Loading...
1990-36804-Minutes for Meeting November 14,1990 Recorded 12/7/19901443 9~-36804 MINUTES ;J. 0FILIAE0 ew INII r DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS !_5 November 14, 1990 mow' Chair, -Throop convened the meeting as the Governing Body for the Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service District. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present was Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel. 1. RESOLUTION 90-104 TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS Before the Board was signature of Resolution 90-104 transferring appropriations within the Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service District Budget. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES There being no further business to come before this body, the meeting was adjourned. Chair Throop convened the meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were: Kevin Harrison, Planner; Rick Isham, County Counsel; Lauren Lezell, Planner; Mike Burton, COIC; and Mike Maier, County Administrator. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Order 90-159 ordering Twin Bridges Road to be surveyed by the Public Works Department; #2, signature of Order 90-162 correcting LID Assessment for Cheyenne Road and Comanche Lane LID; #3, signature of Order 90-161 completing transfer of County road to City of Bend; #4, signature of Resolution 90- 102 amending Snow and Ice Plan; #5, signature of Department of Public Works Alcohol and Drug Safety Policies and Procedures; #6, signature of Declaration of Dedication for 30 feet of right-of-way on portion of Rickard Road; #7, signature of plan for proposed bridge on Yew Avenue for new interchange on Highway 97 south of Redmond; #8, chair signature of Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County, the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission, and the Judicial Department; #9, chair signature of October reimbursement from CSD for l'uputcHFU, PAGE 1 MINUTES: 11-14-90 'SEC 10 1990 105 - 1444 Mental Health Therapist, Public Health Nurse, and Volunteer Coordinator; #10, approval of Amendment #19 to the 1989-91 Mental Health Intergovernmental Agreement; #11, signature of Order 90-152 changing a portion of Barr Road to Becker Road; #12, chair signature of contract with Public Financial Management Inc. transferring paying agent to new trustee; #13, approval of waiver of building permit fees for Four Rivers Vector Control District; #14, signature of Tax Refund Order 90-160; #15, signature of Development Agreement for a landscape management plan with Raymond Krulic; #16, signature of Order 90-163 transferring cash within various funds of the budget; and #17, signature of Resolution 90-103 transferring appropriations within various funds of the budget. Rick Isham said there had been some last minute changes in the Ice and Snow Plan on pages 12, 13 and 18 indicating that the County's response would be based upon the availability of personnel and equipment. PRANTE: Move consent agenda with amendment on Snow and Ice Plan. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON REVIEW OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING ORDINANCE Kevin Harrison said that George Read the Planning Director had recommended that this public hearing be continued to January 9, 1991. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was continued to January 9, 1991, at 10 a.m. 4. DECISION ON REPLAT OF THREE LOTS IN SUNRIVER Before the Board was the decision on an appeal of the Hearings Officer's approval of TP-90-732, a replat of three lots in the Sunriver Planned Community. The public hearing had been held on November 7, 1990. Commissioner Prante asked the attorneys for the applicant and the appellant if they had complete agreement on a compromise. Dave Jaqua, attorney for appellants, said no, and Win Francis, attorney for applicants, agreed. Win Frances said where the parties were in agreement was on the limits of an approval if the Board decided to approve the setbacks. That agreement PAGE 2 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 -a 1445 included a 10 foot setback change on each end lot and a 10 foot setback from the house on the middle lot, but they could use the 10 feet only as indicated on the plans which had been submitted, and the middle lot was only to have an upper level deck which wouldn't be closed in. Commissioner Prante asked how the one lot owner had been allowed to build into the setback in the first place. Win Frances said the home had been built by the previous owner, and he had no knowledge of it. Dave Jaqua said Sunriver was not proposing that the Board change the set backs. Their concern was that there be an independent evaluation, and that a process be developed to deal with these types of requests. Their only position was if the proposal they requested initially wasn't acceptable, this agreement would be adequate as long as it met with the testimony of the independent expert. George Read said any property owner could request to change the set back on their plat which could ultimately be appealed to the Board's level. Each case would start from the beginning and would have to go through the whole process. There had been three or four variance applications on these lots, of which one or two were approved and one or two were denied. He did not feel that the first variance set a precedence for the second, since they had to be looked at on an individual basis based upon the variance criteria. Commissioner Throop felt that setbacks were important, and when the subdivision was originally established, there were setbacks. If they had originally intended to allow encroachment into the setback, a procedure would have been established to do so, i.e. a conditional use. He did not want a constant barrage of applicants requesting that the County roll back the setbacks which were part of the original plat. He did not want to support this application. Commissioner Prante said errors had been made in putting the plan together because there were issues that were not addressed which had to be changed over time. She said there needed to be a time and place to readdress these issues to be make them more realistic or appropriate. Commissioner Throop said he had a problem with people building their dwellings as close to the setback as possible and then requesting to expand the dwelling into the setback. If they wanted to build onto the front of the dwelling, they should have allowed room between where they built the dwelling and the setback for expansion. He felt this same issue could come up on every river front lot in Sunriver. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 1446 Commissioner Prante said she did not feel that this kind of issue should come to the Board every time someone wanted to add on a deck. Commissioner Maudlin said that people were going to have to be able to come to the Board with these issues, because there had to be a process to give people the opportunity to make a change. He felt these property owners were paying taxes on 50 feet of property which they couldn't use. He suggested that 10 feet be specified for each lot. He felt that each case should be looked at on an individual basis. Commissioner Throop said setbacks were not unique to Sunriver, and that every single lot in Deschutes County had setbacks. He said applications had been made for variances on these lots but were denied, so they were coming back to request a replat. He wanted the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner to go on record as respecting and supporting the setbacks which had been established in Sunriver. George Read said one variance criteria was extremely difficult to meet--the self-created difficulty. He said a self-created difficulty would be found if the applicant knew or should have known of the restriction at the time the lot was purchased. If the property was purchased after this rule went into effect, it was almost impossible to meet this variance criteria. In looking for some other method to attempt to modify the setback, removing the specific set back from the plat was an option. He said there were very few plats which had setbacks established on them, but this happened to be one of them. Either way, it could ultimately be appealed to the Board. The first variance request had been approved because it had been before Legal Counsel's interpretation that when the setback was a part of the plat it was a binding set back which the County would enforce. Where the setback was placed on as part of a deed restriction or restrictive covenant, the County would not enforce it. Rick Isham said the setback on a plat was legally the setback that applied on that lot. If you purchased property with the setback line on the map, then you purchased it with notice of the setback, and therefore you couldn't meet that condition of the variance. Commissioner Prante said there needed to be a place to address individual circumstances. Rick Isham said there were a number of things that were on plats besides setback lines, such as solar access restrictions. The standard response was that these restrictions were on the plat when you purchased the property„ and you won't be able to get a variance to them. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 144? Commissioner Prante asked if the surrounding neighbors had any problem with the change in setback on these lots. Win Francis said no one in the entire cul-de-sac had any objection to the setback change. MAUDLIN: I'm going to move that we allow a 10 foot encroachment to the set back, if that's what it's going to be called, on lots 13 and 11, and a 10 foot encroachment beyond the building line on lot 12. PRANTE: I'm going to second. Dave Jaqua asked for a clarification. As he understood Win Frances' proposal, those were maximums not to exceed the proposal that had been submitted. MAUDLIN: I would correct that to the extent that they can only be decks and not to exceed the plans as presented. PRANTE: Second. Commissioner Throop said he opposed the motion. He felt the setbacks were on the plat for a good reason, and that it was a disservice to Sunriver to set up an expectation that whenever a property owner didn't like something that was on his plat, he could come in and request a replat. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: NO MAUDLIN: YES 5. CONSERVATION EASEMENT Before the Board was signature of a Conservation Easement from the Breitensteins. Lauren Lezell said this Conservation Easement was a condition of approval for a conditional use application for development in a flood plain zone in Deschutes River Recreational Homesites Subdivision. It appeared that the lot and the proposed home would be located in the 100 year flood area. The applicant was required to apply for the conditional use permit, and the submitted elevations for the proposed dwelling indicated that it would be located above the flood plain. She said the easement was a standard condition of approval required of all land use actions involving property adjacent to the Deschutes River. MAUDLIN: I move signature of Conservation Easement. PRANTE: I would second. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 - 1448 VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. REVISED MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS POLICY Before the Board was the Revised Mission Statement and Goals Policy. Commissioner Throop suggested that the time frame be moved forward to after the first of the year when people would be more focused on setting goals. Commissioner Prante agreed that it would be more appropriate to have the new Commissioner, who would come on after the first of the year, be part of the process. Commissioner Throop suggested January 1 for the Board to establish goal objectives, March 1 for Department Heads to submit draft goals, March 1-March 15 for individual meetings with the Board, and April 1 for adoption of Goals. Commissioner Maudlin suggested signing the policy subject to the revisions as discussed. PRANTE: So moved. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 7. REDMOND WOOD PRODUCTS LOAN Before the Board was a request from Redmond Wood Products to increase their loan by $100,000. Mike Burton reported that the owner said the package could not wait until the next finance committee meeting on December 11, 1990, because they would not be in business by December 11 if they were unable to get the loans. They were asking for a total of $400,000 of which the County was being asked for $100,000. The County currently had a loan to Redmond Wood Products for $74,000. An application had been made to Juniper Bank which was pursuing a loan subject to SBA guarantees and didn't expect to hear for at least another week. The SBA and Juniper Bank loan was conditional upon the County's participation. Commissioner Throop asked if the loan would be adequately collateralized so that if the business did go under, the County could recoup the $174,000. Mike Burton said the existing loan was part of a total of $110,000 of debt ($74,000 from the County and remainder from the Juniper Bank) which was secured by the existing equipment. The SBA also had a loan to the company, but they had expressed a willingness to remove their lean position on the equipment, which would leave the PAGE 6 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 - 1449 equipment free for the existing debt and $400,000 of new debt. A recent appraisal valued the equipment at about $1,082,000. He said that on the new loan a first position had been negotiated on a block of collateral such that debt to equity would be about 75% ($100,000 of debt would be secured by first position on $133,000 of equipment). Commissioner Prante asked if this infusion of capital would enable them to survive and prosper. Mike Burton said the company had a number of purchase orders which they were unable to fill because of the lack of capital. Commissioner Prante asked his comfort scale on this loan. Mike Burton said about "5." The company was promising to create 32 additional jobs as a result of this loan. The loan would enable them to further expand their product mix, adding stability to the company and the community. He was uncomfortable with not being able to have the finance committee review the proposal, but given the time he'd had to look at it (which was significantly less than normal), he recommended the loan subject to the collateral position he described and subject to the participation of the other lenders. Commissioner Throop asked how comfortable he was with the prognosis of the business and whether the loan would be adequately collateralized? Mike Burton said the company was currently not solvent and had received loans in the past which were supposed to "lead to an expansion which would establish the company and they would healthy and viable into the future." The company had turned down orders because they didn't have the money to pay for the people and the material to meet the orders. He felt there was a reasonable likelihood of repayment. He said the County could not participate in any refinancing which would limit the amount that the County could loan to $83,000. On the viability of the company, he rated it a 6 or 7 and the collateral would be an 8 or 9. He told the bank that the County might only be able to consider a package of $250,000, leaving the County's share at $83,000. It would leave the project $17,000 short of $400,000, but the bank said it could address this shortfall. Commissioner Throop said he would like to go ahead with the $83,000 loan contingent upon getting a first position to adequately collateralize the County. Mike Burton said the bank and the SBA were both examining the package, and the County's approval would be conditioned upon their participation. Commissioner Prante expressed concern that the finance committee would be upset if the Board bypassed them and approved the loan. Commissioner Maudlin, who was on the finance committee, said they might be concerned about the loan product but not the process. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 rt 1450 Commissioner Maudlin was concerned that the request was made with such a short time frame for approval. Mike Burton said the company had blamed their accounting firm for taking three weeks to get the package together. Jim Wellette told Mike Burton that they had bills to pay and orders in hand. If he paid off his bills, he wouldn't be able to meet the orders and would, therefore, lose those clients. He said they had followed through on the expansions they had promised in the past. Commissioner Maudlin wanted to make sure that the bank would approve the package before the County would be committed. Commissioner Throop said he would not be in favor of this loan had the County not already loaned money to this business. Mike Burton said the bank representative said they felt good about this package and would probably approve the loan. Jim Wellette had been banking with them for two or three years and had delivered on his promises to them in the past. Commissioner Throop suggested approving the loan with the conditions as discussed. PRANTE: I so move. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. EXCHANGE OF PROPERTIES WITH ADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 Before the Board was ratification of their signature on a letter to the Bend/LaPine School District #1 regarding an exchange of properties. The School District was transferring the library parking lot to Deschutes County, the old White School property to the LaPine Park and Recreation District, and a 40-acre parcel near Cooley Road to Bend Metro Park and Recreation District. The County would transfer property on SW 27th and the 40-acre parcel on Cooley Road to the School District. PRANTE: I move that we ratify the signature on the Letter of Agreement with Administrative School District #1 for exchange of properties. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 8 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 - 1451 9. CONTRACT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST Before the Board was signature of a Personal Services Contract with the Bend/LaPine School District to provide a licensed occupational therapist to provide service to the Parent/Infant Program of the Early Intervention Program. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. CONTRACT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR OCCUPATIONAL AND PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT Before the Board was signature of a Personal Services Contract with the Bend/Lapine School District to provide occupational and physical therapy assessment, consultation and treatment to early intervention eligible children. PRANTE: Move approval. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board were weekly bill in the amount of $196,776.23. PRANTE: Move approval upon review. MAUDLIN: I second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. BENEFIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Before the Board was a request from Mike Maier to appoint Michael Dugan, Frank Moore, Susie Penhollow, Karen Green, two representative from the Employee Council, two representatives from the Sheriff Association, and one representative from local 701 along with himself to the Benefits Advisory Committee. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 11-14-90 105 .v 1452 MAUDLIN: I move we accept the recommendations as outlined and have a letter drafted for our signature for the appointments. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Lois B "stow Prante, Commissioner zlxr" Tom Throo , Chair Dick Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 10 MINUTES: 11-14-90