Loading...
1992-14699-Minutes for Meeting April 21,1992 Recorded 5/6/199292-14699 0118-0298 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE JAIL SITE APRIL 21, 1992 ,n , r. 'V, Chairman Dick Maudlin called the meeting to order, intro- duced Commission members Tom Throop and Nancy Schlangen and outlined the agenda for the meeting. Lt. Greg Brown gave on overview of the jail project to date stating that the jail project review committee members also have individual members on subcommittees. He stated that the new jail facility will be designed to hold at least 150 inmates with service facilities for a maximum 300 inmates. He further stated that a minimum of 2.2 acres of land is required for the building itself with an additional 2.5 to 3.5 acres needed for parking and minimum buffers. Lt. Brown explained that the committee members realize that wherever the jail is located, neighborhoods will be impacted and the members will work with neighbors to minimize those impacts as much as possible. He explained that attorneys and judges will work together to use video arraignments to reduce transport, and police officers will help design sallyport and booking areas. Lt. Brown also explained that input will be sought from neighbors to determine exterior siting, fencing, lighting and landscape designs. He explained that the goal of the committee is to have a highly functional facility at the lowest cost possible. Lt. Brown explained that the site selection committee members visited other jail sites to help to determine siting criteria. He explained that many factors were considered when choosing a site, including topography, availability of utilities and cost of acquisition. He stated that many sites were looked at and compared to the siting criteria, eventually reaching a unanimous decision. Lt. Brown then replied to some commonly asked questions by stating that the new County jail will not look like a prison. He also stated that the jail had to be sited within the urban growth boundary which restricted its location. He explained that the site next to the state police location was the second less expensive site available and a tentative offer of $320,000 has been made. Lt. Brown stated that some design concepts have been dis- cussed. He stated that the building will be one story and designed to look like a business building and to blend into the 1 - MINUTES OF THE JAIL SITE PUBLIC MEETING 1.4 n; 0118-0299 neighborhood. He further stated that the committee has spoken with the Assessor's office and believes that the jail will not adversely affect property values of surrounding properties. He stated that there will be no public access off Hardy Road, although an emergency access will be asked for. Lt. Brown stated that the neighbors will be asked for their opinion regard- ing lighting on the exterior of the building. He further stated that the jail site will always be limited to County Sheriff functions with no other County facility being placed at that location. Lt. Brown also explained that the size of the property was important so as to maintain an adequate buffer to the sur- rounding neighborhood. Dick Maudlin then asked for questions from the audience. Someone asked Lt. Brown what the cost of the land for a buffer zone would be. Lt. Brown explained that a cost wasn't available, but that the cost for the buffer piece would be beyond the tentative offer of $320,000. Tom Throop stated that it appears that site acquisition and preparation costs will be lower than anticipated. Lt. Brown stated that he believes it will be less than $600,000 total. Someone asked how the lack of public access off Hardy Road would be protected in the future and what the buffer piece would look like if acquired. Lt. Brown explained that if the buffer piece were acquired, a conditional use permit would be applied for which would include a provision prohibiting Hardy Road from becoming a public access road. He further stated that the buffer property would remain in its natural state. He also stated that the back side of the property towards O.B. Riley road would probably be fenced. Someone asked what will happen to the site when the 150 - inmate level is reached. Lt. Brown stated that approximately one and one-half acre of additional land will need to be utilized to accommodate another 150 inmates. He further stated that this jail is designed to take care of the needs of the County for the next 20 years. Someone else asked a question regarding access that Lt. Brown explained by stating that it is not certain whether access will be from the highway or from.a frontage road. He further stated that an engineering firm is working with the Transportation Department on that issue. The same person asked where the water and sewer easements are located. Lt. Brown replied that he anticipated the lines would be brought to the front portion of the site and then back along the south edge and referred to a map. 2 - MINUTES OF THE JAIL SITE PUBLIC MEETING 0118-0300 Lt. Brown replied to a question that if the buffer property were acquired, the siting of the jail itself may be pushed back an additional 40 feet. He stated that it would allow the jail to be buffered a little more from the highway and still not impact anything to the west. Someone asked why the jail had to be located within the urban growth boundary. Lt. Brown stated that water and sewer facilities are provided within the UGB. Lt. Brown replied to a question by stating that the jail should have no impact on O.B. Riley Road since there will be no access from it and should also have no impact on the neighborhood or Sawyer Park. Darrell Davidson responded to a question by stating that any inmates taken out on a work crew would be supervised. Dick Maudlin responded to a question by stating that it would be very unlikely that Hardy Road would ever be vacated. He also explained that if any change were to be made to the site plan approval at some point in the future, the same notice and land use application process would have to be gone through again. Lt. Brown stated that the Sheriff's Department wants to control and restrict access to the site and that changes would not likely be made. Someone asked what factor was weighed more heavily in making a decision on a site, cost of acquisition or impact on surround- ing neighborhoods. Lt. Brown stated that both factors were considered equally. He further stated that commercial land in the County is expensive and there were not many parcels avail- able. He also explained that the committee did not want to take away money budgeted for building construction to acquire a site. Someone asked if any of the committee members lived near the proposed site. Lt. Brown stated that he didn't know. Nancy Schlangen stated that she lived near it. Lt. Brown responded to a question by stating that by law, an inmate cannot stay at a county jail longer than 365 days. He stated that the average stay at the present jail is approximately five days and will go up to possibly two or two and a half weeks at the new facility. Lt. Brown responded to another question by stating that there are no guarantees that property values will not drop. He stated that the committee looked at property values in areas surrounding existing jails and found no decrease. Dick Maudlin explained that the committee is working from the best information available. 3 - MINUTES OF THE JAIL SITE PUBLIC MEETING 0118-0301 Lt. Brown responded to a question by stating that the jail project will not effect Harvest Lane. Dick Maudlin stated that the Commission had no knowledge of any work being done to Harvest Lane. Lt. Brown stated that an irrigation ditch runs through the proposed property and that an engineer has been hired to deter- mine if it is still a functional ditch. Lt. Brown stated that any functional ditch on the property will be enclosed. Someone asked about outdoor exercise facilities. Lt. Jenkin explained that there will not be one large area, but two or three smaller ones. She also stated that the inmates would be super- vised when in the outdoor areas. Lt. Brown responded to a question by stating that more land is being acquired than is needed for the building itself to allow for a larger buffer. He explained that the buffer area will be idle land and that it is intended to remain that way. Someone asked if there is any guarantee that the buffer area will remain as such. Lt. Brown explained that the site has to be used for law enforcement purposes only as a condition of finan- cing. Lt. Brown responded to a question regarding lighting by stating that secure lighting is needed only around the facility itself and that it will be camera monitored. He further stated that it will not be brilliantly lit. Tom Throop stated that new technology in lighting will be used to screen the light from other than the facility itself. Lt. Brown stated that various ideas in fencing have been discussed, but no decisions have been made. He stated that if wire is used, it will be screened so as not to be visible from the outside. Someone from the audience commented that three criteria for the site were not met. Lt. Brown explained that 9.76 acres is close to the 10 -acre criteria. He stated that the site itself is zoned for light industrial and explained that the facility will have to go through the land use application process for approval. Dick Maudlin ended the question and answer period and opened the meeting to public testimony. Lynn Miller testified that she is surprised that a site failing to meet three of the criteria is considered the prime site. Jim Carlton, City of Redmond Police Chief, stated that he is in favor of the site selected. He stated that he is not a member of the site selection committee, but is a member of the overall committee. He stated that one reason this site is suitable is 4 - MINUTES OF THE JAIL SITE PUBLIC MEETING its location near the core area. is convenient for transportation and Redmond and urged that it be 0118-0302 He further stated that the site between the Cities of Sisters given consideration. Elsie Tate stated that she was a landscape critic for the Federated Garden Clubs and recommended two publications as references for landscaping. She further stated that she was not in favor of this site because of its location near Highways 20 and 97 and its possible negative impact on visitors to the area. Dave Haynes, Chief of Police in Sisters, stated that he supports the site selected. He also stated that the site is convenient for transport of prisoners from the Sisters area. Dan Kiesow stated that he supports that the site will be used for Sheriff Department activities only, that access will be limited, that the buffer zone will be left in a natural state and that lighting will be as minimal as possible. Tom Throop restated that a land use application process will be started and that citizens are encouraged to participate verbally or in writing. Mike Kozak, real estate broker and City Commissioner, stated that he believes property values will be affected by the siting of the facility. He stated that he was aware of offers on surrounding properties that had been dropped after the proposed jail site became public knowledge. He also stated that he believes there may be a psychological impact on siting the jail at the western entrance to the City. Mr. Kozak further stated that he believes there may be some additional costs to the City of Bend Police Department and is opposed to the site. Tom Throop asked Mr. Kozak if he believed a downtown site would better serve the community. Mr. Kozak stated that he believed transportation costs would be less if it were possible for the facility to be located downtown. Dick Maudlin questioned Mr. Kozak's statement regarding property values. Mr. Kozak responded by stating that he knew of properties to the south where offers were dropped after the proposed jail site became public knowledge and believed there to be a connection. Bill Gardner stated that his residence will be a couple of hundred yards from the proposed jail. He stated that those speaking in favor do not live near the site. He further stated that when the jail issue was voted upon, he believed it would be located downtown. He further stated that the high costs of locating the facility downtown were never raised during the election and that perhaps if they had been, the outcome would have been different. Mr. Gardner further stated that he believes 5 - MINUTES OF THE JAIL SITE PUBLIC MEETING 0118-0303 the convenience of the neighbors should be put ahead of the convenience of the prisoners. He further questioned the placing of the jail in the light industrial zone. He stated that he believes more time should be put into finding another site. A woman who did not sign the list stated that she voted for the jail, but is opposed to its location near her residence. She further stated that there are currently problems in the area and listed fire hazard as one of them. Glen Maroe stated that he concurs with Mike Kozak. He stated that he is concerned with its location and referred to a situation in Pendleton. He further stated with some agitation that he believed this issue was being pushed through too quickly. Patricia Klein stated that she bought property one year ago on Glen Vista Road, but would not have done so if she knew a jail would be sited nearby. She stated she believes the desirability of the area will diminish. She further stated that she believes its location will impact tourism and that money was the only reason this site was chosen. Ms. Klein also stated that she believes the County doesn't care about the neighbors and believes the jail should be sited away from residential areas. Dick Maudlin stated that anyone wishing to comment at the public hearing for the land use application is invited to do so and closed the public meeting. DATED this day of 1992, y the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon. AT ST: Recording Secretary ki ss n, 6 - MINUTES OF THE JAIL SITE PUBLIC MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING 0118-0304 PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: le& 4 - DATE: %2 TIME: O NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP %-o/ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.- 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.