BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
November 10, 2004
following Board of Health
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Don Hampton opened the meeting with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† Bobby Green, Sr., arrived at 9:30 a.m.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
The Public Health Report was pulled.† Green noted that item 5 c. was added.† Sorenson distributed a proposed addendum to the budget.† He requested putting it under 5 d. under Commissioner Business.† He indicated it was a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance 19-04.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mort Hyman, Eugene, stated that he last testified against the proposal to enlarge the urban growth boundary in Santa Clara.† He said it would have entailed converting 1,900 acres from valuable farmland to residential and commercial development.† He said there was also discussion about a 77-acre park on the site.† He noted there was no funding available for the park.† He indicated that over 775 community residents had signed a petition opposing the park.† He said they oppose the project because of farmland preservation, inappropriate size and location, traffic congestion, no secure funding for park development, school crowding, loss of wetlands and wildlife,† annexation issues and urban growth boundary expansion.† He said they are requesting a return to what the residents want.† He said they are waiting to see a questionnaire on what the citizens want.
Jim Seaberry, Santa Clara, asked the Board to go on record as being in opposition to the park and land swap on the current arrangement that the city has proposed.† He thought it was a bad situation.
Keith Schneider, Glenwood, asked the Board to draw up plans to develop the Glenwood blighted area with transparency.
Dave Carvel, Glenwood, spoke as Chair of the Glenwood Water District.† He said the Board would receive a proposal from the City of Springfield with an urban renewal district.† He indicated that John Tamulonis, City of Springfield, came to their meeting and said that if this goes through and taxes are frozen, Glenwood Water District would not be able to continue to provide fire service as the contact is currently written.† He said it is a concern to Glenwood.† He said they are asking for money but not telling the citizens what they are going to do with it.† He said in speaking as a resident,† Springfield is asking for $2.3 million for taxes and not a limit on what to do with it† He commented that proposed developments are vague and ambiguous.† He said they should have a specific focused goal and donít have one.
Kevin Oí Reilly, Glenwood, urged the Board to support having representation of a resident and a business owner in the area sitting on the committee so they have a voice for their future.
Joan Armstead, Glenwood stated she was concerned with the urban renewal district and how the tax dollars are going to be used† She wanted to see plans and elements from the Metro Plan and the Glenwood Refinement Plan to be included.† She was also concerned about preserving the natural features they have in their residential area and along the river as much as possible.† She thought urban renewal monies could help with the blight issue.† She didnít think there had been enough research.
Jan Wilson, said she is an attorney who represents residents and business owners in Glenwood.† She noted the biggest concern is the County representing the people in the blighted areas. She added those areas arenít annexed and donít have a seat on the city council. She said they wanted to add a public person on the committee who is a resident of Glenwood.† She noted that the City of Springfield had meetings but the residents of Glenwood didnít get to state their opinion.
Lauri Segel, Eugene, commented that the public deserved more than two minutes at public comment† because they are not hearing from their County Commissioner when the city comes to them on some of the proposals.† She said if the Board decides to look at an ordinance that is currently adopted and on appeal, they would be expected to open a discussion to amend the first ordinance to open it up for the general public.
Dwyer asked if it was feasible to amend their transitional agreement with the cities that require public input from the communities that are being affected.
Van Vactor thought it could be a discussion between the county and the two cities.
Dwyer asked that staff draft a letter for the chair so the people who are being affected are represented.
Jack Dresser, Springfield, stated he is a scientist at the Oregon Research Institute and a board member of Prevention Recovery Northwest.† He noted that The Register Guard,† did an article on prevention recovery and connected it with a part on the United Way and their ongoing campaign.† He explained the article draws attention to the† importance of prevention.† He asked the Board to possibly put some public safety† funds into prevention† He commented that Lane County was behind the curve in developing these types of programs.† He said they now receive no money from the County and they can only conduct one prevention program in one middle school in the county.
Mona Lindstromberg, Veneta, recalled that last week she was present for the comment period for the freight route designation.† She said at that meeting it was indicated that the West Lane County Commissioner thought the City of Veneta supported the designation on Highway 126.† She was concerned because the city council and mayor didnít have all the information to make that type of decision.† She was pleased that on Monday nightís meeting the mayor and the City Council of Veneta decided to postpone taking any action.† Her concern is that Veneta is not getting the word out that they have people who are looking at the issues.† She noted that people in Veneta were supportive of the 2050 Plan and getting youth involved.† She thought Ballot Measure 37 was a bad measure and poorly explained in the Voterís Pamphlet and they support land use laws.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson reported that last night at the joint meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners, they discussed the 2050 Plan. He said he had been reading where obesity rates are increasing because people donít live in healthy communities.† He said because of the concerns of traffic safety and how things are designed where they live, the kids canít get the kind of exercise they need.
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
a. RESOLUTION04-11-10-1/In the Matter of Authorizing $1,000 from the General Expense Fund for the Food for Lane County Gardens Program Grass Roots Garden Large Greenhouse.
MOTION:† to approve RESOLUTION 04-11-10-1.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
b. ORDER 04-11-10-2/In the Matter of Appointing a Commissioner as the Voting Delegate to the Council of Forest Land Trust Counties.
Morrison recalled that she is the Boardís representative on the County Forest Trusts Lands.† She stated in the packet was information about what will take place at the annual meeting in Portland next week for AOC.† She added they would be having an election for officers and the Board of Directors.† She said that they need one voting delegate from Lane County to vote in the process.† She noted in the past she had been the voting delegate.† She stated that John Griffith had been the representative for Coos, Douglas, Josephine and Lane Counties.† She explained the packet also discussed the dues for the next year.† She said that annual dues have been $12,000 and Lane Countyís portion is $662.† She added there had been special assessments in the past few years.
MOTION:† to approve appointing Anna Morrison as a voting delegate for ORDER 04-11-10-2.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
c. FIRST READING AND SETTING A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance 18-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 2 of Lane Code to Establish a Real Property Compensation Claim Application Process Resulting From Voter Approval of Ballot Measure 37 (November 2, 2004) and Declaring an Emergency (Second Reading & Public Hearing: December 1, 2004, 1:30 p.m.)
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for December 1, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. for Ordinance 18-04.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes explained that this was similar to what was adopted four years ago with Measure 7.† He said it had been revised to reflect some of the changes that came about because of Measure 37.† He said a claim is made and the County Administrator evaluates it and decides whether it should be denied outright or a referral should come to the Board to evaluate whether to compensate or waive, modify or discontinue application of a regulation to that property based on the evaluation of the claim.† He indicated there would be an issue in the urban growth area around Springfield and Eugene, and in the Measure 7 version they delegated authority and left everything up to the city.† He said when Measure 37 talks about waiver of or modifying regulation, it discusses a governing body enacting the regulation.† He thought they might need to work out a process where the city handles almost everything in the area.† He thought the Planning Commission could also hold a hearing and make a recommendation to the Board, to have them come in jointly, sit in on the hearing on December 1 with the Board so they cover the process.† He explained that this enactment of the process provides the potential for effecting land use regulations. He said they are trying to coordinate the Planning Commission involvement in December if possible.
Sorenson asked what the main purpose was for this.
Vorhes responded that it is a way to find out what the claim is, evaluate it and then make a determination on whether to compensate or recommend the waiver, or removal, or discontinue application of the applicable regulation that has caused the reduction in value.
Sorenson asked if there was a provision for the applicant or claimant to submit on the basis of the restriction and the timing.
Vorhes indicated that under Section 2.720, it lists a number of things they are asking the applicant or claimant to give the County by way of information.† He noted that Subsection 5 is a statement specifically identifying the section of Lane Code or other land use regulation that allegedly restricts the use of real property and allegedly causes a reduction in fair market value of the subject property, including the date the regulation was adopted first and applied to the subject property.
Sorenson thought it was the burden of the applicant to show the precision with which the regulation, restriction or intrusion on the property owners complained of was in place.† He said the burden is on the person who is seeking government money to rectify what they are showing that a restriction was placed on their property.
Vorhes said with the information of the specific provision of Lane County land use regulation, asking for the specific information and the date that was applied should be enough in most cases for them to determine if the regulation was in effect at that point in time.
Sorenson asked what the fees would be and if they should have a fee that is proportionate to the amount of the claim being submitted.
Vorhes explained that the ordinance in front of the Board establishes or indicates that an application fee in an amount established by order of the Board.† He noted on December 1 the Board would receive a Lane Manual provision that will establish a fee.† He said if it were a percentage of the claim, the risk would be if it was reasonable and under Measure 37 the process for application and review of a claim at the local government level could not get in the way of a cause of action in circuit court for compensation.† He noted the ordinance provides for computation of the time and expense it takes to evaluate a claim and at the end of the process they will present a bill to the claimant for the cost of their processing the claim.
Dwyer wanted to use the doctrine of reasonable expectation, what a person could be reasonably expected to do with a piece of property at the time of purchase that was reflected in the zoning and in the purchase price.
Vorhes indicated that might be one of the things that the Board would want to look at after the claims process has been set up. He thought it was a more proactive way of addressing land use regulation in wake of Measure 37.
d. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance 19-04 In the Matter of Amending Chapter 7 of Lane Code to Establish a Rabies Reporting Process (Second Reading and Public Hearing, November 23, 2004, 9:00 a.m.)
Sorenson said the Board of Commissioners appointed an animal welfare task force and one of the aspects of their work that had not been acted upon yet is the concept of requiring a report of rabies vaccinations to Lane County government.† He said that Lane County is one of the jurisdictions in the country where it is not done.† He said the problem it creates in the area of public health is not clear whether or not a dog has been vaccinated for rabies.† He noted the proposed ordinance encompasses the concept of requiring this rabies reporting.† He added it attempts to protect the veterinariansí customer list and it imposes violations.† He said because it was drafted by Marc Kardell, Legal Counsel, and modified by Scott Bartlett, the chair of the task force, that this is not in the shape to be adopted.† He said it was in the shape to provide notice to the public about having a public hearing and getting people to give their views on this.† It was his intent that they not come to conclusion on November 23 and they have the public hearing and work on it if there is interest on the part of the board.
MOTION:† to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing on Ordinance 19-04 for November 23, 2004, 9:00 a.m.
Sorenson MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
Dwyer said this gives the opportunity to hear from the public.
Sorenson indicated that Kardell didnít write in paragraph 4 under number 2. and he didnít do number 5, the violation.
Wilson commented this ordinance was substantially different than the ordinance that Kardell worked on.
Green commented that, had this gone through the regular agenda process, he would have been supportive, but couldnít support it now.† He noted this was the second time he had gone home from a night meeting and come back to work with something drafted on his desk that had not gone through a process.† He was surprised it was condoned and couched as something simple and reasonable.† He wasnít opposed to it, his objection was the process that was taken to put it in front of the Board.† Green noted that Sorenson was an advocate of public process and if he were to go back and read the file with David Suchartís information, it shows that the program director, Mike Wellington, will work with the Veterinarians Association, to get their input and put together an ordinance.† He said that was decided and agreed upon.† He was wondering why Sorenson wanted to rush this.† He added that Scott Bartlett, as the chair, has inserted himself into the process and Green took exception to that.† He indicated that they accepted the task force report and they asked staff to do the work.. He stated they have an agenda process and Sorenson could have e-mailed this to him.† He said he would not condone the process that Sorenson came up with.† Green commented that it was not fair to the public to do this as Sorenson had done it.
Morrison recalled that they just had the presentation, and as Green indicated there was something in process about the rabies vaccination ordinance.† She said they have developed relationships with the veterinary community that they need to maintain.† She said this ordinance changed dramatically.† She wanted to know the legalities before they present it to the public.† She wanted it done one time correctly.
Dwyer didnít want the ďveterinarians to write the ordinance.Ē† He wanted legal counsel to write the ordinances and thought the process argument is valid.† He wanted to know if the agenda team could take the ordinance and bring it forward at the next meeting for discussion.† If so, he would agree with the process and they could set the hearing.
Green agreed to bring it before the agenda team, consider what they have to discuss and provide time to set up a public hearing.
Hampton was disappointed with the LCARA process and how long it has taken.† He wanted a whole proposal placed before them at the same time.† He had concerns about compatibility at the end.
Sorenson recalled that in 2001 Dwyer convened a public meeting about animal welfare.† He said a year later he held a meeting in the library to discuss animal welfare, followed by the appointment of an 18-month task force.† He said they submitted their report in 2003, and set up an extensive public hearing on the report in November, 2003.† He said his idea in proposing this was to get a reading from the Board as to whether or not they want to move forward.† He wanted to get the issue going.† He thought their unwillingness to provide basic information to public health people about rabies is a problem which they hadnít addressed rapidly.
Green said this would have to go through the agenda team and the process that needs to be taken.
Sorenson and Dwyer withdrew their motions and second.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
Van Vactor announced that the County completed its charitable contribution campaign and there will be a report to the Board in a couple of weeks with the results.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. ORDER 04-11-10-3/In the Matter of Awarding Annual Trashbuster Awards.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-11-10-3.
Morrison MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
b. REPORT BACK/Progress Report for the Electronics Recycling Program.
Pete Chism, Waste Management, reported that last summer he proposed a program for recycling electronic devices. He brought back information on how the program is working.† He said since July 9, 2004, 1,003 Lane County citizens voluntarily used the electronic recycling program.† He said the citizens contributed to diverting 143,851 pound of electronic waste and they also diverted an estimated 12,690 pounds of lead.† He noted the fees associated with the larger items collected for the program totaled $20,285.† He added the cost to the contractor, Earth Protection Services in Tigard is $20,488.20.† He said the costs of the fees are covering the cost of the contractor but Lane County is covering the cost of administration and labor.
Chism reported that 700 people came from the City of Eugene, 165 from Springfield, 102 businesses used the program, 38 people were from Florence, 18 from Cottage Grove, 15 from† Creswell, 10 from Junction City and 10 were from out of the county.
Green also wanted a written report and for Chism to come back to the Board.
c. DISCUSSION/Project Update and Process Approval for the Airport Road Realignment Project.
Sonny Chickering, Public Works, explained that the Eugene Airport is moving forward with three projects that are included in the Airport Master Plan.† He noted the realignment of Greenhill Road is complete.† He said they are currently constructing a parallel runway project and in conjunction with that, there is a third project that calls for re-alignment of Airport Road.
Chickering reported there is a process in Lane Manual whereby if the County initiates a modification to a County road, there is a process that involves the Roads Advisory Committee and the Board of Commissioners reviewing and approving a design concept.† He indicated this project is unusual because it is not a County project, but a City of Eugene/Airport project.† He noted that it is funded completely by the FAA funds and local matching money.† He said the Board of Commissioners and the two cities in the adoption of the Airport Master Plan Update in 2000 previously approved the realignment of Airport Road.† He said the property acquisition will only be required on a few properties and the basic parameters of the roadway have been discussed and coordinated with his staff.† He indicated that much of the process around adoption of a design concept had already occurred.† He noted there are design issues on the west end of the project.† He added that there is a discussion about a roundabout alternative or a different treatment for the intersection and those details had not been determined yet.† He noted on the east end of the alignment, there will be a remnant piece of Airport Road that has several properties that access it and there needs to be details completed on whether they would dead-end the road.† He said the plan is to dead-end the remnant road on the east end and have the properties connected out to Greenhill Road.
Green asked if they spoke with any of the property owners.
Bob Noble, Eugene Airport, thought there would be two issues, the local access issues and the other from the property owner Lentz, where the City of Eugene has to acquire the parcel.† He noted that Mr. Lentz bought the property speculatively and when they went through the Master Plan Update, Lentz was the only property owner who objected to the realignment issue and went to LUBA.† He stated that LUBA indicated that the Airport had processed this appropriately and that Lentz lost his appeal.†† He said when they go through the property acquisition that they will try to go through an amicable process.
Noble said they want to bring this issue back to the Board once they have the design.† He said this allows them to go forward with the design and the property acquisition concurrently so they could stay on a time line to build the road in the summer of 2006.† He thought the only critical decision with the design was what type of traffic control is needed at the westerly end where Greenhill intersects with Airport Road.† He said the airport wants a final design with an unimpeded westerly access that does not stop.
Chickering said they are looking for authorization from the Board to bypass the normal County process.† He added they took it to the Roads Advisory Committee and were comfortable with the recommendation of staff that they defer directly to the Board.
Green asked them to come back no later than February.
Sorenson asked if Measure 37 might pose a problem.
Noble thought it could be a factor since the properties were downzoned.
Green indicated there was consensus from the Board to go forward.
d. DISCUSSION AND ORDER 04-11-10-17/Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan.
John Tamulonis, City of Springfield, said they have been working on the Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan.† He explained that under the state laws for adopting a renewal plan, the Board representatives from the area would still have to approve the plan that would go forward that is being initiated by the City of Springfield.† He indicated that last night the City of Springfield approved a version.† He noted the primary approval that the city council needed to move ahead on this was based on the city charter and approval of Ballot Measure 20-02 that was passed on November 2, by 72% in favor.
Dwyer wanted to have four citizens who represent Glenwood on the advisory committee: one from mobile homes, one citizen at-large, one industrial business and one commercial business.† He said Lane County will pick two citizens and the City of Springfield will pick two.
With regard to governance, Van Vactor said if it were an urban renewal under the old law where Lane County wasnít impacted, Lane County wouldnít have trouble with the plan.† He noted that Lane County loses a significant tax increment and that is why there is a proposal that the plan provides for two county commissioners† to serve on the governing body of this urban renewal district.
Towery said there is an issue related to the Glenwood receiving station.† He noted there is a project identified that relates to the possible decommissioning study of relocating the Glenwood receiving station and the recommendation that they would ask the Board to consider that if the Glenwood receiving station is going to be relocated as a result of implementing the urban renewal plan, that the County not be responsible for the costs of doing that.† He said there are a number of areas in the plan and the report where they identified opportunities to make additional clarifying remarks or some changes to the language.
Dwyer said they need to amend the transitional agreement with the cities that include representation on any committee that affects an area by citizens in unincorporated areas.
Sorenson suggested that the Board of Commissioners appoint the public members, (not the City of Springfield) to ease the concern of the people in the area that their role is not diminished.
Tamulonis said if the Board forwards a proposal to them and wants a reaction from the Springfield Economic Development Agency, if staff sent something, they could respond to that on Monday night.
Sorenson suggested that the Springfield commissioner and the East Lane Commissioner be on the committee.† He thought the Board of Commissioners should pick the citizens from outside by having citizens that reside in Glenwood involved.
Green didnít want to micro manage, with the Board choosing the members.† He thought Lane County should pick two and the City of Springfield chooses the other two.
Dwyer was in agreement with the Board picking two members from the unincorporated area and the city picking the other two.
Tamulonis recalled the projects they are reviewing are the ones that were identified from the needs in the Glenwood Refinement Plan.† He said they have to conform to the plan and it is limiting as to what they can do for projects.
Tammy Fitch, City of Springfield, thought the city council would go with two representatives from Springfield and from Lane County.† She said they want the representation from Glenwood.† With the Glenwood Receiving Station,† she said if the urban renewal district were to pay for all of it and the County were to turn around and sell it to a private developer, the urban renewal district recoups the costs so the County wouldnít be getting a gain without paying back the expenses that occurred.
Van Vactor reiterated that the Board of Commissioners wants some approval with conditions.† He suggested that Tamulonis and Towery work on the resolution to be brought back.† He said he heard the Board wanted approval with conditions: two commissioners on the governing body, a four member advisory committee where the commissioners appoint two, and the language with the Glenwood Receiving Station with the caveat that they wouldnít make a profit.
Tamulonis noted Section 100 a.7 was necessitated by current conditions.
Van Vactor indicated the Board didnít agree with those conditions.† He said they didnít agree with the characterization of the Glenwood facility as blighted.† He said they wanted alternative language.
Fitch said there was a reason for the blight characterization as it allows for some grants and money to come into the area to assist with the projects.
MOTION:† to move in concept what they agreed to do and have Towery and Tamulonis bring back language that is acceptable for final action this afternoon.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
Wilson noted that the adoption of an urban renewal plan that involves two entities is a procedure that is set up in the statutes.† She explained that the City of Springfield had disbursed the draft plan for all taxing districts.† She said because the Board has an interest in having some impact on the draft plan,† it is important to get the Boardís comments back to the Springfield City Council at the time they finalize their plan.† She noted at that point the city council will have their hearing on Monday and they will finalize the plan but then have to adopt it by ordinance.† She said after their hearing on Monday, they would get a final plan for formal approval† She added if all of the changes are accepted, it could be on the consent calendar.
Sorenson asked what the rush was to get this done today.
Towery said they got clear feedback on some of the Boardís interests and it is appropriate to memorialize those so action could be taken.† He said it is a conditional approval of the plan.† He said the comments they would adopt by approving the order would go to the city for consideration and incorporation or not.†† He said they would then get another document back and it will include some of the recommendations plus recommendations from other taxing entities.† He said at that point they would be asked to approve that document.† He said that could take place on November 23.
With regard to the citizen representatives, Dwyer had no problem in choosing the citizen at-large and the mobile home citizen and have Springfield appoint the industrial and the commercial representative.
Tamulonis explained that once this is adopted, they need to do advertising, recording and notification to the County tax assessor.† He indicated their intent from the start was that if there was any reasonable way of doing it to have this in place by January 1, 2005.
(The following portion took place in the afternoon)
Jan Wilson, Eugene, stated she represented people who couldnít stay for this portion of the meeting.† She noted that the County was asked to approve a draft plan with changes that have not been specified.† She noted the wording of the resolution would re-approve a draft plan and it stated a public hearing was held and they received comment.† She added that they donít know what is in the document and there had not been a public hearing.† She indicated the people of Glenwood were most concerned about the idea of a refinement plan being used as a basis in the draft plan and then a single jurisdiction trying to change the refinement plan.† She was concerned they wouldnít have a voice.† She said they approved having four members on the advisory committee, but they have to make specific that those members are from the unincorporated areas so they donít have residents and business owners who already have representation. They preferred that the County and the City of Springfield jointly approve all four of the positions.† She noted there was nothing mentioned about the Budget Committee for the group.† She thought that needed to go into the resolution.
Dwyer thought a joint adoption of the representatives would keep them honest about the process.
Dave Carvo, Glenwood commented that the Urban Renewal Plan was based on two documents that are good. He asked what would happen to the portion of the plan if they got rid of the Metro Plan.† He didnít know what would happen if the City of Springfield decided to get out of the Metro Plan.† He noted the document is based on the Metro Plan and its goals.† He asked how it would leave the relationship with Lane County and the Metro Plan.
Dwyer commented that it was not in Springfieldís best interest to get out of the Metro Plan.† He said that Springfield would run into obstacles locally and at the state level.
Kevin OíReilly, Glenwood, stated his concern was adding the citizens on the Glenwood Urban Renewal Advisory Committee.† He asked who was on it besides the four citizens of Glenwood.† He commented that a citizen at-large was a vague term.† He asked if a resident meant an owner-occupied property.
Dwyer explained when he mentioned a citizen at large, he meant a homeowner was someone who didnít live in a mobile home park, but was impacted by the decision of the city that lived outside of the city within the county.† He added when he said mobile home resident, he meant someone who either owned a mobile home or lived in a mobile home park that was not an owner that might be impacted by the decisions.† With regard to businesses, he meant businesses that werenít in the city, but industrial sites that were outside the city limits or commercial or the type of retail property that was outside the city within the urban growth boundaries that would be impacted by the decision.† He wanted the intent to be incorporated into what they do.
Ted Russell, Glenwood, concurred with what had already been said.† He hoped things would work out.
Green thought they had to move forward with this to get questions dealt with in a public setting and hold other elected officials accountable.
Wilson suggested that they change it to read: ďAnd four citizens of the Glenwood Urban Renewal Advisory Committee, with Lane County appointing a mobile home resident and a citizen at large who is a resident of the unincorporated area and the City of Springfield appointing a representative of a retail business and an industrial business located in the Glenwood unincorporated area.Ē
MOTION: to approve the agreement based on the clarification of who the committees are,† where they live outside of the city, that they be residents of the urban growth boundary, outside the city limits within the UGB.† That one is an at large homeowner and one is a mobile home owner who lives outside the urban growth boundary.† He indicated that Lane County would appoint two citizen members and the City of Springfield will appoint one business owner and one† industrial owner.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
Tamulonis explained that they would like to have all the components for the plan solidified and agreed to by the Economic Development Agency and the proposals by the County and the city council and any other input from the taxing bodies and have that wrapped up with the public testimony for final form on November 23.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
July 27, 2004, Leadership Team, 9:00 a.m.
January 20, 2004, Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
September 27, 2004, Joint Veneta City Council, 6:30 p.m.
September 29, 2004, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B. County Administration
1) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 04-11-10-4/In the Matter of Receiving Grant Funds for Mapleton Water System Improvements ($750,000) and $375,000 for the Regional Housing Rehabilitation Program and Increasing Appropriations in the Amount of $1,125,000 General Expense Capital Projects Within the FY 04-05 General Fund.
2) ORDER 04-11-10-5/In the Matter of Approving Contracts Totaling $160,000 for 2004-05 Rural Tourism Marketing Program (RTMP) Projects in the Cities of Oakridge, Lowell, Westfir, Coburg, Cottage Grove, Veneta, Creswell, Junction City, Florence, and Dunes City and Services in the McKenzie River Valley to Be Completed by McKenzie River Chamber of Commerce.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 04-11-10-6/In the Matter of Awarding $125,833 to Relief Nursery for Family Support Services for the Period 7/1/04 Through 6/30/05.† (Department of Health & Human Services).
2) ORDER 04-11-10-7/In the Matter of Delegating Authority to the County Administrator to Accept Revenue in the Amount of $51,200 from Oregon Health & Sciences University.
3) ORDER 04-11-10-8/In the Matter of Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign a Grant Application to the State Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services in the Amount of $100,000 per Year for the 2005-07 Biennium.† (Department of Health & Human Services).
4) ORDER 04-11-10-9/In the Matter of Appointing a New Member to the Lane County Health Advisory Committee.
D. Management Services
1) ORDER 04-11-10-10/In the Matter of Authorizing the Sale of Surplus County Owned Real Property to Marijo C. Nordahl (Map #18-12-25-00-02300, Across Highway from 06061 Highway 126, Florence).
2) ORDER 04-11-10-11/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 3 of the Lane Manual to Redefine Diversity Differences in the County Diversity Policy (LM 2.390).
E. Public Works
1) ORDER 04-11-10-12/In the Matter of Relinquishing County-Owned Road Fund Property to the City of Springfield Pursuant to ORS 271.330.
F. Workforce Partnership
1) ORDER 04-11-10-13/In the Matter of Appointing a Member to the Lane Workforce Partnership Board of Directors.
MOTION:† to approve the Consent Calendar.
Hampton MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-0 (Morrison, Dwyer out of room).
9. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-11-10-14/In the Matter of Establishing One Part-Time (.50 FTE) Temporary Developmental Disabilities Specialist Effective November 1, 2004 and Appropriating an Additional $27,420 in Revenue and Expenditures for FY 2004-2005 in Fund 286 Department of Health and Human Services.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-11-10-14.
Sorenson MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-0. (Dwyer, Morrison out of room).
10. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-11-10-15/In the Matter of Reporting the Progress and Status of the Development of the Diversity Action Plan (DAP) by the Diversity Task Force.
Laura Yergan, Management Services, passed out a grid of the Diversity Action Plan. (Copy in file).† She recalled the Board approved a Diversity Action Committee and asked that a task force be established to develop a new plan.† She indicated they were ready to go into phase two.† She noted the first meeting will be in January and they will give the Board a draft of the plan.† She indicated the task force consists of 25 people.† She added if the plan is adopted and implemented, it would go into effect next February.† She noted the plan itself has a total of 37 action items divided into four major roles.
Green†commented that when this comes back to the Board that they need to make a strong statement that this is goes out with the backing of the Board.
Yergan explained the plan had thought and time put into it, but things could be added.† She thought it was a good plan that would take diversity to Lane County† to the next level.† She added more could be done to continue to make Lane County a better place for everyone.
Dwyer thought they were on the right track.
Green noted this was a discussion item and there would be no board order.† He indicated that this plan had the endorsement by the Board.
b. ORDER 04-11-10-16/In the Matter of Creating a Classification and Salary Range for Parks Supervisor.
MOTION:† to approve ORDER 04-11-10-16.
Sorenson MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
VOTE: 3-0 (Dwyer, Morrison out of room).
11. OTHER BUSINESS
With regard to the letter on the Olge matter, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes said they were working on bringing back to the Board an order with findings reflecting the tentative decision.† His recommendation was to take up the letter as well as a response to that letter and to discuss the options at the time the order comes back.
12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Morrison announced that the AOC annual meeting is next week.† She indicated she was involved to participate in a gathering at Skamania Lodge for the Forest Service.
Green indicated he would be attended a Human Services Commission meeting on Tuesday.
13. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
DISCUSSION/ORDER 04-11-10-18 In the Matter of Approving the Transfer of $2,000 from the General Fund Operational Contingency to Support the Inauguration of Oregon Commissioner Bill Hansell as National Association of Counties (NACo) President.
Morrison explained there was a letter that went out to the Board but there had never been any direction or decision made on whether they want to participate as one of the Oregon counties in the inauguration of Bill Hansell.† She indicated it would be discussed at AOC next week.† She said they had broken it down by counties and Lane Countyís portion is based on Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah and Washington when Randy Franke was president that was $2,000.
MOTION:† to approve $2,000 for Bill Hansellís inauguration for NACo.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place in the afternoon.
15. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting at† 11:45 a.m.