BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
June 23, 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.† (Commissioner Green left at 10:45 a.m. and Commissioner Hampton presided over the remainder of the meeting.)
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Green noted there is an Emergency Business item.† He said he would be leaving at 10:30 a.m.† There will be an item about the District Attorney under Other Business.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 04-6-23-1/In the Matter of Adopting the FY 2003-2004 Supplemental Budget #3, Making, Reducing, and Transferring Appropriations.
Anette Spickard, Budget Analyst, said this is Supplemental Budget #3 for the current fiscal† year and it is the last one for this year.† She noted the Oregon Local Budget Law requires them to publish a legal notice showing all of the changes they are asking to be made to all of the funds.† She noted the legal notice was published in The Register-Guard on June 16.† She explained because they have one fund requesting a change that is greater than 10% of their appropriations, the Board is required to hold a public hearing.† She said it is for the Law Library fund. She noted Attachment A (copy in file) is the listing explaining all of the changes the departments had requested to be made to their budget.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-6-23-1.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Hampton thanked everyone for their condolences over his personal loss.
6. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. REPORT BACK/Siuslaw Stewardship Group.
David Eisler, Siuslaw Stewardship Group, said the stewardship group thought it was important to inform the Board of the achievements of the Siuslaw Stewardship project. He said they see it as a valuable tool for achieving some of Lane Countyís goals including increasing jobs in economically depressed rural communities, leveraging additional funds into Lane County from the stewardship project and developing trust between public agencies and rural landowners and addressing restoration needs addressed by private landowners.† He indicated that no one was contesting the Siuslaw stewardship timber sale.
Mary Ishlog, Siuslaw Stewardship Group, noted some of the tools they have available for implementation of the timber sale program are not available to them on a regular program.† She said they saved $50,000 in implementation in order to get their timber sale accomplished.† She commented they were able to get more done with less money.† She noted the timber industry had been favorable to their stewardship contracting.† She said they havenít been getting as much funding for their implementation and with the money they save on the stewardship contract, they are able to get more done.
Marcus Kaufman, Siuslaw Stewardship Group, explained that the stewardship project is providing important community benefits to the rural communities in Lane County.† He said they are supporting about 25 jobs.† He commented that stewardship is a tool to get things done to support restoration and it can be profitable.† He noted that the Siuslaw is a model that could be replicated in other places.
Green asked if they were seeking a letter of support from the Board.
Kaufman recalled that the last time they were before the Board, Sorenson suggested they draft a letter of support from the Board to Undersecretary Rey.
Sorenson thought this project was worth the time and support.
Morrison commented that Lane County doesnít have access to all revenue streams.† She was concerned about reauthorization.† With regard to the stewardship contracting program, she was in support, as long as it is implemented in the way that it was intended.† She was concerned that the revenue that was generated was being spent, as it doesnít possibly meet the intent of the legislation.† She noted that criteria that was developed on the spending of dollars has been a concern.† She noted under the new legislation, the money for Lane County was to be reinvested locally and that is no longer the case.
Ishlog indicated there is a provision in the handbook for monies to be spent in other stewardship locations.† She states they could only do it with all the parties knowing about it in advance and it has to be agreed to by the regional forester.† She noted there had been tough restrictions on it.
Morrisonís concern was the lack of diversity in the group.
Ishlog responded that the stewardship group keeps their membership open.
Green commented that if the Board is requested to sign a letter there needed to be more frequent communication between them and the Board.
Hampton commented that by sending this letter, it should not be construed by anyone that their operation is perfect.† He thought they should have goals to improve their process.† He was concerned about the sustainability and generating the revenue to keep the program going.† He supported signing the letter, but thinks improvements could be made.
Morrison requested changes to the letter.† She said they are writing to express support of the stewardship contracting process, not the Siuslaw Stewardship Project. †She said she was supportive of stewardship contracting in the way it is intended.† She said that stewardship contracting benefits Lane County in several important ways.† She commented that stewardship contracting is one thing and the Siuslaw Stewardship Project is another.† She would support the letter if there were changes.† She asked Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, to review the letter.
Dwyer said he had no problem with the stewardship concept.† He agreed it should be more general in what they support as there are other watershed councils.† He said if they are going to send a letter, he wanted it to be more general about stewardship projects.
MOTION: to send a letter with the noted changes to meet the concerns of the Board.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Sorenson was supportive of the letter.
b. ORDER 04-6-23-12 Recognizing Jim Forbesí Outstanding Service to the Citizens of Lane County
Green read the resolution about Jim Forbes into the record.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
c. ORDER 04-6-23-2/In the Matter of Concurring with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) Wastewater Facilities Plan as Approved by the MWMC.
Troy McAllister, City of Springfield, stated he is the project manager for MWMC for this facilities plan.† He recalled that MWMC adopted the 2004 Facilities Plan on May 6.† He said that staff forwarded the plan to the Board of Commissioners for concurrence.† He said Lane County reviewed the public facilities plan in a Work Session on May 19 and conducted a Public Hearing on June 9.† He added the record for the Public Hearing was held open until June 16 to enable written submittals of comments.† He indicated the Board received the facilities plan before the May 19 Work Session that included the proposed board order that will acknowledge the Boardís concurrence with the MWMC Facilities Plan.† He added supplemental packets were distributed to the Board on May 27, June 9, and June 17.† He indicated these packets responded to public testimony that had come up during the public review of the 2004 plan.† He asked, per the resolution approved by MWMC on May 6, that the Board approve this matter.
Dwyer asked why there were road projects in the plan.
McAllister responded there is a River Avenue street improvement project that will assess property by the City of Eugene along the frontage of River Avenue.† He noted the wastewater treatment plant is next to the River Avenue facility.
Green asked if the property owners along River Avenue knew about the assessments.
Dave Brietenstein, Plant Manager, City of Eugene, said they assisted the engineering department by helping host a public information meeting for the property owners on River Avenue about the project.† He noted it was well attended.
Matt Noesen, Ch2m Hill, noted there is explicitly listed in the 20 year project list for each five years, a partial update to the facilities plan and every 10 years a comprehensive update to review any changes in the regulatory environment and to adjust the plan in the event there are any changes.
Dwyer asked what would happen to sewer rates as a result of the adoption of the plan.
Gary Caldwell, City of Springfield, indicated that on May 6 the commission approved sewer rates forwarded to the cities that increased the regional portion by 24%.† He said the increase for the average residential is from $9.09 to $11.28 or $2.17 per month.† He said that could continuously fund unforeseen debt service on revenue bonds plus a sufficient contribution to the capital fund.† He noted those monies together with SDC revenues should be sufficient to fund projected capital costs through the study period.† He explained that Noesen and Ch2m Hill reviewed similar areas in Salem, Albany and Corvallis.† He said Eugene/Springfield is far below the other cities.
Dwyer stated they needed full disclosure so the public will understand what the cost would be and why.† He commented they are doing this because the DEQ and the discharge limits in wet weather incidents donít allow them to treat what is going into the river.† He was glad there was a review because the standards changed.
Green commented that Lane County didnít have many options because it was mandated by the DEQ.
Morrison asked if there had been any legal challenges on the plan.
Larry Thorpe, Attorney for Home Builders of Lane County, explained that the Home Builders filed an appeal to the DEQ of the resolution that had been adopted approving the facilities plan for MWMC, not the amendments to the public facilities plan.† He noted it was pending in LUBA.† He added that a motion was filed to dismiss that on the basis that it was not appropriately filed.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-6-23-2.
Sorenson MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
Morrison stated that she wouldnít support the motion.† She indicated she sits on the MWMC Board and had problems with the overall plan and the costs.† She wasnít comfortable with the process from the beginning.†† She wasnít sure that this plan was warranted.
Sorenson thought it was bad that they were having overflows into the Willamette River.† He thought they had a choice as a community on whether they are going to do their part to clean up the river.† He thought it was important to note that building these facilities will cost money but the down side of not continuing to clean up the river has to be weighed.† He said they have to move ahead to clean up the river.
VOTE: 4-1 (Morrison dissenting).
Dwyer commented that he reluctantly voted to support the plan.† He said they need to look at ways to reduce the costs to citizens to allow them to comply with what they are requested to do.† He noted they are still below what comparable cities are paying.
Green also supported this reluctantly.† He didnít believe the general public was aware of this and the debt.† He was concerned that DEQ was asking for changes but there is no money for it.† He hoped they would be able to keep it affordable by ways of refunding.
d. ORDER 04-6-23-3/In the Matter of Ratifying the FY 04-05 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program as Approved by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC).
Caldwell explained that MWMC completed its annual regional wastewater program budget and capital improvement plan process on May 6 after conducting two public hearings with a two week extended period for submittal of written comments.† He noted, per the MWMC resolution adopting the budget and CIP on May 6 and the IGA, they have forwarded the budget and the CIP to the governing bodies for ratification.† He noted the Board agenda packet was provided to the Board and this was originally scheduled for the May 19 meeting.† He requested the Board approve the board order.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Morrison stated she wouldnít support it.† She commented that in the six years she has been on the MWMC, she was supportive of everything that had taken place, but in the past six months her frustrations had to do with the information she received.† She stated her comfort level wasnít there in justifying some of the things that are in the plan.
VOTE: 3-1 (Morrison dissenting, Green excused).
e. DISCUSSION/County and Association of O&C Counties in New BLM Planning Process.
Morrison recalled that about two months ago at the O & C Counties meeting there was discussion on the new BLM planning process that would be moving forward because of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court in which the O & C Counties had been involved.† She noted that under the Northwest Forest Plan there were certain things to be accomplished within a time line and that did not take place.† She said they went forward with a legal challenge with regard to the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.† She noted there was a settlement that was reached in the middle of 2003 [copy of the settlement attached in file], that outlines what the agency is to move forward with. She said the O & C Counties had a discussion regarding how they were going to participate with the BLM.† She stated that Douglas County had hired Van Manning to represent them at the table in the re-writing of the management plan.† She said the offer was put out to all other O & C Counties that if they wanted to participate and have Manning at the table, that they would do it.† She stated that Douglas County was absorbing the cost.† She explained that it would be a lengthy process and there will be technical issues that will be researched.† She commented that Manning is knowledgeable about how the BLM is supposed to operate in the implementation of the act.† She noted that Lane County is the only county at this point that has not agreed to have Manning represent them.† She thought Manning should represent them as it would benefit Lane County.† She asked if there was an interest in having Manning represent them.† She said they would need to send the attached letter or they could compose another one.
Morrison indicated if they use Van Manning or attend the meetings themselves† there would be costs.† She noted that O & C did not have this in their budget.† She thought it was imperative that Lane County participates.
MOTION:† to send a letter to O & C having Van Manning represent Lane County.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
f. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION/Formation of Service Stabilization Task Force.
Green explained they took the Boardís concerns from the previous discussion.† He noted key points were the number of participants, the recruiting time and more clarification of the charge.† He said if they have a 30-day recruitment it would push the timeline into fall.† He agreed to that.† With regard to the total number of members, he suggested the number should be nine, but he was okay with seven.† He indicated the charge to the task force is to have policy choices described.† He said they need to work on having Lane County live within its means with the choices available.† He said they have to work on reducing the cost factors which drive the deficit, right sizing the organization so the service delivery system is stable.† Also, if a revenue strategy is selected, the Board wanted the task force to evaluate the implications of advising a law enforcement or other district proposed to the citizens in November 2006.† He added the report should include the short and long-term implications.† He hoped the report would be completed by October 31, 2004.
Dwyer thought medical insurance costs should be studied.† He supported nine members for the task force.
Van Vactor suggested contacting people who testified at the budget process, as it would be an opportunity for some of the citizens to show a follow through.
Sorenson didnít want to see a lot of staff time put into this.† He thought if it was going to be a citizen committee then they should do the work.
Green thought the committee should be citizen-led with staff support.
Van Vactor indicated that citizens would need access to collective bargaining units and reports from the Risk and Benefits manager.† He stated that staff would have a primary role of providing the data, but reaching what the long-term implications should be would be up to the group.
Green stated he would send out a letter to all the people who spoke at public comment during the budget session.† He said he would work with Melinda Kletzok to get the press releases out.
MOTION:† to move to approve the formation of the Service Stabilization Task Force.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor reported he was taking off on Thursday and Friday and Dave Garnick would be the Acting County Administrator.
9. PUBLIC WORKS
a. FIRST READING AND SETTING A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1210/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural" to "Marginal† Land" and Rezoning That Land From "E-40/Exclusive Farm Use" to "Ml/Marginal Land", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 02-5838; Ogle) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: July 14, 2004, 1:30 pm)
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance PA 1210 on July 14, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Green excused).
b. FOURTH READING AND DELIBERATION/Ordinance No. PA 1199/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Agricultural Land" to "Nonresource", Rezone That Land From "E-30/Exclusive Farm Use" To "RR-5/ Rural ResidentialĒ; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 01-5875; Grant) (NBA & PM 3/31/04, 4/14/04 & 6/9/04)
Jerry Kendall, Land Management, recalled that on June 9 the Board took tentative action to approve the request.† He said the Board left the record open for comment on the modified Farm Forest Management Agreement that includes a 50-foot setback clause (Attached to the June 21 supplemental memo, copy in file).† He said if the Board votes to approve today, then the document would be recorded between the end of the appeal period to LUBA (21 days) and the 30-day date for the ordinance to take effect.† He said there was no public comment received.
Dwyer asked what Kendallís recommendation was.
Kendall recommended approval.
MOTION: to move to adopt Ordinance PA 1199.
Morrison MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
Dwyer believed the people who bought the property and expected they could develop the property prior to 1984 should be allowed to do what they expected.† He said they deprived them of what they had paid to do.
Hampton would be opposed if productive agricultural land was taken out of the system.† He relied on staff to let him know about the soils.† He said it didnít appear that agricultural use was the best use for the land.
Dwyer stated he would vote to approve this and then serve notice of possible reconsideration and move consideration the next time when Green is present.
Sorenson commented there wouldnít be any consideration for this because under the Lane County charter, the board chair and recording secretary sign the ordinance.
Assistant County Counsel Steve Vorhes said he didnít research the issue, but if the Board takes an action to reconsider a previous action before the ordinance is signed, it could still be possible.† He said if the Board takes action this afternoon to reconsider, it could still be done.
Dwyer suggested rolling this into the afternoon if the charter takes precedence over process.
Morrison withdrew her motion.
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
July 16, 2003, Regular Meeting following HACSA
May 11, 2004, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
B. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 04-6-23-4/In the Matter of Approving the Cancellation of Personal Property Uncollectible Tax Accounts.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 04-6-23-5/In the Matter of Approving the Submission of a Proposal to Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) in the Amount of $1,635,000 for the Period of August 4, 2004 Through July 31, 2005.
D. Management Services
1) ORDER 04-6-23-6/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Execute a Three Year Lease Agreement with a Two Year Renewal Option with the Pacific Rivers Council for County Owned Office Space at 540 Oak Street, Eugene, with Revenues of $58,224.
2. ORDER 04-6-23-7/In the Matter of Authorizing Payment of $10,718.66 Plus Interest to the State Department of Revenue for Reimbursement of Property Taxes Paid by the State Associated with the Senior Tax Deferral Program for Property Foreclosed upon by Lane County Identified as Assessorís Map #21-35-07-30-0110.
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 04-6-23-8/In the Matter of Awarding a Contract to Ben-Ko-Matic Brush and Equipment Company in the Amount of $68,248.00 with Two (2) Trade-ins, for the Purchase of Two (2), New, Self-propelled Sweepers, Contract FY04/05 FS-03.
MOTION:† to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE 4-0 (Green excused).
11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dwyer announced there is an LCOG Board meeting in Florence.
Sorenson noted that the Oregon Bach Festival starts this weekend.
Morrison stated the NACo annual conference is July 16.† She asked if anyone was planning on attending.† She was planning on attending and needed to bring the number of votes.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place in the afternoon.
14. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
ORDER 04-6-23-13 Re-Certifying the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors as the Local Workforce Investment Board under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-6-23-13.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Green excused).
There being no further business, Commissioner Hampton recessed the meeting at 11:05 p.m.