BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
REGULAR MEETING
November 9, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room
following Board of Health
APPROVED 8/15/06
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
1. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Item 9. b. was pulled and will come back in two weeks. There will be two Emergency Business items.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Getter, Eugene,
discussed local access roads. He noted
the access road with the house he has in
Gloria Cunningham,
John Sundquist,
3. EMERGENCY BUSINESS
Stewart explained the issue is
Dwyer asked how they separate this issue from local access roads. He noted this is a private road. He stated this was a specific problem with
what is required with safety striping.
He said it is not something they do all the time. He wanted to separate the broader subject of
accepting local access roads from this issue.
Snowden said they don’t have any liability to maintain a local access
road. He said this was a local access
road, owned by Wildish, and William’s Bakery is going to lease it. He recalled the Board vacated a part of the
right of way a couple of months ago so they could relocate the rail spur in a
place that would better serve the future Williams Bakery. He added as part of that relocated spur, ODOT
Rail has to issue an order permitting a new crossing. He said they require that a public road
agency sign the agreement and the public road agency agree to continue
maintenance into the future. He said
that Wildish has agreed to pay for the signing and pavement marking, that the
County would otherwise have to do, associated with this crossing, as a one-time
payment. He noted the agreement that is also attached to the packet material
was put together to protect the County against any long term expenses to
maintain the road or upgrade the crossing if the crossing needed to be upgraded
in the future by ODOT rail.
Sorenson asked what the emergency was.
Snowden said they met with the City of
Stewart asked for it to be emergency business because there is a time
frame. He said the work season is
becoming shorter and this needs to be done as soon as possible.
Snowden explained the order has to be signed by the Board because it
commits the County to maintain a local access road into the future. He said the policy in the past was that they
were not maintaining the local access roads.
Sorenson asked if the County could get out of maintaining the rail
crossing if there was non-performance by Wildish.
Snowden indicated that the proposal is that Wildish would reimburse them
for installation of the initial signing and pavement markings. He said they are in agreement with that. He stated the disagreement is on the
continuing obligation that the County would incur by signing the ODOT rail
order which states they will maintain it into the future.
Stewart thought it was in the public’s best interest to maintain the
crossing. He said the Wildish Company
agreed to pay for the initial signs and marking the pavement. He thought they should maintain the crossing
and not tie it to a piece of property.
Snowden said they recommended that the County maintain the rail crossing
on a continuing basis, provided they receive reimbursement from Wildish for the
maintenance. He said that reimbursement
by Wildish of the continuing maintenance is what is in question.
Wilson said when she looks at Exhibit C, (the proposed agreement between
Wildish and Lane County) she reads it as saying Wildish will reimburse the
County for everything, including the initial construction and maintenance
activities. She said the issue for the
Board is whether they should be looking to Wildish to cover the maintenance
piece. She indicated if the Board
adopted the document as it is, it would include assumption of the agreement.
Snowden indicated it would include the assumption of the maintenance and
the provision for liquidated damages of $10,000 if Wildish doesn’t pay them in
the future. He added
Steve Wildish,
Morrison said this came to the Board because of the construction season,
to keep the project moving forward. She
asked if Wildish could work the issues out and still meet the timeline they are
looking at.
Wildish thought it would cost more money and it would be more of a
delay. He said they agreed to reimburse
the County for all of their costs.
Morrison suggested they discuss this in this afternoon’s meeting.
(This portion from the afternoon)
ORDER 05-11-9-12 Authorizing
Expenditure of Road Funds on
Snowden said he researched the resolution and included a revised board
order that included reimbursement from Wildish.
Morrison asked what happens if and when
MOTION: to approve ORDER
05-11-9-12.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
4. COMMISSIONERS' REMONSTRANCE
Sorenson said there is a major Wal-Mart movie coming out and the director
Robert Greenwald is coming to
5. COMMISSIONERS' BUSINESS
None.
6.
a. Announcements
Van Vactor reported that Performance Counts would take place on December 1. He indicated they are wrapping up the charitable contribution campaign.
7. PUBLIC WORKS
a. STATUS REPORT/I-5/Willamette Crossing.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, explained that this is a report on the I-5 Franklin Boulevard interchange.
Tom Boyatt, ODOT, reported next
steps include a subsequent elected officials briefing for
Dwyer asked at the MPC that
ODOT provide a list of the constraints, and the federal rules and laws that
prohibit the types of things they are trying to do. He didn’t think there would be an interchange
built at the
Boyatt stated he would e-mail the link to the additional access to the interstate system policy. He brought an excerpt from the Oregon Highway Plan that is the major improvements policy. He said the purpose of this effort is to give the three elected bodies enough information to decide a refinement planning effort that would lead to a preferred interchange alternative.
Morrison stated they need to know what type of federal constraints or requirements are there. She said they would work around those in regard to what they are going to design.
Boyatt said it was high level
and intentionally designed to find out if the Refinement Plan has merit or
not. He said it would redirect the
traffic that is using the existing system to get to their same destinations on
I-5, 126, and
Green commented that with the cost it was a high level planning exercise. He wasn’t hopeful the numbers would go down.
Boyatt didn’t ask for a decision. He wanted to hear from the constituents and bring it back to the elected bodies to choose to make a decision on whether to go to a Refinement Plan to pursue a preferred alternative.
Stinchfield indicated this would be brought back to the Board in January of February.
Boyatt said they will go to the other elected bodies and give the same briefing and they want to take the information public and bring them back to the Board to provide a framework.
b. ORDER 05-11-9-1/In the Matter of Awarding Annual Trashbuster Awards.
Morrison read the ordinance into the record.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-11-9-1.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
c. WORK SESSION/Legal Implications Associated with Policies Concerning Regulation of Local Access Roads.
Snowden recalled there were two items the Board asked for: a discussion about the obligation to warn about the potential hazards on local access roads and Dwyer’s request as to which roads have gates on them.
Snowden indicated that the explanation for a local access road is outside of a city that is subject to the exercise of jurisdiction by a county governing body in the same manner as a county road except as follows: the county and its officers are not liable for failure to improve the local access road or to keep it in repair. He stated they had been spending money on local access roads without Board authorization for years in administration work. He said they had never come back to the Board to get clarification on whether they wanted them to continue or treat the investigations different. He asked the Board if they as a county have an obligation to warn of potential hazardous situations on local access roads. He noted that legal counsel in their opinion said they did have an obligation to warn.
Morrison asked what they were going to define as a hazardous situation.
Snowden responded that depended on their investigation. He said they have to determine from the caller whether they believe it is something that demands their immediate attention and if not, then the response is they don’t maintain local access roads. He said if there is some question about it, they would send someone on site to investigate and that is when they incur expenses. He said depending upon the seriousness, there would be different options that they could follow. He added if it appears to be an immediate threat, they would sign or barricade it.
Morrison asked what the county was doing with people who were putting up stop signs that didn’t meet the criteria. She asked if the people have to be told how much they have to overlay if they asphalt.
Snowden said it would depend on the specific circumstances. He stated they were not issuing facility permits on local access roads other than to utilities.
Celia Barry, Public Works, explained that they have requirements for land divisions to meet standards and there are standards for local access roads. She said they have to look at specific situations, as each is different. She commented that there are no new local access roads that are created, they are usually private roads.
Morrison was concerned about a local access road going out to a local highway.
Snowden said there were two definitions of a local access
road: a state statute and a county
definition. He indicated that both
stated the right of way has to be deeded to the County for public use and Lane
Code said the Board has to accept it. He
added that the state statute states that there has to be notice placed in a
public location or public place. He said
in
Green commented that there was an effort to have
Snowden commented that there were no local access roads inside of city limits. He said it could be called a local road, but it is not a local access road. He indicated the issue today is that a strict interpretation of ORS 368.031 states that they should not be spending any county road fund money on any local access road without Board authorization. He asked the Board if they wanted to pass a blanket board order that allows them to do administration and investigation of potential hazards on local access roads or to keep doing what they were doing without telling the Board, or for them not to do it at all. He added if they don’t do anything at all that it would create a liability problem.
Green wanted an administrative investigation.
Snowden indicated that if there was a fix, then they would come back as a separate item. He said they would come back with an order to that effect.
There was consensus for that.
Snowden stated he would come back with a Board order.
Dwyer asked if a facilities permit was needed to replace a gate.
Snowden responded that if it is in a County road, it was. He said if someone put up a gate on a local access road, they would be impeding the public’s ability to use that road.
Dwyer asked if a facility permit is required from another government entity.
Snowden said not for
Dwyer asked if those gates were non-government and did not have a facility permit, if they would be in violation.
Simas said that could be correct.
Dwyer said there were many gates that were across public roads that were not authorized to be there and had no legal rights or facilities to do so.
Morrison asked why there was still a gate on
Simas thought the gates were down. He noted the list was based on the 2002 road book that was the most recent one he had.
Dwyer said his goal was to get gates out when people put gates across a road to control access when they had no authority to do so. He said he wanted those gates removed. He wanted to send a letter to those people telling them a gate is there and there is no legal right to have that gate and the gate needed to be removed or Lane County would remove the gate at their expense.
Snowden said they will enter into a discussion with them and if there appears to be a compelling reason to issue a facilities permit, he asked if he should come back to the Board.
Morrison commented that this road should be in
Dwyer stated that they shouldn’t allow local access roads. He said if people want to find a way to develop their property without a facility permit by utilizing the local access road, develop it, and have the taxpayers pick it up is a bad situation for the public. He added if the Secure Rural Schools money goes away, they wouldn’t be able to maintain the public roads, let alone the private roads. He didn’t agree to accepting local access roads when people built them to operate and maintain them so the County could accept the responsibility.
Van Vactor suggested that Bieda could possibly discuss with the Legislative Committee an amendment to the statute that discusses no liability that would authorize expenditures for purpose of administration so Public Works would be comfortable with the time spent and the issuance of permits.
Dwyer thought that was an excellent idea.
With regard to the inventory question, Barry said she had a
call from
Morrison commented that Public Works has direction with regard to the agenda item.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes:
June 29, 2005, Regular Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
June 29, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
October 26, 2005, Regular Meeting, 1:30 p.m.
B.
1) Letter in Support of LCOG's Application to USDA Rural Development for Intermediary Relending Program Loan.
2) ORDER 05-11-9-11/In
the Matter of Discussions Regarding Transferring the
C. Public Works
1) ORDER 05-11-9-2/In the Matter of Accepting a Right of Way Grant from the Bureau of Land Management to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Templeton Road (County Road Number 1011) (16-06-13).
2) ORDER 05-11-9-3/In the Matter of Accepting a Right of Way Grant from the Bureau of Land Management to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Quaglia Road (County Road Number 1063) (21-03-02).
3) ORDER 05-11-9-4/In the Matter of Releasing, Dedicating and Accepting Parcel “C” of the Third Addition to Green Briar Park, a Parcel of County Owned Real Estate, as Right of Way for County Road Number 2050 (Oroyan Avenue) (17-04-02-13).
4) ORDER 05-11-9-5/In the Matter of Releasing, Dedicating and Accepting Parcels “B” and “C” of the Plat of Scottdale, Parcels of County Owned Real Estate, as Right of Way for County Road Number 2050 (Oroyan Avenue) (17-04-02-13).
5) ORDER 05-11-9-6/In the Matter of Accepting a Right of Way Grant from the Bureau of Land Management to be Used as a Public Road Easement for Hills Creek Road (County Road Number 353) (18-01-15 & 21).
D. Management Services
1) ORDER 05-11-9-7/In the Matter of Approving a Project Work Plan, Time Line and Budget for a Classification & Compensation Study for Lane County's Non-Represented Supervisory and Management Employees.
MOTION: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
9. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 05-11-9-8/In the Matter of Creating the Classification and Salary Range for the Community Health Nurse 1.
MOTION: to approve ORDER 05-11-9-8.
Dwyer MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
b. ORDER 05-11-9-9/In the Matter of Establishing the Department of Human Resources, Creating Classifications for Human Resources Department Director and Assistant County Administrator (ACA), Establishing 1.0 FTE ACA Position, Addressing Compensation of ACA and County Administrator, and Amending the Lane Manual. (PULLED)
10. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
None.
11. COMMISSIONERS'
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
12 EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS
192.660
None.
13 OTHER BUSINESS
None.
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison recessed the
meeting at 12:00 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary