Loading...
1989-16205-Minutes for Meeting June 07,1989 Recorded 6/23/198989-16205 0995 1933 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSiMRfi,=> June 7, 19893 Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 9Q~ a.m; Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Lois Bristow-P-ri ; and Tom Throop. Also present were Rick Isham, County Legal 'Counsel; Al Driver, Public Works; Dennis Maloney, Juvenile Department Director; Mike Maier, County Administrator. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, appointments of John Crook and Lynn Huntington to AFS Advisory Board; #2, reappointment of Gerald Tracy to Lazy River Vector Control District; #3, chair signature of OLCC License Renewal for Mt. Bachelor Inc., Main and Sunrise Lodges; #4, signature of Order 89-037, authorizing emergency repairs to American Lane Bridge guardrail; #5, signature of Resolution 89-036, 4th Amendment to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Deschutes County Employees; #6, signature of MP-88-35 for the Newell Baker Trust on a 618 Acre Parcel on Highway 20. THROOP: I'll move approval of the consent agenda items. MAUDLIN: I would second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS Before the Board was approval of the proposed salary range adjustments for Mental Health, Community Corrections, Library and other miscellaneous classifications. Mike Maier reported that if approved the range adjustments would go into effect on January 1, 1990, except for the Community Corrections Program Manager and any current state Community Corrections Parole and Probation staff that might choose to become County employees. The exceptions would be hired/transferred on the new range and would not wait until January. The new salary ranges had already been incorporated into the budget figures in the merit increase line item. THROOP: I'll move approval of the salary range adjustments for Mental Health, Community Corrections, Library and then those miscellaneous positions including the caveat that Mike indicated that the one position in Juvenile and, if there were community corrections actions/transfers from state to County, that those go July 1 and the rest go January 1. PAGE 1 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 1 EYPU ' H 7 ,U E; 989 0095 1934 3. 4. 5. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES AMENDMENT #21 TO 87-89 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT AND AMENDMENT #1 TO THE 89-91 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT Before the Board was signature or Amendment #21 to the 1987- 89 Intergovernmental Contract and Amendment #1 to the 1989-91 Intergovernmental Contract with State of Oregon. THROOP: Move approval. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS AND REFUNDS FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Before the Board were weekly bill in the amount of $51,399.43 and refunds from Community Development. MAUDLIN: Move approval subject to review. THROOP: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CLASSIFICATION Before the Board was approval of the Community Development Director Classification and the appointment of Karen Green, currently Assistant Legal Counsel, as the new Community Development Director. THROOP: I'll move the approval of the Community Development Director Classification and the appointment of Karen Green as Director. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 2 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 0995 1935 6. 7. 8. 9. MP-89-2 FOR ARNOLD IRRIGATION DISTRICT Before the Board was signature of MP-89-2 for Arnold Irrigation District. MAUDLIN: I'll move signature of MP-89-2. THROOP: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES RESOLUTION 89-037, APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFER Before the Board was signature of Resolution 89-037 transferring appropriations in the amount of $54,000 within various funds of the Deschutes County Budget. MAUDLIN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES AMENDMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH CROOK COUNTY Before the Board was signature of an Amendment to the Environmental Health Service Agreement with Crook County to correct a typographic error. MAUDLIN: I move subject to typographical errors. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PUBLIC HEARING: DESCHUTES COUNTY EXTENSION AND 4-H SERVICE DISTRICT BUDGET The Board convened as the Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service District Budget Committee. Marvin Young, acting budget office, introduced the new chairman of the Extension staff, Wayne Shull. Marvin Young recommended the budget to the governing body for adoption. He said a couple of changes had been made since the last one they had reviewed due to some additional revenue sources being available. OSU had agreed PAGE 3 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 6995 196 to pay for one-half the salary of an OSU 4-H Education Aide. The OSU Forestry program agreed to increase their contribution for clerical support from .3 of a full-time position to .5 of a full-time position. Those items provided $9,687 in additional resources that were not reflected in their earlier budget draft. The new budget showed total resources except for taxes to be levied at $97,038, and the tax levy would be $88,443 for a total budget figure of $185,481. Commissioner Throop told Marvin Young that the Board appreciated his efforts. MAUDLIN: I would move acceptance of the County 4-H Service District Budget. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 89-024 VACATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BOYD ACRES ROAD The Board reconvened as the Deschutes County Board of Directors to hold a public hearing on the possible vacation of right-of-way on Boyd Acres Road. Al Drive, Public Works, stated that there were no utilities involved in the right-of- way. No one wished to speak in opposition to the vacation. THROOP: I'll move signature of Order 89-024. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. DISCUSSION AND ZONING DECISION ON THE LIVESAY SITE Before the Board was discussion and decision on whether to zone the County-owned Livesay Road site as Surface Mining (SM). Chair Prante announced that public testimony would not be taken. Commissioner Throop said he felt Larry Rice and the Public Works Department had done a good job in presenting the option to conserve the aggregate resource on the County-owned Livesay site. However, he felt the Livesay site was already committed to other Goal 5 resources and uses: wildlife, rural residential development, ecological and significant natural area, convergence of four life zones (alpine/sub-alpine, grand PAGE 4 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 0995 193'7 fir, ponderosa pine, and western juniper), significant open space, quiet zone. He felt the site should be zoned Forestry II with a 40-acre minimum. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he felt the conflicts (i.e distance to nearest homes, noise) with the surrounding residences had been adequately addressed, and he would not support having it listed in the findings. However, he said there were already other good aggregate resources in the immediate area and that there was an excellent case for protecting the ecology of the area. Commissioner Prante questioned the cost effectiveness of the County mining the site, plus she expressed concern about the County getting into the rock mining business which she felt should be handled by private industry. Karen Green said she would ask for the assistance of the opponents' legal counsel to help prepare the findings. MAUDLIN: I would move that we do not zone the Livesay site surface mining at this time. THROOP: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON WHETHER TO ZONE THE VARCO SITE FOR SURFACE MINING Commissioner Maudlin stated that because his wife had real estate business in the Varco site area, he was withdrawing from the zoning decision on that site. Karen Green stated the stockpiling currently taking place at the Varco site was a violation of the existing zoning ordinance, and if the site was not zoned surface mining, a citation could be issued. She said there had been discussions with the parties involved (the homeowners represented by Mr. Sullivan and Young and Morgan Timber Company represented by Mr. Jaqua) who were agreeable to a compromise position up to the fine points of the reclamation. However Mr. Baker, the property owner who had the DOGAMI permit, had not been reachable regarding the matter and, therefore, was not a party to the compromise agreement. He had been sent notification but had been out-of-state and, therefore, was unaware of the action being taken. PAGE 5 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 C395- 193 Commissioner Throop indicated that the County had recently learned that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Professional Association representing the surface mining interests in Central Oregon were taking a very narrow view of the County's authority during site-plan review while the County was taking a very broad view of the County's authority. He asked Legal Counsel if the County's authority was determined to be very narrow during site-plan review, what impact that would have on the County's ability to work out the final details after a zoning decision had been made. Karen Green said that a representative from DOGAMI and some miners had stated they did not believe the County had the authority to regulate mining operations or reclamation, and that State law authorized DOGAMI to handle such regulation. Another representative of DOGAMI stated he felt the line between what the County could and could not do was unclear, and that his agency was very interested in working with the County in a joint process whereby the "turf" issues would be resolved through both the County and DOGAMI doing site and reclamation planning at the same time. She was confident that the joint process could be worked out. She said that conversations that George Read recently had with representatives from the industry, Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association (OCAPA), indicated they would be comfortable with a joint arrangement as long as DOGAMI mining experts were involved in the process. She said the worst case scenario would be if an agreement could not be reached and then when the County presented its plan for acknowledgement before DLCD, OCAPA, DOGAMI, and the miners would take the position that the County's ordinance and any conditions the County imposed in the ESEE analysis, went beyond what the County could lawfully do. However, she didn't feel that would happen. Commissioner Throop indicated that he was more concerned about the County's authority in the site-planning process than in the conditions imposed upon the decision. He was uncertain about whether these parties could get together and reach agreement, and was uncomfortable with any surface mining zoning decisions until the County's authority was clarified. He understood that DLCD, from Susan Brody to Brent Lake, was taking a narrow view of the County's role as well, which caused him considerable concern. Commissioner Maudlin said he felt that since the local mining business people had to live in Deschutes County too, they would abide by the conditions imposed. He felt the County should not make the conditions for surface mining so difficult that there couldn't be surface mining. PAGE 6 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 C095 1939 Commissioner Prante suggested that the Commissioners refuse the surface mining zone and require the removal and restoration of the site. Karen Green stated that Deschutes County was breaking new ground in this process. She indicated concern over the County's independent, separate obligation under Goal 5 to develop a plan to achieve the goal in accordance with those rules, and said she has been unable to get a satisfactory explanation from Brent Lake, DLCD, as to how the County could meet that responsibility if the County could not undertake any mining operation or reclamation regulation. She didn't know how the County could reconcile it's duty under Goal 5 with separate state agencies regulating parts of the Goal 5 resources. Commissioner Throop stated that in the current environment there was no circumstance under which he could approve surface mining zoning for the Varco site. He felt that if for some reason the arrangement between Mr. Baker and the timber company expired, the site was zoned for surface mining, and it was determined the County had little authority under site- plan review, then the area could be mined depending upon what DOGAMI determined. Commissioner Throop said he felt there were other Goal 5 resource which took a higher priority: wild life, winter deer range, rural residential, ecologically and scientifically significant natural area with the convergence of life zones, important scenic corridor, open space, quiet zone. THROOP: I'll move that the Varco Site not receive protection under surface mine zoning. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: abstained Commissioner Throop stated that it was clearly the Board's intent to direct staff to work cooperatively with the various parties to accomplish the objectives of removing the stockpiles, in return for reclaiming the area that was illegally mined. 12. DISCUSSION AND DECISION AND WHETHER TO ZONE THE ROSE SITE FOR SURFACE MINING Commissioner Maudlin initially moved that the Rose Site be zoned for dirt only surface mining, however, when Commissioner Throop asked if there could be discussion before a motion was PAGE 7 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 C39 5- 1940 made, Commissioner Maudlin withdrew his motion. Commissioner Throop said there was a significant dirt deposit at the Rose Site and also some aggregate that met the Oregon Department of Transportation specifications. However, he said there was also some valuable open space, deer habitat, great horned-owl habitat, alleged bald eagle habitat, and rural residential conflicts. He felt that since dirt was a scarce resource, he had been leaning toward supporting the surface mining of dirt-only, if a satisfactory set of conditions had been included in the motion. However, since much of the operation would be determined in site-plan review, that process took on greater importance. Without knowing what limits might be placed on the County in the site-planning process, he did not feel comfortable making a determination on the Rose site. He wanted to postpone the decision on the site until some discussion with the State could be held. Commissioner Maudlin commented on some testimony submitted by Ed Sullivan, attorney, which said that the Thompson site was turned down by the Board because of conflicts with wildlife, scenic views, open space, and fish and wildlife habitat. Commissioner Maudlin said that none of those conflicts had any bearing on the decision as far as he was concerned. He said he voted that way because there were already a number of cinder sites in the area. Commissioner Prante said that was her feeling also. Commissioner Maudlin felt that the process should not be postponed any further, and he believed the Board's findings would be taken into consideration by the people involved even if the State agencies tried to limit the County's authority. Commissioner Prante agreed that the resource was rare and valuable and that the reclamation was a crucial component. She did not want to put off the decision indefinitely but suggested postponing the decision until a specific date to see whether the Board could get more information from the State about the County's authority in the site-plan process. Karen Green said she would attempt to get DLCD, Gary Lynch from DOGAMI, the County, and possibly a representative from OCAPA together to get an agreement on how the County's ordinance should read to incorporate a joint process. Together the group would develop an ordinance that would provide a process of joint site plan review/reclamation plan review. They would jointly agree on the conditions that the County would establish in the Ordinance and that the process would be a joint process using a combination of our criteria for land use purposes and their criteria for mining safety purposes during that review. She said even if the process was agreed upon, there could be disagreements which would be PAGE 8 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89 C095 1941 appealed through the land use process. Karen summarized that two members of the Board (Commissioners Throop and Prante) did not wish to zone a site for surface mining protection if they could not be assured, through the land use process, that the County could adequately address the conflicts. Commissioner Prante stated that she wanted to have all of the information possible before she made a decision whether to protect the surface mining resource. Commissioner Maudlin said he was opposed to postponing the decision and asked what would happen to the Twin Bridges site which the Board had already approved for surface mining zoning with extensive conditions. Karen Green said the Board could hold off on signing the findings and decision on the Twin Bridges site until after the meeting with the State. Commissioner Prante said she would like to postpone all final action on any sites that the Board had approved for surface mining until the County had an agreement with the State. Commissioner Throop apologized for holding up the process to those people attending the meeting, but indicated that there was still some very crucial information that he felt the Board needed before they could proceed. THROOP: I'll move that the decision on the Rose site be forestalled/postponed until 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 28. MAUDLIN: Second VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: NO DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS /T-11i s B 'stow Prante, Chair Tom Throoo, Commissioner ;~7e4Q~~- Dick Mau lin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 9 BOARD MINUTES: 6/7/89