BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
May 5, 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.
12. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 04-5-5-7/In the Matter of Adopting the Public Works Five-Year Capital Improvement Program FY 04/05-FY 08/09.
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, explained he prepared a packet for review to describe the draft CIP after the Roads Advisory Committee had deliberated and made their recommendation.† He noted there are tables that are to clear up the situation.† He said the Board could consider the actions of the Roads Advisory Committee and agree or undo the additions or the Board could make their own additions as they see fit.† He noted a change in the Agenda Cover Memo and in the draft CIP, the Jasper Lowell Road reconstruction project was listed as $125,000.† He said when the Board held a joint meeting with the City of Lowell, this was a request to upgrade the project or expand the scope of the project from rehabilitation of the existing pavement to replacement of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk.† He said $125,000 is the cost of the added improvements.† He noted the cost of the project is an additional $345,000.† He said the correct number for that project total is $470,000.†† He added the additional $345,000 he intends to take from the balance of the Irving overpass deletion, the value being $4 million.† He said the Roads Advisory Committee recommended adding projects that totaled $450,000 less than $4 million. He wanted to use a portion of the $450,000 to float to fund the $345,000 for the Jasper Lowell Road reconstruction.† He said it would allow him to keep the money in the pavement preservation fund for next year.
Green noted the Roads Advisory Committee made the recommendation not to fund the match for the Federal Courthouse.
Chickering indicated there was a situation where at the Roads Advisory Committeeís public hearing, the City of Eugene suggested that the Irving overpass could be cut from the program and that money could be used to fund the matching money for the federal courthouse.† He noted the Roads Advisory Committee only enacted half of that request.† He stated the City of Eugene had made the federal courthouse project theirs and had made it a priority of the city and had made efforts to bring the courthouse to the city.† He said the committee thought the matching funds should have been a consideration by the city at the time they made application for the courthouse to come to Eugene and the burden for the match should come from the city.
Sorenson asked if the Board wanted to add monies (for the federal courthouse) how they would do it.
Chickering said it would be under payments to other governmental agencies.† He noted page 4 of the agenda memo deals with projects the Board would want to add. †He requested that for every project the Board adds in the first two years of the CIP, they cut a project of equal or greater value so they could maintain the overall expenditure for both the first two years of the CIP and the overall five-year plan.
Sorenson asked what the rationale was to include the County City Road Fund Partnership Program beyond the expiration of the federal legislation.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, said they have a footnote on the county city partnership payments that shows them in all of the out years, but the footnote states the continuation of the program or the level of payments will be approved annually at the discretion of the Board.
Commissioner Green opened the Public Hearing.
Mayor Jim Torrey, asked the Board to consider providing $1.6 million, (less $325,000 that had already been earmarked for the CAPP program) for the funding that would make up the difference between the $7.6 million to do the transportation projects in and around the new federal courthouse.† He said as members of the United Front, it took years to get the federal courthouse to come to Eugene and to provide for funding in the new transportation legislation. He said they have to have the match money to do the project and that is what he is asking for.† He said they were asking for $1,275,000.† He thought it was a high profile project that had a regional benefit.† He noted that these are transportation dollars that will be involved in a federal transportation system.† He said they identified they were willing to set aside for a period of time the Irving Road overpass that was budgeted at $400,000 in the previous CIP so they could take some of the funds from the $4 million to use for the project.† He said the need is there and the project is worthy of funding.† He requested $50,000 for a one-time expenditure from their reserve funds.† He wanted the Board to look at the merits of his request.
Phyllis Miller, Eugene, commented that many hours were spent working on the Jasper Road Extension.† She said they need a second and third section to the project to be completed to satisfy the driving publicís demand for better road systems.† She noted by putting the Jasper Road Extension on the next CIP that it would make the road straight.
Jim Johnson, Creswell, reported the City of Creswell needed the project around the interchange of I-5 and Oregon Avenue.† He noted a previous project funded by the County was to have a pedestrian bridge that spanned I-5 from east to west Creswell.† He said the state at the same time was doing bridge inspection and they found that the entire bridge crossing I-5 needed to be replaced and they have combined the new bridge construction with the pedestrian bridge.† He indicated as that bridge is being planned, they have a study to determine what the appropriate land use access and transportation plan in the general quadrant of I-5 and Oregon Avenue should be.† He noted the bridge will be longer than the current bridge and that means that the road will be six feet higher than it is now and access problems will need to be solved.† He said the TSP in Creswell is suggesting new roads and private sector developers who want to do economic development have approached them.† He noted they might need some assistance dollars from the County at a future date.† He asked the Board to consider funding the program to a larger extent so all cities would have a chance to discuss projects as they arise.† He suggested combining the assisted housing money with the community development money.
Dwyer commented that merging the pots of money was a bad idea because they have different purposes.† He wanted a mechanism for replenishing the CAPP by a system they could reserve.
Jim Hanks, Eugene, stated he was in support of Judkins Point South project.† He noted it was added at the Roads Advisory Committee.† He said it is a regional project.† He commented the Glenwood Interchange is the principle I-5 access to Downtown Springfield and to the community of Glenwood.† He noted the Roads Advisory Committee recommended that this be the number one rated project under the Community Development Road Assistant Fund.† He said the project is ready to go and it has been designed and can be started as soon as the funds are available for it.
Nick Arnis, City of Springfield, provided staff a letter from Mayor Sid Leiken.† He noted an addition to the letter that was distributed was that the City of Springfield requested that the Board review the area of the Game Farm Road North project as they are in support of the project.† He noted there is a section of the road that belongs to the City of Eugene that abuts Gateway in Springfield.† He said that section wouldnít be part of the Game Farm Road North project.† He asked if the County could possibly include with the City of Eugene and their Chad Drive projects a later phase of Game Farm North.† He indicated about 900 feet would be unimproved.
Mark Schoening, City Engineer, City of Eugene, noted what Nick Arnis indicated that they have a group of projects (the Countyís Game Farm Road, the Cityís Chad Drive Extension, ODOTís bridge replacement) all coming together.† He added when they are all completed, there would be one section of Game Farm Road that is unimproved and that was the request the City of Eugene would support.
Dwyer asked where the money would come from to repair the 900 feet.
Schoening indicated the project is in TransPlan, not within the Cityís six-year Capital Improvement Program.† He added that the Chad Drive Extension was in the plan.
Chickering stated the request from the city is for an additional $350,000.† He said they wanted the County to take the existing project that is proposed for construction in 2005.† He said the City of Eugene has requested that the County add this length of road.† He noted Lane Countyís project would terminate where Old Coburg Road intersects with North Game Farm Road.
Dwyer asked if the City of Eugene would be willing to take it out of the $2.5 million over a period of a couple of years.
Schoening noted their number one priority is the courthouse.
Dwyer didnít want to go forward with a project that looked stupid.† He thought it was not right to improve a road on both sides of an unimproved section.
Chickering indicated he wanted to move forward with the Countyís project because the Board had decided what they wanted to do the Lane County portion of the road.† He added they had a safety concern.
Dwyer said they had to build the whole project.
Chickering noted the city wasnít sure where Chad Drive would come in.† He added there is the I-5 Beltline Interchange work to be completed and ODOT is planning on replacing the bridges on I-5 that pass over North Game Farm and they have no idea where the new piers will land.† He stated they could improve the 900 feet of road and the City could tie into it at a later date, but that was not their preference.† He noted the Board had the option to add the $350,000 to add to the project.
Dwyer suggested having Lane County lend the City the money and when they collect the SDCís they could repay the County.† He recommended advancing the money to do the project right.
Arnis recommended going forward with the Game Farm Road North project as phase one.† She thought the County should go forward and the staff of Eugene and Springfield would work out where the money would come from for the 900 feet.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.
Chickering recommended that the Board consider projects they would like to add to the program that would add expenditures to the CIP.† He said the Board could elect to add Irving overpass back in.† He noted the second table on page 4 includes projects that were nominated at the Roads Advisory Committee level for funding, but were not recommended by the committee, including the courthouse transportation improvements and North Game Farm Road extension.
Sorenson suggested adding the courthouse transportation improvement to the CIP.
Dwyer commented that the RACís recommendations were good. †††He supported adding the courthouse project, as it was important and a regional project.† With regard to the $300,000 he wanted that to be included and for them to figure out how the City of Eugene would repay Lane County with the SDCís.† He was willing to let Lane County and the City of Eugene work out the details with the expectation that the road will be built at the same time they build the other portions of the road.
Green supported the courthouse project.† He asked why the RAC didnít support it.
Chickering explained the discussion of the Roads Advisory Committee is controversial when it comes to the City of Eugene.† He said the committeeís opinion is that the city prioritizes projects and its requests over the years for County funding contributed in a large way to the City of Eugene on multiple projects.† He noted that some of the committee members think they needed to draw a line, as the City of Eugene is advocating for the project and should have considered the necessary local match when competing for siting the courthouse.† Chickering added that this is not a priority for the County road fund.
Green disagreed with the RAC.† He asked what type of criteria the RAC uses to assign merit to the projects.
Chickering responded that the RAC did not have a point system.
Green commented if the RAC didnít have a point system, then it was a subjective process.† He asked how they could change the different projects to get to the funds that were necessary.
Snowden suggested one way to get money for the courthouse is to agree with the RACís recommendation to cancel the Irving overpass.† He noted of the projects listed, the one he would want to discuss is the Judkins Point Interchange south ramp.† He said the money would have to go through the City of Eugene.† He added that the City of Eugene didnít state it was a priority for how they would like the County to spend its money.† He suggested not funding the Judkins Point project and putting those funds toward the courthouse project.† He said if they deduct that, they would need to take $3,675,000 for the six projects and use the Irving overpass funds.† He said that would leave $325,000 that starts with the courthouse.† He added they could take $443,000 that is in the community development fund, giving $768,000.†† He said they might want to cancel the Thurston Road 126 CAPP of $500,000, giving them $1,268,000 to fund the courthouse.† He recalled the Thurston Road project was originally suggested by ODOT and the initial cost was less than $500,000.† He said they added money to it because ODOT backed out and said they didnít have any money to contribute.† He thought once they got into the project it would be more than $500,000.
Chickering noted on the bottom of page 4 (copy in file) there is a table that shows the projects that were added by the RAC.† He said the Board might reconsider some of those projects and unfund them.
Green agreed with Snowden to get to the amount of money necessary for the match for the courthouse with an asterisk by Judkins Road, contingent upon the meeting with the RAC on Ridgeway Road and use a portion of those funds to help fund Judkins Road.
Snowden indicated the RAC is requesting that a number of the projects be added.† He recommended deducting the $220,000 for Judkins Pont, take the remaining balance of the Community Development Fund of $443,000.† He indicated Thurston Road, 126 is $500,000.† He said there is another $105,000 left over from canceling Irving Road.† He said that comes up to $1,268,000 that is close enough for the $1,275,000, with the remaining money coming out of the road fund balance.
Dwyer wanted to loan the City of Eugene the $350,000 for repairs to Game Farm Road.
Snowden said they could do that through a loan.
MOTION: to move to approve ORDER 04-5-5-7.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Chickering stated they wanted to make adjustments to the changes they made and come back on the consent calendar.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, explained they could make a motion of tentative approval of the CIP document with the changes as discussed and direction to the staff to return with the revised document attached to the order.
Dwyer amended his motion to reflect what counsel stated.
b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1202/Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Adopt an Updated Lane County Transportation System Plan; and Amending the Lane County General Plan Policies (an Element of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan) By Revising Goal 12 Transportation Policy 4 to Comply With Statewide Planning Goal 12; and Adopting a Savings and Severability Clause. (NBA & PM 4/14/04).
Celia Barry, Public Works, explained this item concerns a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Lane Code and Lane Manual change.† She said the 1980 Transportation System Plan is being replaced with a new document and they are making changes to Lane Code, Chapters 15, 10, 16 and 13 and Lane Manual 15 and 60.† She noted the Public Hearing is the opportunity for members of the public to express their concerns about the materials.† She added that testimony should provide sufficient information for the Board as local decision makers to respond to the issues based upon the criteria in Lane Code 12.050 (2) and Lane Code 16.400(6)(h)(3) that provides that the amendments are necessary to correct an error or fulfill an identified community need or to comply with state, local or federal law.
Barry said they are addressing the Transportation Planning Rule that is an Oregon Administrative Rule to comply with State Land Use Goal 12.† She said key changes are incorporation of provisions for access management, road performance, traffic impact analysis and road design standards.† She noted the County held four public informational meetings in February 2003.† She added the Planning Commission and the Roads Advisory Committee reviewed the materials on September 9, 2003 and recommended approval of the materials.† She said they transferred one policy, 22 (d) in the TSP into Lane Code 13.
Barry said they had a work session yesterday with the Board and three issues were raised† She noted one issue was a concern about the change to apply city standards to County local roads inside urban growth boundaries and whether there was a cost to the County.† She reviewed the standards for some of the larger cities and the County standards will be for right of way.† She said the County would have 50 to 60 feet of right of way width requirements for local roads and 24 to 32 feet of pavement width.† She noted for Eugene, 45 to 62 feet for right of way width and for Springfield about 50 feet on steep slopes.† She added that Florence has 60 feet and Cottage Grove 50 feet.† With regard to pavement width, she noted the County has 24 to 32 feet and Eugene has 20 to 50 feet, Springfield 36 feet, Florence 34 feet and Cottage Grove 24 to 32 feet.† She noted they did this to ease the transition when future annexation occurs. She said since the cities of Springfield and Eugene both have authority for land use and building in the land division process, it will facilitate that process.† She noted that this section of the code applies to new local streets and reconstruction of local streets.† She said that developers to the applicable standards would build new streets.†† She didnít anticipate a major cost to the County with the change.
Barry noted the second concern was a notation about the City of Coburg now being in the federal metropolitan planning organization.† She said that staff was not inclined to add the change but they could do it† She said they have language that shows all of the TSP must be mutually consistent.† She commented they donít know how the cities of Springfield, Eugene and Coburg will deal with the new MPO designation with regard to their TSP.
Vorhes explained it was up to the Board if they wanted to make notation about federal transportation planning in their state land use transportation system plan.
Dwyer wanted an asterisk that explains in the year 2003, Coburg was added to the federal highway planning.
Vorhes indicated this was a state land use plan document, not a federal plan.† He said they could put language in that would require an additional reading before adoption.† He said this might lead to a broader discussion with their metro planning partners about the shape of the Metro Area Plan from a land use perspective.† He noted there have been a slight difference between the federal transportation plan boundaries, the Metro Plan boundary and the TransPlan boundary from a jurisdictional standpoint because of the difference between federal transportation planning.† He added that the state land use planning and the jurisdictional boundaries from the cities of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County came up with for the Metro Area Plan.† He indicated that had not always coincided with the federal MPO area for purposes of federal planning.† He noted there are four paragraphs in the front end of the plan that describes how this TSP relates to the others under the Oregon Land Use Planning System.
With regard to performance agreements, Barry explained they are something they rarely use that is provided for in Lane Manual to make sure work gets done after a permit is issued or monies are paid for something.† She said they were seeking a change on what would delegate authority from the County Administrator to the Public Works Director.† She said the way the performance agreements work is if someone has a land division, there is a two-step process, they get preliminary approval and there are several conditions they need to meet before they obtain final plat approval.†† She said the performance agreement would only come into play if that applicant wishes to obtain their final plat approval before they build the roads.† She said it rarely occurs because of the state land use law system.† She said it is not an urgent need and if they switch it back to the way it was it would be in Lane Manual.† She said they saw it as a customer service issue they could address.
Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:† to move to adopt Ordinance PA 1202.
Dwyer MOVED,† Hampton SECONDED.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0 (Morrison out of room).
c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 10-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 10, 13, 15 and 16 of Lane Code to Implement the Lane County Transportation System Plan by Adopting New and Revised Rules, Regulations and Standards Relating to Existing and Future Transportation and Access Needs in Lane County . (NBA & PM 4/14/04).
MOTION:† to move adopt Ordinance†10-04.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0 (Morrison out of room).
d. ORDER 04-5-5-8/In the Matter of Amending Chapters 15 and 60 of the Lane Manual to Adopt New and Revised Policies and Standards Applicable to Roads in Lane County.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-5-5-8.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0 (Morrison out of room).
13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
14. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
15. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.