BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION
May 4, 2004
Commissioners Conference Room
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr, presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer; Don Hampton; Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor; County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. ORDER 04-5-4-1/In the Matter of Accepting the Recommendation of the Public Safety Coordinating Council and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign an Amendment to the Community Corrections Plan for the 2003-05 Biennium.
Gretchen Hult Pierce, 31434 Fox Hollow Road, reported that their mission is to approve the final allocation of community corrections funds for the upcoming fiscal year 04/05.† She asked the Board to agree with their recommendation to the Community Corrections allocation for the upcoming year.
Pierce recalled before Measure 30 was passed, they held back a certain amount of money in reserve waiting for the outcome and they decided it would be smart not to allocate a chunk at that time.† She stated that amount was $985,000.† She noted when Measure 30 failed, the E-Board reinstated other funds to the Community Corrections budget and they allocated the reserve and the additional funds.† She noted in March the supervisory authority team met and decided the best use of the $985,000 reserve was to go in total to the jail to preserve 48 jail beds.† She added it was a unanimous decision by the SAT but it did not have an opportunity to come to the PSCC because the reconstituted PSCC had only been having meetings on a quarterly basis and they were not scheduled to have a meeting until mid-April, and therefore the March decision was made by the SAT and carried forward.† She noted when they received additional funds of $1 million from the E-Board in early April, it left them with a short amount of time to have the supervisory authority team meet, allocate those funds and bring the entire package to the PSCC for review.† She indicated of the additional $1 million that was allocated, those monies were given to Parole and Probation ($371,000) and about 85% of the entire Community Corrections funds goes to either the jail or Parole and Probation.† She noted the additional $550,000 went for various forms of treatment and that was a decision in general that was made earlier, back when the $985,000 was allocated to the jail.† She said the SAT concluded that in order to keep some kind of balance in the system and figure out how to best manage the offender population overall, they needed to preserve the 48 jail beds, but the balance of the money should go to some measure of treatment or the drug court in order to best manage the offender population and to keep a balance in the system.† She reported the $550,000 was allocated for Mental Health.† She noted it has become part of the overall corrections calculation.† She said almost $100,000 has been allocated to mental health treatment, and $148,000 has been allocated for two additional mental health specialists for sex offender treatment.† She noted that last year they cut the funds and allocation for sex offender treatment and this reinstates some of those monies.† She said they set aside funding to restore some additional treatment services and transitional housing services.† She said one part is $298,000 that is not specified to any program, and another amount for the drug court.† She believed the SAT team thought it important to hold back some monies for these types of needs as they came up.
Piece explained this recommendation in total was brought to the PSCC at their April 14 meeting and comes to the Board with their full vote for recommendation.† She commented they had reluctantly passed this as it was more of a process vote.† She said they had no time to review or discuss the allocations and the SAT team has had little time in which to allocate a lot of money to a big job.† In the past, she stated recommendations from the SAT team would go to the Community Corrections Committee for review and approval and then go to the PSCC.† She said since they have been slow getting the entire PSCC reconstituted and meeting on a regular basis, the Community Corrections Committee has had no opportunity to either meet or review the recommendations.† She said the PSCC was more reluctant to pass it through with ten minutes of discussion without expressing some concern that they are doing the best they can.
Morrison commented she supported the recommendation.
Pierce commented that the entire PSCC was concerned about the idea of across-the-board cuts.† She said it makes it difficult to understand how to appropriately cut budgets but keep the system in balance if in fact they have no flexibility.† She was concerned when one part of the system decided what they would cut, they donít have the best opportunity to understand how it is going to impact all the other pieces in the system.† She said they could have serious unintended consequences where some cuts are going to impact other parts of the system in such a negative way that it would have an effect greater than the cut itself.† She suggested that they allow components of the system to collectively work together.
Van Vactor said he met with the Public Safety department heads and the problem is a lot of the funds come in with a specific purpose.
John Clague, Sheriffís Office, clarified that the PSCCís goal was system capacity, not specifically jail capacity, as that is a different issue.† He said the reserve money is for increasing treatment capacity. He said they are trying to address it through all three departments.
Jan Clements, Sheriff, commented when they address the crime problem with a system that is imploding, he said they need to go to the most critical issues.† He said on a theoretical basis he had no problem splitting the money for treatment if in fact they have the basic tool that is the overriding concern for the circumstances for their law enforcement officers, the judges, Parole and Probation and treatment is ineffective unless there are jail beds.
Sorenson asked what the timeline was for the use of the funds.
Linda Eaton, Parole and Probation, said this would be for the remainder of the current biennium they are in.† She said it would start July 1.† She said the restoration of bienniel funding because of the timing in receiving it, it would only be available for the second year of the biennium.
Sorenson asked what the rationale was for the PSCC not recommending that the District Attorney not receive funds if the goal of the PSCC is a balanced, integrated public safety system.
Pierce responded that they had no opportunity to discuss it.† She noted they had a presentation from the DA about 15 minutes before they had to approve the allocation.† She added they had a presentation from the Sheriff but there was no opportunity for them to have had the dialogue they needed.† She commented they never discussed the consequences of the budget reductions and how it affects one another and if it would change the outlook.† She believed the recommendation was to re-allocate a part of this money to the jail and take money for the jail out of the general fund in order to distribute it to the District Attorney.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-5-4-1.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
Van Vactor said last week he met with Pierce for a preliminary outline of a work plan for the PSCC next year and one of the items proposed that she concurred with was for the PSCC to meet more often.† He said if all parties agree, they would have a review of all public safety budgets from a strategic point of view in January instead of later in the year.
Clements said they have to go back to the issue of prioritization of public safety and the structural problem of funding whatever essential services the County would provide given the purpose it is a general purpose government.† He commented it would be up to Lane County for the health and welfare of its citizens.
Sorenson asked why there were making this decision now instead of knowing what the overall decisions of the budget would be.
Van Vactor answered that they are trying to synchronize the PSCC process with the Lane County budget process.† He said they want to get a process through the budget committee for it to be adopted in June.† He said next† year they will coordinate the meetings better.
Clague explained it is the crime rate and how each community decides to respond to the crime rate.† He said the jail is the back end of the system. He noted they know from an LCOG study five years ago that all things being constant as they are now, they are 338 beds short with all the rest of the custody at capacity.† He said they are doing the matrix releases and that part of the system is undersized, as is Parole and Probation.† He said the Board has the authority to respond but there is no money to respond to it.
Dwyer commented that capacity is the bottom line and sanctions makes a person think about their behavior.† He said they have to let the people know Lane County† is a general purpose government and their duties and responsibilities go beyond law enforcement. He said they have to design a system that is dedicated to preserving law and order, and maintaining a functioning system that is separate from the general fund.
b. DISCUSSION/Community Corrections Options: Post April E-Board.
Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, noted there was information in the packet (copy in file) of information on considerations by Lane County given the dis-appropriation that occurred statewide in community corrections funding to counties as a result of the failure of Ballot Measure 30, a $18 million hit statewide.† He said using the ten percent rule, Lane Countyís share would be $1.8 million.† He noted in early April at the Emergency Board, subsequent to the failure of Ballot Measure 30, that there are some emergency funds from the Emergency Board at the legislature at its discretion to take care of emergencies and contingencies during the course of the year when the legislature is not in session and they elected to take $8.9 million and restore half of the dis-appropriation that was called for in the bill that was part of the failure of Ballot Measure 30.† He added they instructed Department of Corrections to use all of that money to continue the payments to participating counties through the next two fiscal quarters.†† He said instead of spreading that money over the rest of the biennium, they said keep the payments at the full funding rate through the end of calendar year 2004.† He indicated that all that is at risk for the funding for the biennium would be the seventh and eighth quarters of the biennium or the first and second quarters of 2005.† He said there will be two Emergency Board meetings where they will have the opportunity to revisit the issue to see how much money would be restored and there will be an opportunity during the regular sessions to revisit the issue before the end of the biennium and before the dis-appropriation takes effect.† He reported the Emergency Board and legislative leadership had expressed verbally in hearings that they are interested in keeping all the counties participating but they canít fully restore the funding because they donít know what other contingencies might take place.† He added they had elected not to use all of their reserves to restore the funding.
Dwyer said they need to do an analysis of what opting out would do for Lane County.†† He wanted it updated with the two quarter impact.
Morrison wanted to know what the forecast looked like for revenue projections.† She thought the letter was fine.
Bieda said there was no hurry to send the opt out letter.
Morrison wanted to see what the forecast was and then send the letter.
Sorenson was in favor of sending the letter but he thought internally most of the public safety conversation had been avoiding the formal notice.† He was in favor of continuing to communicate their needs to them and the legislative delegation.
Dwyer agreed with Morrison and Sorenson.† He said they need to do an analytical model of pros and cons of the benefits to Lane County.† He thought the May revenue would be up and they might be able to work through this.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor announced that on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. the building will go through an earthquake drill exercise.
7. COMMISSIONERS BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/Direction Regarding Southern Willamette Groundwater Management Area.
Audrey Eldridge, DEQ, asked for the Boardís support for the groundwater management area.† She noted the support from the County is not required but they are anticipating that there will be issues that will come up that the County would be interested in.
Dwyer said if they allow this, that nitrates in the area will limit the ability of people to put down wells.
Eldridge indicated they were looking for voluntary actions.†† She said they have two groundwater management areas on the east side that had been going on for ten years.
Green was concerned because the appropriate role of local government was not clear.
Eldridge said they want to form a groundwater management committee. She wanted someone from the Board of Commissioners to be on the groundwater management committee and have input into the process.
Green commented while they might have participation in this, they donít have the final authority.† He said if there is a process where they have to sign off on something, they will get criticized.† He asked how that would be for openness.
Eldridge responded that everything will be in the open.† She added they are doing a newsletter that they send out to 500 people.† She added they have members of the farming organizations, soil and water conservation, OSU Extension and doing outreach.† She noted the action plan will be voluntary but if the Board decides something is important, then the Board could make that decision.
Dwyer asked what they could do to rectify the groundwater problem.† He asked if there was a future plan where the groundwater management area would go away.
Eldridge indicated when they get below seven parts per million with nitrates in the ground water, they rescind a groundwater management area.
Green asked how long the time commitment would be.
Eldridge said for the rest of the year they were going to have three meetings with each meeting not longer than three hours.† She said the meetings would be in either Linn, Lane or Benton County.
Morrison asked when they hoped they would achieve what they are wanting to do with the nitrate levels in the groundwater.
Eldridge indicated there are timelines with this area.† She said groundwater moves faster here and they have more recharge and precipitation.† She anticipated there would be results quicker than what is taking place on the east side of the state.† She noted they hadnít reached the point of measuring the effect of people taking voluntary measures.† She said they have no way of making this mandatory.† She said if in 20 years that problem is twice as bad, the state might look at it differently.† She noted that more education would be important for the process.
Sorenson recommended that Hampton be chosen to be on this committee.
ORDER 04-5-4-2/Appointing Don Hampton to Serve on the Southern Willamette Groundwater Management Area Committee.
MOTION:† to appoint Don Hampton for the Southern Willamette Groundwater Management Area Committee.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
b. DISCUSSION/Cultural Trust Plan.
Wilson passed out the packet on the Cultural Trust that they had adopted in October.† She said the valuable history in the packet is in the order. (Copy in file).
Green asked if the Board wanted to have a system of recruitment for the Cultural Trust.† He noted the trust has limited funding administrative to do that type of work.† He asked if the Board had signed up for this in the future.
Wilson noted that Angel Jones, City of Eugene, is present to recommend that the County continue to serve in the capacity of doing the advertising process for the Cultural Trust.
Dwyer asked who did the appointment process.
Jones explained that the Cultural Coalition was established to administer grants for art, heritage and humanities in Lane County.† She noted there was limited funding (less than $10,000) available for grants.† She said as a result of that, they looked at the County membership solicitation process and stated that if there was a way they could use the advertising, they would not have to duplicate that effort and pay for the administrative costs so they would have more funds to direct toward services in Lane County.† She commented the coalition recognized the value of having Lane County Commissioners recommend membership for the coalition.† She said they wanted the Board to be involved so it doesnít become an isolated effort.
Morrison thought they should address the terms the current members have.
Jones said part of the plan said they would like representation from each of the districts.† She said to the extent they have current members that serve on the commission that wish to continue representing each of the districts, they would recommend those people be allowed to stay on the committee and only looking for additional members to fill the 12 slots.
Van Vactor asked what the local cultural trust will think if the Board has the authority to make the recommendation directly to the Oregon Cultural Trust without having to go through the local group.
Jones recalled they discussed that with the state and the Cultural Coalition Planning Committee was not as concerned as the state was.† She said the state was insistent that the Cultural Coalition appoint the membership.† She said they could make notice on the actual membership application form that would reflect the plan.
Green wanted to check in on an annual basis.
MOTION:† to allow the Cultural Coalition to use Lane Countyís resources, to advertise providing that the application is clear about who the appointing authority is.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
8. PUBLIC WORKS
a. DISCUSSION/Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Associated Code and Manual Changes
Celia Barry, Public Works, reported they had a hearing with the Planning Commission and Roads Advisory Committee on September 9, 2003 and they recommended approval of all the materials.† She noted there was one change made in Lane Code Chapter 13 that was a transfer of policy language.† She noted the Board has a hearing tomorrow for the public.† She noted the tabs in the packet are not to be adopted with the plan.† She noted the adoption material consists of an entire replacement of the 1980 TSP with the new TSP.† She added the changes to Lane Code involve four chapters, 15, 10, 16 13, and in Lane Manual chapters 15 and 16.† She stated in Lane Manual Chapter 60, they are moving a fee from Lane Manual 15.† She noted the reason they are proposing this adoption is because the materials havenít been changed for over 20 years and there had been changes in that time.† She said the impetus for that is the Transportation Planning Rule that is the Oregon Administrative Rules to implement statewide land use Goal 12.
Barry said in comparing the TSP document with the code and manual provisions, the TSP includes provisions for all of the transportation facilities, including the airport, railroads and Port of Siuslaw, transit and bus system, bike and pedestrian facilities and roads.† She noted the code only addresses roads and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the road right-of-way because the Board only has regulatory authority over the road system, as all other transportation facilities are managed through public and private entities.† She noted the Board contributes in planning, task force and lobbying for funding at the state and federal level.† She noted the TSP is part of the Lane County general plan as are all of the TSP for all cities within the county.† She said they have to be mutually consistent with the state transportation plan.† She indicated that Lowell, Dunes City and Westfir do not have a TSP as they have less than 25,000.
Dwyer asked how it benefits Lane County to apply city standards to local county roads.† He thought it was a way for cities to get more money because they are building Lane Countyís streets to their standards so they could take the money.
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, explained the city standards vary by city.† He said in the past they have constructed it to County standards.† He said they intend to continue that practice for arterials and collectors.† He added on the local roads the County is not interested in keeping the maintenance and operation of those local roads in the long term.† He said they want to create a way for the cities to get a road that meets their standards when and if they are annexed or transferred.
Van Vactor said the theory from the state is that the County could not withdraw the responsibility of the maintenance of those roads forever.† He said the cities have to go through a process where they request surrender and give consent to that.† He said they canít compel cities to take streets.† He noted the arrangement is to bring them up to city standards and transfer jurisdiction† because the cities would request surrender at that point and be done with the obligation.
Chickering explained the difference in standards between county and city roads works in both directions as some have higher standards than Lane County and some have lower standards.
Barry indicated the 1980 and 2004 TSP documents were similar because the 1980 TSP was adopted at the time to comply with recently-adopted state land use goals.† She noted both acknowledge the connection between transportation and land use, both have policies that address all the transportation facilities, recognize they canít focus on one transportation mode, and emphasize coordination with all jurisdictions.† She stated in 1991 the state adopted the Transportation Planning Rule that has more specific requirements for complying with statewide Goal 12.† She said the key changes include there are descriptions of all the transportation facilities in the TSP, they both have policy language and they have descriptions and corresponding maps.† She added they have an updated inventory of the County road system.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, explained the TSP includes a county road project list identified in the city TSP, including transplan and all the smaller city plans.† He said all of the city TSPs, including TransPlan, are adopted as part of the County Comp Plan.† He didnít think Coburg coming into the TMA would change things.†† He said TransPlan would look a little different.† He said they could add text in their plan with the relationship of Coburg.
Barry noted the County TSP focuses more on rural areas.† She said as the situation plans out and manage the change, they will be looking to the City of Coburg to what changes they would make with their TSP.
Vorhes thought from a land use planning standpoint, they are still looking at TransPlan as the transportation plan for the metropolitan area and doesnít reach outside to Coburg.† He said the City of Coburgís transportation system plan is the TSP plan for the City of Coburg and the urban growth area.
Barry indicated this was an evolving document and they would be making changes to address situations as they come up.†† She said they now have a county roads needs assessment and a project list.† She noted they have more flexibility in the rural areas for addressing the TPR for the project list.† She stated they donít have to take all of the projects off the project list.† She said if there are safety issues or public information that comes up about needs with the transportation system, they are not prohibited from doing it.† She added they have operations, maintenance and preservation work they do that is not on the project list.†† She noted in the TSP they have specific policy language for access management, road performance and traffic impact analysis, and updated road design standards.† She added they now have a financial element that wasnít required under the TPR for the rural area and it is based upon the Financial Plan the Board endorsed in 1996.† She commented as they get closer to 2006, they look to see if the federal monies would be renewed for timber receipts.† She said as they get closer to 2006 they will be looking closer at the financial priorities.
With regard to Lane Code Chapter 15, she noted the access management provisions, road performance and traffic impact analysis and road design standards from the TSP have been translated into Chapter 15.† She noted they were based upon accepted guidelines and practices that are already in place.
Barry noted the last two highlights of the changes to Lane Code Chapter 15 concern local access roads.† She said they are the public roads that are not maintained by the County.† She noted the terms were defined in the state law.† She indicated the Board discussed the exemption from facility permit requirements for LARs in August 2002,† and they gave approval for that exemption providing they incorporate provisions to ensure the County continues to fulfill its obligation to promote safety by requiring that at a minimum they meet emergency vehicle access requirements.† She added they significantly reduced the requirements for local access roads for their design requirements.†† She noted they were treated like County maintained roads but local access roads serve a limited number of parcels and donít have a connection to the rest of the road system and function more like private access easements.
With regard to Chapter 10 and 16 changes, Barry noted the TPR has provisions for what kind of transportation uses are allowed in the rural areas.† She stated they are proposing an exemption from the riparian regulations for public road projects in areas that are regulated under the Endangered Species Act for aquatic species.† She noted the Endangered Species Act is more protective of riparian areas than Lane Countyís Code with restoration of native riparian vegetation and monitoring to make sure that restoration is successful.† She added the change is consistent with State Land Use Goal 5.† She noted if the area is regulated by the ESA, then it could be exempt from the riparian regulations. She added if it is not regulated by the ESA, it is subject to Lane Countyís riparian code regulations.† She noted the exemption is comparable to other exemptions in the riparian standards.† She added that watershed enhancement projects are exempt if they are done under the auspices of a federal agency.
Barry noted the land divisions change was not in Chapter 13 when the Planning Commission and Roads Advisory Committee finished their proceedings.† She noted it is in policy 22 d. in the TSP and they did have that in their packet.† She said if there is a proposal to vacate a public road in a subdivision, the lots that are in that subdivision that are part of the road vacation must go through a re-plat process.
With regard to Lane Manual 15.580 with citizen input, Barry noted these are County road projects where the individual project design comes to the Board for adoption.† She said they were adding a stakeholder provision on an as-needed basis to better address adjacent landowner concerns regarding project design before it gets to the Board.† She added the other change is that they have asked for the ability to approve and execute performance agreements for road improvements that are related to the facility permit or land division requirements.† She noted that would be delegated from the county administrator.
Barry recalled the public process they had used to date was from 1995.† She noted they did some information gathering meetings.† She said they gathered information and the project was put on hold for several years as staff worked on TransPlan.† She noted it was re-energized in 2001.† She said they began going to the Roads Advisory Committee with materials to review.† She said they received feedback with regard to the access management road performance and traffic impact analysis.† She said based upon their feedback they sent out the draft for peer review to 78 contacts, planners and engineers in the public and private sector.† She said they had four public meetings around the County in February 2003 and they had the formal public hearing with the Roads Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission on September 9, 2003 and they recommended adoption of the material.† She said they reached out to the public in display ads, extensive mailings, placed the draft of the TSP in the nine area libraries and a Ballot Measure 56 notice that went to more 37,000† households, legal notices and on the web.† She noted there was not controversy on the project.
Chickering noted the Board wanted to know more about the streamlining of performance agreement approval, adding language indicating Coburg is now part of the MPO that was part of the federal census information, meeting city standards for local roads inside a UGB and making it part of the urban transition agreement for county and city payments.
b. REPORT BACK/Process Timelines for Planning Applications.
Kent Howe, Land Management, passed out an update to the packet. (Copy in file.)† He noted the first quarter the average dayís processing went up because they went into the old applications and cleaned them up.† He indicated their goal is a 30-day turnaround for processing.† He noted for the month of March, the entire planning program processed on overtime only an extra 60 applications.† He said they caught up with their backlog.
With regard to administrative decisions, Howe indicate they have a backlog of legal lot determinations.† He said they have hired a surveyor for the month of May to help clean out the backlog.
Dwyer commented that Howe was doing the right thing.
There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting at† 12:00 pm.