Loading...
1991-36538-Minutes for Meeting November 20,1991 Recorded 12/5/199191-365.38 0108 0532 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS November 20, 1991 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order .at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also present were Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; George Read, Planning Director; Brad Chalfant, Property Manager; Tom Blust, County Engineer. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Contract for Services with Special Road District #2 for snowplowing services on County maintained roads within the district boundary; #2, appointment of Paul Stell to Weed Advisory Board; #3, appointment of Richard Ferine to Four Rivers Vector Control District; #4, signature of Aspen Glen Townhomes Stage II Condominium Plat at 1801 NE Purcell Blvd. for HG 90 Limited Partnership; #5, signature of Resolution 91- 098 setting a public hearing for January 8, 1992, for exchange of contingent future interests with Gary and Ella DeBernardi; #6, approval of out-of-state travel request from the Health Department; #7, signature of Amendment to Agreement for HealthyStart Prenatal Service; #8, signature of Revision #4 to Agreement with Oregon State Health Division; and #9, signature of Order 91-135 declaring the result of the Special Election concerning jail bonds in the amount of $9,500,000.00. THROOP: I'll move approval of consent agenda items 1-79 that were thoroughly deliberated at our Monday mepting. r. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused �- MAUDLIN: YES 2. FIREARMS DISTRICT ry Before the Board was a request from residents of Vista del Sol, Eastmont Estates, and the Los Serranos development that the discharge of firearms be prohibited within the boundaries of Hamby Road, Neff Road, Butler Market Road and Erickson Road. Lynn Thomas, 6680 Montera Drive, Bend, testified that the residents were prepared to sign a formal petition to enact an ordinance for the health, safety, and preservation of the public peace. V. n PAGE 1 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0533 Commissioner Throop pointed out that in the County's Ordinance a firearms district was a boundary which was established to prohibit the discharge of firearms in subdivision, however part of this proposal was to enact a firearms district on lands which were not in a subdivision. This would require a legislative change in the ordinance before the process of forming a firearms district could be initiated. Bruce White agreed that under the current ordinance, properties that were not within a subdivision could not be placed within the boundaries of a firearms district. Lynn Thomas said the Bend Parks and Recreation District seemed to be in agreement with the firearms district, and Harley Hafter who owned 119 acres was in agreement. Chairman Maudlin said there was a previous case where a subdivision wanted a firearms district, however most of the shooting was taking place outside of the subdivision. Rick Ishan said in that case, people were shooting on the canal right-of-way which adjoined the subdivision. The people who wanted the firearms district wanted to include this property which was outside the subdivision, however it could not be included because of the language in the ordinance. Lynn Thomas said there was also concern for the Buckingham School children who were in this area. The School District Administrator had sent a notice to the Board indicating his concern with the shooting. Commissioner Throop asked if there was a school site contiguous to subdivisions which wanted a firearms district, could the school site be included in the firearms district? Rick Ishan said the school would have be to excluded. Bruce White said the Board of County Commissioners had the authority to enact regulations to protect the public health and safety. It was a policy matter for the Board to determine to what extent, if any, they wished to expand the boundaries of where a firearms district could occur. He suggested the Board consider whether they wanted to make the ordinance more liberal and allow non -shooting districts to occur anywhere, or did they want to place restrictions on whether the owner would have to consent, etc. Chairman Maudlin said there were already laws against shooting across a road or towards a dwelling. He was concerned whether making a change in the ordinance would affect citizens countywide which would be a much larger enforcement issue. Bruce White said in this case, there had been an enforcement problem with the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation property. However, they had not had signs up notifying the public they were not allowed to shoot on this property. He thought signs were now in place. He said it was very difficult to enforce the law restricting shooting towards housing while it might be PAGE 2 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0534 easier to enforce rules which put an entire area off limits. Bruce White continued that he felt the people were in attendance today to petition the Board to do something about shooting in their area. Commissioner Throop asked Lynn Thomas if her group had a specific change they wanted to make or were they asking the Board to consider the issue and make a change. Lynn Thomas said they would like the Board to make a change, and they wanted protection by the Sheriff's Department. They also wanted signs put up designating the area as a no -shooting district. Chairman Maudlin said the Board needed to look at this area along with other areas where they might also be shooting problems, which would create a much larger enforcement issue for the Sheriff's Department. He asked Ms. Thomas if the private property owners had posted no shooting signs on their property, and she said she thought so. Ralph Thomas testified that he was a retired law enforcement officer and retired military and he enjoyed firearms very much. He felt the Board was making too little of this issue. He had talked with the Sheriff who said they could not enforce the existing law unless the property owners could prove that someone was shooting towards their dwellings. This might be provable after someone was injured but not before. He said he had been hearing automatic weapons in the area now. They also had an "attractive nuisance" called the horse caves which drew teenagers. The owner of the property had been fighting this problem for years. If the proposed ordinance were enacted, it would give some muscle to law enforcement. Commissioner Throop suggested that this issue be discussed with the full commission at their work session on Monday, November 25. 3. REGIONAL STRATEGIES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Dave Bishop, 2667 SW 41st, Redmond, Chairman of the Deschutes County Regional Strategies Committee, came before the Board to give the committee's recommendation. The state recommended that the committee look at four different strategies, however the committee looked at all twelve. The committee unanimously recommended High Technology as the strategy for Deschutes County. The committee had representatives from LaPine, Bend, Redmond, Sisters, the chambers of commerce, CORA, COED and Deschutes County. They felt this strategy was broad and could include the other strategies, except for tourism, which the state recommended, i.e. forest products and agriculture. He said the Forest Products, Tourism, Agriculture, and the High Tech Industries had all made presentations to the committee. Commissioner Throop said he represented Deschutes PAGE 3 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 6535 County on the Committee, and he concurred in the selection of the High Tech strategy. Dave Bishop continued that when the Board officially notified the Oregon Economic Development Department of the Deschutes County strategy, the County would have the opportunity to team -up with a contiguous county which had the same strategy to earn extra merit monies in the process. It was possible that Klamath County was also going to go with the High Tech strategy. THROOP: I would move that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners advance to the State of Oregon Economic Development Department high technology as the strategy for Regional Strategies Round 3 in Deschutes County. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused MAUDLIN: YES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 91-122 PROPOSING VACATION OF ALLEYS IN LAIDLAW Before the Board was a public hearing on Order 91-122 which would vacate certain alleys in Laidlaw (Tumalo). Tom Blust gave the staff report indicating that a petition requesting the vacation of certain alleys in Laidlaw was filed with the Board of County Commissioners on October 9, 1991. The Board accepted the petition and declared its intent to vacate the alleys in Resolution 91-086 on October 9, 1991, and scheduled a hearing for November 20, 1991, to consider the vacation. He said the property proposed for vacation was owned by Deschutes County and was not currently being used for road right-of-way purposes. It appeared the property did not provide access to public lands, river, streams, or natural features. He felt the proposed vacation was in the public interest. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. Michael Brennan, 64786 Wood Avenue, Tumalo, said the original vacation was written up by the County as a Plat change, and he wanted to make sure that it was not a plat change. Tom Blust confirmed that it was a vacation. He said he was concerned about this because if it had been a plat change, it would have changed his six building lots into two, which he didn't want. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. THROOP: Move adoption of Order 91-122. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 11/20/91 5. 6. 0108 0536 MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Absent MAUDLIN: YES PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE 91-045 AMENDING TITLE 19 Before the Board was a public hearing to Amend Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code, the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance. Section 19.84.010 would be amended to change the road names listed in the current ordinance from Denser Road to 27th Street and from Ferguson Road to 15th Street. George Read said this was just a housekeeping item. When these road names were changed, they were not changed in the zoning ordinance. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. THROOP: Move first and second reading of Ordinance 91-045 by title only. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 91-045. THROOP: Move adoption. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused MAUDLIN: YES PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 91-125 LAND EXCHANGE WITH BETTY RHODEN Before the Board was a public hearing concerning a proposed land exchange with Betty J. Rhoden. Brad Chalfant said the Bend metropolitan area was growing rapidly, particularly to the southeast side. Bend Metro Parks and Recreation had identified the need for a large park on the east side. Deschutes County had been working with Bend Metro Park and Recreation to identify sites which would work as current and future parks, i.e. the proposed Eastgate Park PAGE 5 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0537 which was on Gosney and Ward Road. Currently the proposed Eastgate Park site was in two pieces which were separated by a couple of private land owners. One 80 -acre parcel was owned by Betty J. Rhoden and was the property proposed for the exchange being discussed at this public hearing. Without the acquisition of the 80 -acre parcel, he felt this whole project would fail, and this was currently the park district's highest priority for park acquisition. The County had negotiated with Mrs. Rhoden for over one and one-half years and finally came to terms on an exchange where the valuations of exchanged properties were basically equal. The County proposed exchanging two properties for Mrs. Rhoden's 80 -acre parcel: 120 acres at Ten Bar and Bear Creek Roads and 40 acres on Byrum north of Bear Creek. The 40 -acre parcel would be broken out of a 280 parcel. Bend Metro Parks had supplied funds for surveying and partitioning the parcel, and the work was nearly completed. The Byrum property was currently being used by the surrounding neighbors for recreation which he wasn't aware of at the time he was conducting negotiations. The 280 acre site did not work as a park site in Bend Metro Parks master plan. The property was broken into three pieces with the highway and Byrum Road separating them. The 40 -acre parcel didn't appear to be viable for commercial agriculture because of the soil and the lack of irrigation even though it was zoned EFU-20. Chairman Maudlin asked about the taxes on the property which had not been paid. Brad Chalfant said that when property was transferred for park use, the taxes could be written off at the discretion of the Board. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. Ernie Drapela, general manager of the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District, testified that Brad Chalfant had represented the park district's interest in the creation of the Eastgate Park site. He felt the Rhoden property was a critical part of creating a park of that magnitude to serve the future of the Bend area. He encouraged the people studying this issue not to oppose the creation of the park, even if they had a concern with the County property being traded. In their long-range planning for the Eastgate Park, they were already working with equestrian groups, aeromodelers, mountain bike groups, archery groups, etc. who had convinced the park district that they would each take responsibility to for improving their portion of a large park site. So he felt that the interests of the public, who were concerned about the loss of the County parcel, could be accommodated at the Eastgate Park site. Also, he said the park district could assure the public that the Eastgate site would be maintained for park purposes, while there could be no assurances about the County site. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0538 Tanner Hansen, 62312 Deer Trail Road, testified in opposition to the land exchange because he and his friend used the County property extensively. He read the attached testimony into the record. Cliff Stiffler, corner of Cody Road and Cody Junior, testified that he had lived in the area for 15 years. He said the County -owned -40 -acre parcel was a major deer migration route and was concerned about the deer if it were developed. Larry Barany, 62261 Deer Trail Road, said the proposed park of Ward Road might be a great idea, however he would favor smaller areas which would be contiguous to where people lived. He was also concerned that Bend would become another metropolitan suburb with only parks left to enjoy. He was also concerned about what Mrs. Rhoden, who had purchased another 40 acres bordering this 40 -acre parcel, would do with the property. He questioned why the County would trade 160 acres for 80 -acres. He also wondered why Bend Metro Parks didn't just buy the 80 -acre parcel and leave the County property alone. Gladys I. Bigler, 52139 Cody Road, testified in opposition to the land exchange. She read the attached testimony into the record. Commissioner Throop said Deschutes County was not a public lands manager for open space or parks like BLM, State Parks, Forest Service, and Bend Metro Park and Recreation. He said the County came into possession of this 280 acres through a tax foreclosure. The County normally put these foreclosed lands on the auction block to get them back on the tax roles. The County didn't normally hold lands unless they were of value as trading stock or were of interest to Bend Metro Park and Recreation or the school district. He felt the County only had two options concerning this property: trade or sale. He asked if there might be a compromise which was to go ahead with the 40 -acre trade as proposed, while putting the 160 -acre parcel east of Byrum in some kind of park reserve rather than selling it. He said if some kind of a compromise could not be reached, it was likely that the entire 280 acres would be sold at auction. Gladys Bigler said that there was a significant existing trail system in the area now which they were actively using. She felt the County had some other options available for this piece of property. She said the County plan stated that the County lands should be considered for future needs of the County, especially park needs. She felt the County had the option of holding this property as open space for the future. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0539 Commissioner Throop restated that the County was not in the park business, this parcel was not in the park district, and there was no park authority that had any interest in this land. If there was no park authority or school district interested in to land, even in the long-term, the County would most likely auction the property, and the money would be distributed to the local taxing districts. Gladys Bigler did not feel that the County property should be broken up because it would cut off direct access to the property for a number of people in the area thus diminishing the parcel's value. Commissioner Throop asked if the County put this 280 acres up for auction, would the residents in the area be interested in joining together and purchasing the property. Gladys Bigler said she wished they were that rich but didn't feel they were. She said this area was rural and they didn't need swimming pools and ball field, just open, natural space. Irrigation systems and large parking areas would not be needed. She didn't see why the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District was not interested in the County land because in their plan, they discussed acquiring many parcels of land for diversity, and this parcel already had a established park use. She didn't see any proposed parks east of Ward Road and north of Highway 20 in the park district plan. Larry Barany asked if the proposed Eastgate Park property was in the Bend Metro Park District. Commissioner Throop said it was not but that the park district was looking to locate a large, regional park in this area whether it was in the district or not, but were not interested in developing neighborhood parks outside the district. It would then be annexed into the district. Gladys Bigler said that according to the Bend Metro Park & Recreation plan, a regional park was anything over 25 acres so the county site was large enough to be considered for a "regional park" outside the district. The park district plan also showed an Eastgate Park of only 210 -acres, and she questioned the need for an 800 -acre park in one location versus many smaller but regional parks. Linda Gillard, 62211 Deer Trail Road, testified that she had spoken with John Simpson from the park district, and he said he would "entertain this as a park." She said that Oregon Equestrian Trails were coming from all over Central Oregon to ride on the County property. This location was already usable as a park and didn't need to be developed. Ernie Drapela said that Mr. Simpson was free to express his opinion about any park parcel, however the Board had never PAGE 8 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0540 considered this site. The park plan that had been referenced earlier in people's testimony was considered by the district and the park board to be totally obsolete. It did not meet the state comprehensive outdoor recreation plan requirements, and they had been advised that it had to be rewritten and accepted by January of 1993. He felt it was really a "neutral" document although it still contained some principles which they were complying with, however, it did not provide for the future of this area. Linda Gillard asked why there couldn't be two regional parks -- one north and one south of Highway 20? Ernie Drapela said he was being hit cold since they had never considered this proposal before. She read from a TIME Magazine article about rural neighbors being buried by "another tacky instant city." She felt this exchange would condemn this open space to development. No one in this area minded paying taxes for a better quality of life. Commissioner Throop asked if the residents of this area had considered paying taxes and becoming part of the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District so they could participate in the formation of parks for the future. Ms. Gillard said they would entertain that but had only had time to consider this issue so far. She said that Mr. Hickman, representing Ms. Rhoden, and Mr. Chalfant both had indicated they regretted that this 40 -acres had been chosen for the exchange. She said they had no opportunity to bring up their concerns any earlier. She felt the open areas were very important for the children. She was also concerned that the County might exchange this property and not require that the back taxes be paid, and that it wasn't equitable to exchange 80 -acres for 160 -acres of public land. Mr. Hickman had already expressed interest in developing the 40 -acres into smaller parcels. She would oppose changing the EFU-20 zoning into any form of smaller parcels. Commissioner Throop said the property that was owned by Mrs. Rhoden was RR -10 which was twice as valuable as the EFU land which the County was exchanging. He said that EFU lands were very difficult to change into any other zoning. Tanner Hansen said he and his friends used this area for horseback riding almost every day in the summer and on weekends during school. Wayne Macaskill, 62215 Byrum Court, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He said he had had a grazing lease on the County -owned 40 -acre parcel for almost 10 years which refuted that this was not agricultural land. Before he leased the land, there was trouble with shooting and motorcycles. He fenced off 6 -acres for livestock but this had not restricted PAGE 9 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0541 its use by the neighbors. He was concerned with some of the statements Mr. Hickman made, i.e. "this was a done deal" and "this was not an agricultural area." Mr. Hickman inferred that he had some kind of concession from the County that some other zoning might be possible, and he hoped that was not true. J. D. Lanum, 62344 Wallace Road in Wallace Acres, testified that they were concerned that they would lose the rural, quiet, life style they currently enjoyed. They cared about the area and "were willing to put out a little bit." They were suspicious and very defensive about what Mr. Hickman was planning for the area. Lauren Gallard, 62211 Deer Trail Road, testified that the County land should not be traded because the children of the area used it for school activities, science projects and 4-H. Many people wouldn't have moved to this area if the public property hadn't been there. Sue Hamans, 62111 Cody Road, testified said she agreed with all the other testimony. She thought Ms. Rhoden's property would not be as valuable as the County property because it was "land locked. " Commissioner Throop said a state law passed in 1981 (the way of necessity) made it illegal to land lock a piece of property, so Ms. Rhoden would be able to get legal access. Sue Hamans said her family and other neighbors were already taking out truck loads of trash and were serious about maintaining the property. She didn't feel there was any guarantee that if they settled for the 160 acres of remaining property being set aside for a park reserve, that it would not be sold or used for something else. She volunteered to transcribe the tape of this meeting for free if it would mean the Board would look over the issues. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing and announced that the Board would not make a decision at this meeting so that Commissioner Schlangen would have an opportunity to review the testimony and help with the decision. He said the Board would make their decision on Tuesday, December 3, 1991, at 2:30 p.m. in the Board's Conference Room in the Deschutes County Administration Building. No further public testimony would be taken at this meeting. Chairman Maudlin said he wanted the audience to understand his position on the exchange issue. He was not in favor of the exchange of properties, but not for any of the reasons they had expressed. He said this property belonged to all of the citizen of Deschutes County, not just the property owners surrounding it. He did not want to trade for property that was on the tax roles because that would take the property off the tax roles. He felt this property was really owned by the PAGE 10 MINUTES: 11/20/91 7. different taxing districts: etc. 0108 0542 schools, fire district, county, GOLF COURSE STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT Rick Rupp, Chairman of the Golf Course Steering Committee, came before the Board to report on the proposed Deschutes County Municipal Golf Course. There was tremendous participation and involvement of the members of this committee. Their purpose was to identify and recommend a qualified developer to design, finance, construct and operate a municipal golf course for Deschutes County. They sent out 150 RFQs and received back 12 responses. The committee reduced it to 6 groups and requested proposals from them stating how their organization would design, finance, construct, maintain and organize this kind of operation. They also asked them to come to Bend and give a formal presentation of their proposal. The committee unanimously selected Golf Services Group of Huston, Texas. They recommended that the County enter into negotiations with Golf Services. The Board thanked the committee for all their hard work. Mr. Rupp said the Golf Services Group was going to fund an independent feasibility study to make sure the project was economically feasible with an approximate $15 green fee. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion that we accept the Steering Committee recommendation and go forward to the extent that we can regarding the feasibility and what options that they have. THROOP: I'll make that well stated motion by the Chair. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused MAUDLIN: YES Brad Chalfant wanted to clarify that the Board was directing staff to enter into negotiations, and the Board agreed that it was. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board were weekly bills in the amount of $383,632.57. THROOP: I'll move approval of the weekly warrant vouchers subject to review. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. PAGE 11 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 0543 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused MAUDLIN: YES 9. LAPINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INDEMNITY AGREEMENT Before the Board was signature of an Indemnity Agreement for the LaPine Chamber of Commerce for their Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 9, 1991, from 6 pm to 7:30 pm. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Indemnity Agreement. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: Excused MAUDLIN: YES 10. INN OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN ROOM TAX DELINQUENCIES Bruce White said the Inn of the Seventh Mountain had filed for bankruptcy yesterday. Legal Counsel had spoken with a bankruptcy attorney in Portland regarding the possibility of retaining his services to assist in protecting the County's interests as this bankruptcy proceeded. One area of consideration was whether to have an independent trustee appointed or at least to have an examiner go in and look at the Inn's operations. The Inn filed Chapter 11 protection which meant that the present management would act as the trustee and would be required to propose a plan that would result in the payment, to some degree, of the debts owed by the Inn management company. The County would be a preferred creditor because taxes (room taxes and personal property taxes) were owed to the County. Chairman Maudlin wanted County Counsel to go forward as aggressively as possible. Since the Board did not understand the bankruptcy laws, he felt County Counsel should decide how they wanted to proceed in this matter. Rick Isham suggested that since bankruptcy was a specialty in which none of the current staff had expertise, that special counsel be hired in Portland where the bankruptcy court was located for bankruptcy purposes only, to advise the County and possibly take action as the County's attorney. Bruce White said that in the past, room tax collections received by the Inn had not been turned over to the County or had not been segregated for turning over to the County. He wanted to assure that from this day forward, whatever was received by the Inn in transient room tax receipts would actually end up coming to the County. PAGE 12 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0108 09544 The Board asked that County Counsel go forward with this issue using their best judgement with all haste. Mike Maier said that he had informed the other agencies (CORA and COED) who depended upon the room tax revenue that there was a problem. He also said that the costs of a private bankruptcy counsel could be paid out of the room tax funds. Bruce White said it was estimated that the Inn owed the County $125,000. DESCHUTE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS l Tom T roop, om issione34 �1.n, Commiss _ Maudlin, Chairman BOCC:alb PAGE 13 MINUTES: 11/20/91 0/ a lltsgn x std py bra rr-w tte tzy/j o tmeaen . -- 0108 0545 I will begin by stating the decision you make today on this issue has far reaching rammimmifications on not only the existing but the future quality of life for your friends, neighbors and the constuitents you serve here in Deschutes County. On the surface the decision may seem easy to you however I would like to pose the following points to keep in mind as you deliberate on your decision. The rapidly increaseing population explosion which we are currently experiencing in Central Oregon will continue to cause tremendous pressures on land and land uses. Because of this, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan was developed to help county officials (such as yourselves) idenfity all the significant factors which affect or are affected by development such as we are discussion here today. The Plan was developed so that a comprehensive, balanced aproach to development would result while still meeting the short and long range needs of Deschutes County Citizens. The County Plan is a reflection of the needs and desires of the people of Central Oregon. Three resources that rated highest on the list for protection included agriculture, wildlife, and forest resources (page 2). A special concern was expressed over the loss of wildlife habitat especially do to the subdivision of deer winter ranges and the blockage of deer migration corridors. When the County Plan was developed the Citizens of Central Oregon chose an alternative that attempted to balance the needs of human development with conservation of our natural resources. An emphasis is placed on restricting urban sprawl and unplanned development (page 28). Wildlife, areas of vegetation, and scenic areas are to be protected from excessive development (page 28). An emphasis is to be placed on maintaining the existing rural character of the County (page 30). Goal #1: To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the County. Goal #2 To guide the location and design of rural development so that unnecessary expansion that would adversly affect our citizens will be minimized. Goal #3 To provide for the possible long term expansion of urban areas while protecting the distinction between urban lands and rural lands. Enough about the county plan for now. If I am correct, the trade of county- owned ountyowned land is being proposed so that a large 800+ acre regional park can be developed in the Gosney Meadows area. 0108 0546 I am against the County's proposal to use this fourty acre piece of county owned land in the proposed trade. I am against it for the following reasons: Historically this area has been used by Deschutes County citizens as a natural preserve. We have use it for such activities as x -country skiing, nature walking, x- country running, motor biking, mountain biking, and horse back riding. One of the stated Goal of the County Plan is to conserve open spaces and areas of historic, natural or scenic resources (page 124) Dick I know that four years ago when the County had to make a decision on wether to allow surface mining on County Owned parcels of land (and this parcel was one of them) you were veimently supportive of maintaining historical use on those lands. If that was the case then, would it not be true that you should see historical use important to the preservation of this parcel today? The second reason I am against the trade of this land has to do with wildlife. As I mentioned before, The County Plan indicated that the Citizens of the County were concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and agricultural lands. Well we still are. According to Steve George of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, this area was historically considered deer winter range as well as a migratory route of the herds of deer that wintered here. Steve also told me that even though the legal designation of deer winter range has been dropped in this area due to existing development, ODFW still consideres this particular parcel as valuable to wildlife. They realize, as do the local residents, that a small herd of deer winter over on this land. Not only do deer use this area but other wildlife such as coyote, wild rabbits, osprey, hawks, song birds, racoon, great horned owls, great blue heron, a variety of duck and bats also use it. With further subdivision of this area we can expect to see a further loss in wildlife habitat - something that the County Plan seeaks to preserving.protect. Now lets talk recreational use and recreation needs. A few of you might be thinking "well you greedy old battelax, who are you to stand in the way of creating this wonderful 800 acre park that will preserve the exact things that you have been harping on". The question that I wish to pose for you right now is - is creating theis 800 acre park the best use of our county property at this time? I used the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation Plan to help me answer this question in my own mind. A few of the objectives as stated in that particular plan (page %) are as follows: To provide year-round recreational opportunities which the peoplecannot furnish for themselves. IJ To maintain a farsighted approach in the acquisition and development of reacreationl facitlities in order to meet the needs of our ever-growing population. To develop a park and recreation system that expresses the diversity of the community and the communities needs. 0108 054 I looked at the 35 parks that the District had invintoried at the time the plan was written and not one NOT ONE of the parks listed had equestrian use as a priority or even listed as a use at all. So I have to ask myself is the diveristy in needs of the county being met. Here we have a parcel of land that historically and currently is actively being used by horse people. There are nearly 100 horses and mules owned by the local residents. Now you are probably saying why not just jump right on your horse & ride on down to this wonderful 800+ acres park that we will be developming. For some of us that would mean riding our horses on Alfalfa Market road, Byram road, Bear Creek than crossing Highway 20 to ride on down Gosney Road to finally make it to the park. I don't know if any of you have been out our way lately but I can assure you that folks don't drive 35 miles per hour on these roads anymore. It wouldn't take long before the guts of some horse and rider was strewn all over one of these roads. Another fact I would like to point out to you is that when Bend Metro Parks and Recreation planned in conjunction with the Citizens of Deschutes County, for this park, the planned acres were 240 (page 35). Now I have got to ask myself were did the idea of an 800+ acre park idea come from? Then I have got to ask myself is the Deschutes County Plan being followed by creating this 800+ acre park. (page 102) WHILE SOME FLEXIBILITY IS REQUIRED, ONCE A PARK PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED AND ADOPTED BY LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCIES, IT SHALL REMAIN AS THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT FOR FUNDING DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PARK. Now again I have to ask, is this the best use of this 800 acres of county land????? Furthermore I have got to ask myself is the county plan being met with respect to citizen involvement? (page 2) IN DESCHUTES COUNTY THERE IS A STRONG COMMITMENT TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PLANNING PROCESS IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF THE PLAN AND INSURES GREATER ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINAL DECISION A stated goal of the County Plan is (page 142) TO PROMOTE AND MAINTAIN BETTERCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVENMENTAL AGENCIES, BUSINESS GROUPS, SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC) I believe in this case the general public was left out of the equation. If we had been involved at the beginning of the planning process you folks might have been able to do a better scoping of the issues and needs surrounding this particular peice of ground & the needs of and concerns of your constituients. The Park Plan also speaks to the expansion and greater diversity of rec facilities spacially arranged throughout the county to provide opportunities in the most economicaly and effecient balanced mannor. Looking in the plan not only is there an absence of parks devoted to horse use & natural undeveloped type activities there is a lack of identified parks east of Ward Road and North of Highway 20. Creating this 800+ acre park In the Gosney area will not fulfil the needs of the rural citizens in our area. AGRICULTURE Now the last point that I would like to make about this particular piece of ground pertains to development. This land is Zoned EFU20. Through various converstaions with Don Hickman (representative) we are getting the impression that farm use is not what the private party has in mind for this piece of land. Comments such as: 0108 0548 -Isn't it stupid to put one house on 20 acres V V and -There is no such thing as agriculture property east of the Cascade Crest doesn't give a person much confidence in the fact that this peice of ground will be used for agricuture. Having read the article in last nights paper dealing with EFU Zoned properties I will not bore you with the County and State Ordenences relating to Farm use. I will however state that whoever aquires this land will be watched closely by the local citizens in regard to farm use. Kansis corn field north dakota wheat field Folks surrounding this parcel of county land do and are making a small living on agriculture. It only takes a person to get their head out of the dark ages when it comes to agricutlure & understand agriculture of the '90's to truely realize the agriculture value that this parcel howld. Agriculture contributes more than 10 million dollars to our community. One of the stated goals in the current Deschutes County Plan is: TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN DESCHUTES COUNTY FOR THE PRODUCTIONOF FARM AND FORESTRY PRODUCTS AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC NEED FOR OPEN SPACE. Citizens of Deschutes County are making sure that this policy and goal is bing met. Talking with Brent Lake at LCDC anyone who should acquire this property must stay in conformance with the present zoning regulations. And should the aquiring party wish to change the zoning of the area, a systematic process is to be met with the full knowledge of affected citizens, the county and LCDC. Brent also reminded me of the County Regulation regarding housing development (page77) IN ORDER THAT THE MOST EFFICIENT HOUSING PATTERN MAY BE OBTAINED, THE COUNT SHALL ENCOURAGE THE IN -FILLING OF EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAND DIVISION OCCURS You know an interesting thing happened to us. We met with Mr Hickman this last saturady & he told us that the COI property just shouth of the 40 acre parcel proposed in this land trade was sold about a year ago. We went down to the County Assessors office only to find that COI still indeed held title to this property. After talking with Ron Nelson and finding out that indeed the land is still COI land we are still pondering why Mr. Hickman told us wahat he did. Well you know it doesn't take a rocket scientist to suspect that something fishy is going on - something that no one wants to admit to. Could it be that the owner has in mind to also purchase the COI land thus blocking off the County property to the west with the idea that by dividing up the land the county would have no use of the west quarter quarter sections and sell them off as well? Maybe you can understand why some of believe that should you decide today to trage this land into private ownership we are looking at further development and subdivision on EFU20 land. 0108 0549 I will finish by quoteing from the Bend Park and Metro Plan. "An article in the Bend Bulletin in 1903 proclaimed, "Bend will grow up in the virgin forest, and it would be a fine thing to pick upon a suitable location right now for a permanent public park, so that when we grow up and become a large-sized spot on the map, we can invite distinguished visitors to our beautiful little city and point with pride to our park systmes and streets. We dont need it now because the county is all park; but a few years from now, in our old age, we can be very thankful that we had foresight enought to plan a pleasant place in shich to spend a Sunday afternoon with our grandchilderd." I am going to give you a set of petitions that concerned citizens have signed. This petition represents over 200 people who live not only adjacent to this property but folks throughout Deschutes County that do not want to see this 40 acre land be traded. We are asking the three of you to look seriously at the decision you plan to make today be visionaries in your approach & be foresighted in your plan. Don't make hasty land use decisions without seriously considering the affects your decision will have on your constituents. Also keep in mind the County Plan that you are supposed to use to guide you to your decision. Thankyou 0108 0550 CITYLlp � � l � d /I n rz Gc%L� L'u, -UUP CO' VAIt ,Q� o o 0108 0551 1 0108 0552 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING Olo8 0553 PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: 6V aLe"U'L - Z� GI DATE: l 1b6l A 1457 CITY a 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.