lane Code Chapter 16.  He added if they wanted to change that, they would have to re-open the hearing.

 

            Hopkins recalled that at the first hearing, Land Watch and 1000 Friends of Eugene wanted to address the definition of legal lot.  He added the Goal 1 Coalition wanted to expand the definition of property line adjustment from what is in the ORS.  He said that Bob Ezell, Surveyor, stated it violated ORS 92 and 215 but it does not.  Hopkins noted that Ezell said the amendment does not regulate property line adjustments and he indicated that ORS required them to do that.  Hopkins stated they are only allowed to do that; they are not required to regulate property line adjustments.

 

            With regard to roads dividing parcels, Hopkins stated it was a complex issue and was beyond the scope of this amendment.  He said if they wanted to address that, they would need to look at the broader issues of regulating property line adjustments and looking at the other criteria for what creates a legal lot.  He indicated he created a work program to address those issues. (Copy in file)  He said it would take at least six months at a .5 FTE to address and resolve those issues.

 

            Hopkins’ recommendation to the Board is that they adopt what is before them.  He added if the Board wanted to address the broader issues, then there should be a separate amendment created.

 

            Sorenson asked if all of the draft amendments were shared with the people who testified at the public hearing.

 

            Hopkins responded they weren’t.  He said they were shared with Kent Howe, Land Management and county counsel.  He stated they all agreed it was bringing up issues that were beyond the scope.

 

            Sorenson asked what the difficulty would be in sharing the drafts with the group of attorneys and consultants that testified.

 

            Hopkins explained in order to do that it would require an expanded work program.  He said all the comments were regarding expanding the scope of the amendment.  He noted what this amendment does is take a narrow view that says they would notice certain verifications.  He added the comments wanted to go beyond that and there was no way to address those comments.

 

            Sorenson asked what the downsize was for the Board not approving this as proposed as it doesn’t address all of the comments.

 

            Hopkins recalled this was something that was recommended by the task force and planning commission and is what the public wanted.

 

            Vorhes explained the process the Board contemplates could happen but the direction of the Board at the last meeting was for staff to review the comments and consider whether that should result in changes to the proposal that was in front of the Board and that is what they did.  With regard to the downside, he said the issue of legal lots and property line adjustments is what the task force directed to be done as possible.  He said this piece would not happen until the larger study and effort comes to a conclusion and the Board takes action to adopt whatever comes out of that.

 

            Green reiterated the recommendation from staff was to adopt this as presented and the larger issues would come back in a work plan.  He agreed with that.

 

            Sorenson commented because of the narrow scope of the project, he was concerned they would adopt this and the rest would come later.  He asked what remained to be done to straighten out the topic.

 

            Hopkins responded the Board would have to determine whether or not they want to regulate property line adjustments, they have to address whether they want to codify the legal lot criteria, whether roads divide legal lots.  He said any issues that the task force did not come to an agreement on could take longer.  He added an option would be not to do anything.

 

            Sorenson thought this could be a starting point for a broader look to issues that the task force wasn’t able to resolve instead of approving this knowing there is opposition to it.

 

            Green stated the issue is whether they want to take an incremental approach and put it into a work plan as presented.  He said if that is not acceptable by the Board, staff said it would take a minimum of a year to get to that part.  He thought the report was to do something to demonstrate they are considering it and then put the other piece in a perspective that is workable.

 

            Dwyer wanted to see all the issues resolved.  He said this requires notice where notice wasn’t required before.  He supported this if it was part of a more comprehensive look at those other issues.  He said if he could get a commitment, they could examine the other issues that come up with a more comprehensive solution.  He said he would be okay with this.

 

            Green commented the value of having a work plan is that they could request updates as often as possible in terms of an action plan.

 

            Hampton hoped the Board would give clear direction that this is only the beginning and they want the whole thing completed so they could be in compliance in state law.  He wondered why Lane County wasn’t doing it the same as everyone else.

           

            Green stated while this represents the work plan and the level of staff that would be necessary, there are implications with this.  He said if the Board is willing to go with this, then something else in Land Management doesn’t get done.

 

            Sorenson asked what the downside would be of putting in a sunset clause.

 

            Vorhes responded the downside would be similar to not acting because when it is no longer in effect, this kind of decision would not have the notice provisions or any of those things happening, unless the Board were to enact something else to take its place.  He noted the second issue is to incorporate into this ordinance a sunset provision.  He explained a sunset provision means it would no longer be in effect. 

 

            Hampton concurred with Green about Land Management periodically checking in with the Board to let them know what they are working on.

 

            Dwyer wanted to go in good faith that they wanted this first step to be incorporated into a larger project and bring back those incorporations before the year is out so they could act on a broader aspect that incorporates the changes that they made.

 

            MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. 7-04.

 

            Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

            Sorenson thought the written testimony before the Board is that the proposed definition of legal lot in this ordinance is confusing, incomplete, and not helpful.  He added the proposed definition of legal lot verification fails to directly address property line adjustments.  He was voting against the motion.

 

            ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

            Howe noted that Land Management has the telecommunication tower standards that are going to the Lane County Planning Commission in July.  He stated the riparian regulation is a large work program effort that they hadn’t started yet.  He added for the rural area there is legislative rule updates that are pending which they hope to get to the Planning Commission in September.  He indicated they are doing monitoring for Regional Parks and Open Space and the Southern Willamette Valley groundwater issue, which is a minor work effort.  He said the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Lane County Parks Master Plan Update are items that are coming up.  He noted they only have a certain number of staff.  He thought things could be stretched out and they could still do the larger version of the legal lot issue but they wouldn’t be able to do the riparian regulations at the same time.  He thought they could get back to the Board by the end of the year on the work they had done.  He said they would be working on this but not on the riparian regulations.

 

            MOTION:  to move to direct Land Management to work on the broader issues that were enumerated and to be able to fold into this ordinance and have it done by the end of the year.

 

            Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.

 

            Sorenson asked  if the motion directed Land Management to work with the people who came in to oppose the previous ordinance and that their views would also be equally considered with the consultants and attorneys that represent.

 

            Dwyer responded his motion would not exclude any dialogue of people who might be affected.

 

            Sorenson wanted to make sure it was the intent of the Board that County resources are applied equally in the development of the ordinance.

 

VOTE:  5-0.

 

  7.       COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

            Hampton announced that the City of Cottage Grove had been selected as an All American  City.

 

  8.       CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

            None.

 

  9.       COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS

            None.

 

 10.      EMERGENCY BUSINESS

            None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting a 11:00 a.m.

  

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary