1992-24153-Minutes for Meeting July 01,1992 Recorded 7/15/19920118--1186
92-24153
MINUTES
'o,, .(/'.'
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS+}'Cf
July 1, 1992 '`
Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m.`sy
members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin and Nancy Pope Schlange�.
Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Rick
Isham, County Counsel; Karen Green, Community Development Director;
Mike Maier, County Administrator; Greg Brown, Lieutenant; and Larry
Rice, Public Works Director.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of
Forest Service Stipulations for construction of Paulina-East
Lake Road; #2, signature of Order 92-065 authorizing
expenditure of Road Department Funds for repair of Galloway
Bridge; #3, signature of Resolution 92-052 establishing an
Imprest Cash Account for handling minor disbursements for
Deschutes County Adult Corrections Department; #4,
reappointment of Charlie Brown, Jim Bussard and Jim Mann to
the Deschutes Basin Resource Committee; #5, reappointments of
David Gordon and Melissa Stofko to the Deschutes County
Library Board of Trustees; #6, reappointment of Bob Jackson to
the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee; #7,
signature of Acceptance of Deed, Declaration of Dedication,
and Order 92-069 Establishing a portion of Sunrise Blvd. as a
County road; and #8, signature of Resolution 92-054 declaring
equipment surplus and directing disposition.
SCHLANGEN: I move that we
items 1-8.
MAUDLIN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
approve the consent agenda
2. PUBLIC HEARING: VEHICLE FORFEITURE ORDINANCE 92-022
Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 92-022
declaring certain motor vehicles driven by persons under the
influence of intoxicants to be nuisances and providing for
forfeiture of the vehicles.
Rick Isham gave the staff report. He said he had worked with
Lieutenant Greg Brown, Judge Perkins and other citizens of the
county to develop an ordinance which would declare a class of
motor vehicles to be nuisances when they were operated by
individuals whose licenses had been suspended or revoked. If
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-118'7
a motor vehicle was operated by someone who had violated the
driving -under -the -influence statute and had a prior diversion
or conviction for driving under the influence in this state or
any other state or had previously committed a traffic crime,
their vehicle would be subject to forfeiture. The ordinance
had gone through several revisions and there might be some
additional minor revisions prior to next week when the Board
would consider it for adoption. This ordinance would add a
new chapter to the Deschutes County Code. The provisions
under which a vehicle could be forfeited were the state law
provisions which were adopted by the state legislature in 1989
and 1991.
Chairman Maudlin asked if the forfeitures only took place
after a second offence for driving under the influence. Rick
Isham said yes, in each case there had to have been a previous
offence of some kind. Chairman Maudlin asked if diversion was
also counted as a conviction. Rick Isham said diversion
wasn't considered a conviction, however it would be viewed,
under this ordinance, in the s
conviction. The Board had the
a nuisance if it was operated
arrest for any offense, however
repeat offenders.
ame manner as if they had had a
authority to declare a vehicle
by someone who had no previous
this ordinance was targeted at
Greg Brown added that someone who had been suspended because
of a manslaughter conviction would be subject to vehicle
forfeiture under this ordinance the first stop, unlike the
DUII drivers when it was actually the second time. He talked
with members of the Redmond, Sisters and Bend Police
Departments, and they were waiting for the Board to take
action before submitting the final draft to the three City
governments. The city police departments were actively
supporting the adoption of this ordinance.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing for testimony.
B. J. Fowler, 530 Franklin, Bend, OR 97701, "begged" the Board
to adopt this ordinance. She was president of Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers (MADD) had alcoholism in her family, and was
familiar with repeat offenders. A couple of weeks ago there
was a double head-on collision in Redmond involving a repeat
offender. Maybe if his car had been taken away, it would have
slowed him down. Her brother was an alcoholic who had been
driving drunk since he was 16. He had lost his license a
number of times but had never been in jail even though he had
killed two people. Her sister was killed by a drunk driver,
and the driver never spent a day in jail. If the County felt
it cost too much to auction the cars, she was an auctioneer
and would donate her time. She would like 5%, or 1/4 of
whatever any other auctioneer would charge, to go to MADD.
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-1188
Loismae Benson, Chair, Deschutes County Justice Evaluation
Coalition testified they had spent over a year investigating
the feasibility of these forfeiture regulations. Hundred of
questionnaires were collected from law enforcement, the
judiciary and the public in the area. They received input
from electronic monitoring people, diversionary counselors,
correctional officers, impounding personnel, jail personnel,
police officers, deputy sheriffs, district attorneys, public
defenders, defense lawyers and all the judges. Recently, they
had been informed by the state patrol that this ordinance
would be the "finest assistance to traffic safety in this
area." She urged the Board to close "those gold plated
revolving doors blatantly abused by repetitious drunk
drivers."
Don R. Anderson testified that he was a member of the
Coalition also. His father died of alcoholism and he almost
followed in his footsteps, so he was aware of the problems
associated with drunk drivers. He was in Sacramento when the
young woman was killed whose mother started MADD, and two
years later, the drunk driver involved had nine additional
counts on his record. He spent eight months on the grand jury
in Deschutes County and during that time, he looked at the
record of some of the drunk driving offenders and found it
appalling. Some of them had two or three pages of DUII
offenses. If taking away their automobiles would help, he
wanted to do it.
Chairman Maudlin asked Mr. Anderson if he understood that the
vehicle would be forfeited if the person was driving while
suspend after having a second suspension, even though he may
not be under the influence? Mr. Anderson said if the driver
was driving while suspended, he would say yes. Chairman
Maudlin asked Rick Isham to elaborate that issue. Mr. Isham
said that if the person was arrested for criminal driving
while suspended, the vehicle was subject to forfeiture as a
nuisance. One of the ways that you could be arrested for
criminal driving while suspended, was driving while your
license was suspended for a DUII conviction. There were other
crimes which were also enumerated within the ordinance, and if
your license was suspended for those crimes, you could be
arrested for criminal driving while suspended. As an example,
if a person's license was suspended for manslaughter involving
a vehicle, whether or not alcohol was involved, they could be
arrested for criminal driving while suspended which would
constitute a nuisance. Chairman Maudlin asked if he had a
conviction for criminal negligence for running down someone in
a cross walk, if the next time he was arrested, his vehicle
would be subject to forfeiture. Rick Isham said he would have
had to have been arrested for driving while his license was
suspended or revoked.
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-1189
Dale Hanslip, Sr. testified that he was the victim of a drunk
driver, and he and his family were still having problems
resulting from accident. The drunk driver had had several
arrests prior to the time of his accident. He had friends and
relatives whose children had been killed by drunk drivers with
previous drunk driving offenses. He was on an impact panel
for drunk drivers, and they had 40 or more drivers before them
each month. This last month they had two have to meetings
because there were so many. They heard comments from the drunk
drivers that they had been in programs in other communities,
and had come here because they thought the laws were more lax.
He had worked in a mortuary and had seen many innocent people
who were dead because of drunk drivers, and many times the
drunk drivers were killed also. He wanted to save lives, and
he thought this law would do it.
Stanley Owen, vice president of the Board of Director of the
Central Oregon Alcohol and Drug Council, testified that their
board felt this was an excellent ordinance and urged that it
be passed as soon as possible.
Mary Fleming said when she started working on the coalition,
they wanted to know how to get the attention of these drunk
drivers. They felt what would hurt them the most was to take
away their "instrument of destruction --their car."
Mike Wildman, owner of Consolidated Towing, said he had been
in the towing industry for 23 years and had seen a lot of
fatalities; seen the drunks walk away and drive the next day.
It was often the innocent people who were killed. The drunk
drivers would continue to drive, they didn't care. He didn't
want to see it anymore, and he felt this ordinance would help
alleviate this problem. It would also be more cost efficient
if the police and the courts did not have to deal with the
same people over and over again. He also felt peer pressure
would help, because once the public was aware of the
forfeiture ordinance, no one would want them to borrow their
cars. Commissioner Schlangen said she had received
Consolidated Towing's rate listing and asked if it had been
worked out with County Legal Counsel, the Sheriff's
Department, the judges, and the coalition. Mr. Wildman said
it had been. He said they were "running 14% in the red," but
he was "willing to lose money to make this work." Chairman
Maudlin said a couple of years ago, the County had asked for
bids on towing vehicles for the County and Consolidated Towing
had been selected.
Chairman Maudlin said the Board had received one letter
regarding this issue from Kurt Konrad who expressed concern
that the forfeiture only occur after due process and not be
based on unproven charges. Chairman Maudlin said this had
been discussed at the first meeting on this ordinance and
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 7-1-92
3.
4.
0118-1190
agreed that it couldn't be done on assumptions. This
ordinance was properly drawn and he felt it would work. He
thanked Judge Perkins for getting the process going in the
first place. The proposed effective date of this ordinance
was August 1, 1992. Since Commissioner Throop wanted to be
available for the adoption of the Ordinance, action on it
would be postponed until July 8, 1992.
There being no one else who wished to testify the public
hearing was closed.
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 92-052 WITHDRAWING CROOKED RIVER RANCH
FROM RFPD #1
Before the Board was a public hearing on final Order 92-052
withdrawing Crooked River Ranch from Deschutes Rural Fire
Protection District No. 1. Bruce White said this was the
second public hearing on this petition, and he didn't think
there was any opposition, so the Board would be able to sign
an order withdrawing units 4 and 5 of Crooked River Ranch from
Deschutes RFPD #1. They could then be annexed into the
Crooked River Ranch RFPD which was based in Jefferson County.
They asked that the withdrawal not be effective until
confirmation was received from Jefferson County that they had
agreed to the annexation. The order included that language.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no
one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed.
MAUDLIN: Ask for signature of final Order 92-052.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of final Order 92-052 subject
to Jefferson County annexation.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
APPOINTMENT OF BOB KOPLAU TO DESCHUTES COUNTY LOCAL ALCOHOL &
DRUG PLANNING COMMITTEE
SCHLANGEN: Move appointment of Mr. Koplau.
MAUDLIN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 7-1-92
5.
6.
7.
0118-1191
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS AND TAX OVERPAYMENT REFUNDS
Before the Board was approval of accounts payable vouchers in
the amount of $163,191.46 and tax overpayment refunds from the
unsegregated account in the amount of $1,195.41.
SCHLANGEN: Move approval subject to review.
MAUDLIN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
WAIVER OF LAND USE FEES FOR RECYCLING FACILITY AT KNOTT
Before the Board was a request to waive the land use fees
associated with the expansion of the recycling facility at
Knott Landfill. Larry Rice asked that the Board authorize him
to file the necessary land use applications since the building
was on County property. This authorization would not apply to
any of the building permits.
Chairman Maudlin said these costs would end
costs if they weren't waived anyway, so he
should be waived for this land use action.
MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion.
SCHLANGEN: So moved.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
up as recycling
felt the fees
Larry Rice asked if that meant he would be the applicant and
should proceed with the land use process, and the Board said
yes.
AIR LIFE REQUEST FOR DIRT
Before the Board was a request from Vern Bartley from AIR
LIFE, who were putting in a helipad at the Bend airport and
needed approximately 150 yards of dirt. They would do all of
the hauling if the County would donate the dirt. Larry Rice
said that was fine with him.
SCHLANGEN: Motion to waive the fees for dirt for Air
Life.
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-1192
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
8. CONSEP MEMBRANES INC. SECOND CONSENT AND WAIVER
Before the Board was a request from Consep Membranes, Inc.
that the Board sign a Second Consent and Waiver. Rick Isham
said this was part of the second phase of their restructuring
and was requested by their financial advisors.
SCHLANGEN: Motion for signature of Second Consent and
Waiver.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
9. ORDER 92-071 ELIMINATING TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
Before the Board was signature of Order 92-071 eliminating the
Traffic Safety Fund and transferring any balance to the
General Fund, nunc pro tunc as of June 30, 1992. Mike Maier
said that if the Sheriff's levy was approved in September, the
County would hire back three deputies and a sergeant for this
program. If approved, this program would no longer be in a
separate fund since it was no longer supported by a grant.
Because of a lack of revenue from fines, this year's Traffic
Safety Team budget had to be subsidized by the General Fund in
the amount of $57,000.
Chairman Maudlin said he hoped the traffic safety team would
be coming back with the passage of the special levy in
September.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Order 92-071.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
10. MP -92-9 FOR VINCENT MARTINELLI
Before the Board was signature of MP -92-9 dividing a 2.68 -acre
parcel into two lots in a Light Industrial Zone on Brinson
Blvd. for Vincent Martinelli.
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-1193
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of MP -92-9.
MAUDLIN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
11. LIQUOR LICENSE FOR MT. BACHELOR, SUNRISE LODGE
Before the Board was chair signature of a liquor license
renewal for Mt. Bachelor Sunrise Lodge.
SCHLANGEN: Move chair signature.
MAUDLIN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
12. REAPPOINTMENT OF MEAGHAN DOBERT AND JACK JOHNS_ TO_DESCHUTES
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SCHLANGEN: Move reappointment of Meaghan Dobert and Jack
Johns to the Deschutes County Planning
Commission.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
13. ORDER 92-072 TRANSFERRING CASH
Before the Board was signature of Order 92-072 transferring
cash within various funds of the Deschutes County Budget and
directing entries, nunc pro tunc as of June 30, 1992.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Order 92-072 transferring
cash.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-1194
14. RESOLUTION 92-057 TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-057
transferring appropriations within various funds of the
Deschutes County Budget and directing entries, nunc pro tunc,
June 30, 1992.
SCHLANGEN: Move signature of Resolution 92-057
transferring appropriations.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
15. RESOLUTION 92-056 AMENDING FEE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION 92-022
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-056 amending
Resolution 92-022, adopting the 1992 Fee Schedule for County
services, to include changes in the Treasurer/Tax Department
section.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Resolution 92-056 amending
the fee schedule.
MAUDLIN: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: Excused
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
16. PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM THE PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY
Karen Green came before the Board to go over the preliminary
results of the Public Attitude Survey (attached), and asked
permission to release those results to the media.
Approximately 1,100 people had responded when they had only
hoped to get 400. 800 of the responses had been tabulated and
the final results would be available next week. She had asked
the survey firm if the remaining 300 responses could affect
the results, and they said the percentages would probably stay
within one percentage point. She said the media was very
interested in the survey, and she thought she could "wet their
appetite with the preliminary results. She would be setting
up a meeting for the week after next with Noel Klein and the
Board to go over the final results and an analysis of those
results. The Board agreed to having the news release issued.
PAGE 9 MINUTES: 7-1-92
0118-1195
DATED this � day of , 1992, by the Board of
Commissioners of Deschutes Co y, egon.
AT T:
ff
Recording Secretary
PAGE 10 MINUTES: 7-1-92
TES f,,
Community DevelopA
ent
Administration Bldg. • 1130 N.W Harriman • Bend, Oregon • 97701
(503) 388-6575
Planning Division
NEWS RE FRSE Building Safety Division
Environmental Health Division
In May, 3000 randomly -selected Deschutes County residents received
surveys asking their opinions on several controversial rural land use
issues. Over 1000 residents responded. According to Noel Klein,
Research Director with Western Attitudes, the Lake Oswego public
opinion research firm that conducted the survey for the county, this is
one of the largest responses to a public opinion survey the company has
ever received.
Responses from about 800 surveys have been tabulated so far. Final
tabulations and analysis will be available and will be published in
about ten days. The preliminary results reveal the following:
* A majority of respondents have lived in Deschutes County over ten
years.
* About half the respondents live in the Bend area. About half live
outside cities on less than five acres.
* Seven of ten respondents rate the county's quality of life high,
but two-thirds feel the quality of life has deteriorated in the
last two years. About the same number of respondents attribute
that deterioration to too many people coming to the county and the
resultant growth and traffic problems.
* When asked what one thing they would change about living in the
county, six of ten respondents indicated they would curtail growth
and development in some way.
* Three-fourths of respondents said they favor protecting farm land
by restricting non-farm uses, such as subdivisions, destination
resorts and golf courses. Six of ten respondents feel there
already is enough rural land in the county available for such
non-farm development.
* Six of ten respondents said that if farm -zoned land cannot support
commercial farming, they would prefer that the land be used for
open space, wildlife habitat and small-scale "hobby farms" rather
than for subdivisions, destination resorts, or other residential
development.
News Release
July 1, 1992
Page 1
0118-119'
* Eight of ten respondents feel there are already too many or enough
destination resorts in the county.
* Three-fourths of respondents do not believe destination resorts
should be allowed on farm land that is irrigated or that
historically has been farmed. Only one of ten respondents favored
allowing destination resorts on farm land that can support
commercial agriculture.
* A majority of respondents expressed concern about the protection
of important fish and wildlife habitat.
According to Community Development Department Director Karen Green, the
opinion survey will be invaluable for county planners, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Commissioners. "The results of the survey
will play an important role in the county's decisions revising the farm
zones, and in determining whether and how to site destination resorts
on farm -zoned land and in or near wildlife habitat."
For further information, contact: Karen Green, 388-6575
News Release
July 1, 1992
Page 2