BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
October 20, 2004
Commissioners’ Conference Room
Commissioner Don Hampton presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present. Bobby Green, Sr. was excused. County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mort Hymen, 3863 Dorchester Lane, Eugene, stated he represented the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Space. He said they are a group of over 150 Santa Clara residents who oppose the Santa Clara urban growth boundary expansion. He noted they are circulating petitions and doing what they can for elected officials to re-visit the project. He said the 197-acre tract of predominantly class 1 soils is an invaluable and irreplaceable resource. He indicated that State Planning Goal 14 states that Class 1 soils are not to be developed when other less desirable classes of soil are available. He stated the developer determined the size of the proposed park, not by the needs of the community. He said this is an UGB expansion, not a land swap proposal as the city is maintaining and they will set a precedent to comply with the desire of developers instead of the needs of the community. He noted the proposed development would aggravate existing congestion problems. He stated there was no secure funding for the park development. He said the proposed park infrastructure and its ongoing maintenance has no funding source.
Jim Baker, 51013 McKenzie Highway, Finn Rock, commented there was nothing about maintenance of truck routes that is positive. He noted that becoming a highway freight system designation does not guarantee additional investment. He commented that speeding trucks are already a major problem on the McKenzie. He said the state wants to make this a freight line when it is really a 50-mile per hour residential road. He noted that many truckers on the McKenzie are cross-country, not local. He asked the Board not to recommend the McKenzie for a high-speed expressway truck route.
Steve Birskovich, 91082 Leeshore Drive, Vida, stated he had concerns about safety on the McKenzie. He was also concerned about the bikers driving down the McKenzie, as there isn’t enough room for them on the road. He said the passing areas are dangerous. He commented that truckers using their jake brakes are a nuisance. He noted that safety was the most important thing on the road.
Monica La Rosa, 42346 McKenzie Highway, stated she just found out about the freight line. She said they started talking to the community members about the issue and everyone they talked to was outraged. She stated they collected 476 signatures from people who were concerned about this issue. She submitted a memo identifying the issues they were concerned about. She indicated her house is right on the highway and the traffic has gotten worse. She commented that Highway 58 is already a designated truck route and didn’t know why they would use McKenzie Highway to go to the same destination.
Shirley Latimer, 40624 McKenzie Highway, Walterville, turned in more signatures. She stated that safety was a big concern as the speed on the highway is dangerous. She asked what ODOT’s plan was. She asked if it addressed safety first. She asked if those 60 miles designation could be given a different designation such as a scenic resort area.
Charles Lewellen, 89136 Bridge Street, Springfield, asked if anyone brought up emergency vehicles when there are semi-trucks going up the McKenzie Highway. He added the drainage on the road is poor.
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
Hampton reported there is a Budget Committee Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 26 at noon. He noted there is a Work Session and Public Hearing scheduled for Thursday, October 28 at 6:15 p.m. in Springfield. He announced this afternoon is the Junction City Jail inspection.
6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 17-04/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 16 of Lane Code to Revise the Applicable Standards for Telecommunication Facilities (LC 16.264) (Second Reading & Public Hearing: November 3, 2004, 1:30 pm).
Sorenson commented the materials in the packets raised questions about whether or not this would be a good thing.
MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 1704.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
b. SIXTH READING AND DISCUSSION/Ordinance PA 1188/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Revise the “Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory”, Redesignate from “Forest” to “Natural Resource: Mineral”, Rezone From “F-1/Non-Impacted Forest Lands” To “QM/Quarry and Mine Operations” and Allow Mining for 40 Acres of Land Pursuant to Lane Code 16.400 and 16.252 and the Goal 5 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-023); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 99-5144; Bradford Quarry/B.J. Equipment Company) (NBA & PM 3/19/03, 4/30/03, 2/4/04, 2/11/04 & 2/25/04).
Hampton stated that Green was not present and he requested they act on this when they have a full board.
MOTION: to move to roll this until they have a full board.
Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
MOTION: to approve a Sixth Reading and setting a Seventh Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance PA 1188 on October 27, 2004.
c. ORDER 04-10-13-11/In the Matter of Endorsing New Freight Routes on Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Highways in Lane County.
Tim Stinchfiled, Public Works, reported since last week’s public hearing, they received several materials. He said they distributed a petition that came in on the McKenzie Highway to the Board office. He said they also distributed a packet of five other pieces of information from individuals, including one signed by the chair of MPC. He thought they could request more time on this item and their recommendation is that they defer action today. He noted that MPC was uncomfortable with taking action and requested a two-month delay. He added the letter the Board received in their packet signed by Councilor Bettman, as chair of MPC requested the two-month delay.
Ollie Snowden, Public Works, stated he spoke with Commissioner Randy Pape who is on the Transportation Commission and he is requesting that the OTC delay action on this. He sent an e-mail to ODOT staff to confirm whether they thought the delay would occur. He said that Pape told him that ODOT could have done a better job in terms of getting information out on this and engaging the community early on. He asked the Board if they want to direct staff to prepare a letter to ODOT listing questions and issues they want answers to.
Dwyer didn’t want to delay the project, he wanted to stop it. He wasn’t happy with the site of the freight route as it isn’t an appropriate route for trucks. He commented that it is a scenic route that is narrow. He said they had to let the OTC know that the eastern portion of 126 was not acceptable as a truck route.
Snowden explained that ODOT says the freight routes are merely to recognize the existing traffic. He didn’t know what ability local government would have to control this and balance community desires with the statewide importance of these routes. He said those are the questions they should get from ODOT before they go further.
Sorenson thought they should have a public hearing to allow people to testify and to make sure the people along Highway 126 West, Highway 99 or others along the McKenzie are aware of this. He wanted to re-open the public hearing to hear from anyone who hasn’t testified. He commented that asking the questions that Snowden asked was good but he wanted to see if the Board could fix the freight designation system by responding that the McKenzie route is a mistake from the beginning. He thought there should be a letter sent to the legislative delegation and to the governor and the OTC commissioners to state they were making a mistake by starting a program where they are going to designate roads that are close to I-5. He thought they were doing something against the interest of the gasoline taxpayer, by taking roads that shouldn’t be truck routes and calling them that, causing a decline in the resources available for the true truck routes. He said alternatives were not involved with this. He was not in favor of this because they didn’t hear from the trucking industry on why they need to do this. He wanted to see the public continue to weigh in on this. He wanted to send a letter asking questions. He wanted another public hearing where the trucking industry is allowed to testify as well as the public.
Hampton said the Board thought there hasn’t been enough time to get the information they want. He added that MPC feels the same way.
Morrison agreed to postpone this. With regard to 126 West, she said there is a desire to have that take place because they are concerned about economic development and their schools. She agreed to have another public hearing. She commented that having a truck route designation pushes to the top the possibility of receiving monies earlier regarding maintenance and preservation.
Snowden noted that part of the truck route proposal came from HB 2041 in the last session that required that ODOT mod money provide for trucks and freight movement. He thought the legislature would be an appropriate body for a letter. He added with regard to the public hearing, he suggested holding off on the public hearing until they get some response back from ODOT. He noted that one thing that ODOT requires is a Management Plan. He said they don’t know what is in the Management Plan. He thought their recommendation to ODOT would be to give Lane County a template for the Management Plan before they make any decisions on the freight route.
MOTION: to move to send a letter to Lane County’s delegation expressing Lane County’s concerns, with a copy to the governor and a copy to ODOT.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Dwyer explained the letter would be expressing Lane County’s concerns about the effects the designation might have on the community. He didn’t think it was worth the money to impact the highway negatively.
Sorenson thought if they could get a letter drafted that would be going to ODOT with questions, they could have that brought back to the Board to decide when the additional public hearing would take place. He commented that most people were against this and thought it was a significant issue. He asked why they weren’t integrating the air and rail transportation needs. He asked why they were designating highways when there was a gas crisis. He thought they needed to send both policy letters telling the delegation of Lane County’s concerns. He wanted to hear more testimony so they could be better informed.
Dwyer wanted this motion to include both letters.
Sorenson wanted his second to include the letter to ODOT from staff and a letter to the legislative delegation from the Board of Commissioners.
Snowden suggested the letter to the OTC come from the Board.
Stinchfield suggested bringing the letters back next week on the Consent Calendar with an order.
Morrison stated she would be voting against the motion. She was not opposed to sending the letter to the OTC or to ODOT. She thought it was premature to send it to the legislature until they know what their concerns are to address the legislature and the governor.
Sorenson stated they have a problem with access management. He said they have thousands of property owners who want to know if the highway in front of their house or business is designated as a truck route. He said they have to let the commission know about the seriousness of the relationship between access management and the designation of a freight route. He thought there was a conflict between the need to move the freight through quickly versus the use of state routes. He thought the letter should include land use planning, access management and expressing the view that the design of the whole program didn’t involve the railroads. He asked if tourism and scenic designation of highways had been a project that ODOT had been involved with and how they designate scenic highways with freight routes.
Dwyer stated this was an honorable open public process. He noted they didn’t start this process, but they were responding to ODOT.
VOTE: 3-1 (Morrison dissenting).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
September 22, 2004, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
B. Assessment and Taxation
1) ORDER 04-10-20-1/In the Matter of A Refund to Prado Partners in the Amount of $33,907.58.
C. Health and Human Services
1) ORDER 04-10-20-2/In the Matter of Appointing Members to Fill Five Vacancies on the Mental Health Advisory Committee.
D. Public Safety
1) ORDER 04-10-20-3/In the Matter of Approving Execution of Purchase Orders 218561 and 21XXXX for the Purchase of Sheriff's Office Vehicles Utilizing State of Oregon Price Agreements.
2) ORDER 04-10-20-4/In the Matter of Ratifying Execution of Purchase Order Number 218363 and Contract for the Purchase of Two (2) Ford F550 Vehicles in the Sheriff's Office.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Morrison MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
9. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-10-20-5/In the Matter of Establishing One Full-Time (1.0 FTE) Mental Health Specialist Position for Mental Health Coordination Services Effective November 1, 2004 in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Karen Gaffney, Health and Human Services, reported the State Department of Human Services is in the process of planning a transition from state control to county management of intensive treatment services and that decision had been with the hope that local control will mean that children are served better, services are coordinated and services will be more community based. She noted that shift would take place on January 1 and they need to add a mental health specialist so the transition could be smooth for those families.
Dwyer commented that he hoped the monetary responsibility doesn’t shift.
Gaffney indicated they didn’t have a contract yet because they didn’t want to be put at risk. She added they have adequate reserve funds for this position in Lane Care to cover in the event it takes longer to get a contract in place.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 04-10-20-5.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
10. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-10-20-6/In the Matter of Adjusting the Salary Range for the Animal Regulation Manager Classification.
David Suchart, Management Services, reported they used an outside consultant for the classification instead of their internal staff to evaluate this because of a possible conflict of interest.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 04-10-20-6.
Dwyer MOVED, Hampton SECONDED.
b. ORDER 04-10-20-7/In the Matter of Adjusting the Salary Range for the Risk & Benefits Manager Classification.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 04-10-20-7.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
c. ORDER 04-10-20-8/In the Matter of Creating the Personnel Program Manager Classification.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 04-10-20-8.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson MOVED.
11. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
12. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660
To take place after the meeting.
14. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Hampton recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 10:15 a.m.