Loading...
2000-1048-Minutes for Meeting December 06,2000 Recorded 12/19/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 1048 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-1048 * Vol -Page Printed: 12/20/2000 14:47:37 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Dec. 19, 2000; 2:10 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 11 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK t,NCR� � ED SEC 2� 7 2000 KE Y UNC ED PDE 2 0 2000 00 DEC 19 PH 2: 10 COU, TY MINUTES e,j0000�&b - twl? Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6570 . Fax (541) 388-4752 Board of County Commissioners' MeetinE Wednesday, December 6, 2000 Chair Linda Swearingen brought the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. E -Mail: www.deschutes.org. Linda L. Swearingen Tom N. DeWolf Dennis R. Luke Present were Linda Swearingen and Dennis Luke; Commissioner Tom DeWolf was excused. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Doreen Blome', Dave Leslie and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Sue Brewster, Sheriffs Office; Rick Isham and Mark Amberg, Legal Counsel, Jim Bonnarens, Property Management; Mike Daly, Commissioner -elect, Barney Lerten, rnedia; and eight other citizens. 1. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No. 2000-033, Amending Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (Correction of Outdated or Unclear Language) Dave Leslie gave a brief overview of the reasons necessitating the adoption of this ordinance. He explained that many of the changes were "housekeeping" items, and some related to the adoption of flood maps, which have been updated. He further indicated that these changes do not seem to be affected by the passage of Measure 7. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the public hearing at 10:10 a. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 1 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 Quality Services Performed with Pride Being no input offered, Chair Swearingen closed the public hearing at 10:11 a.m. LUKE: I make a motion for the first and second readings, by title only, and declaring an emergency. SWEARINGEN: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Chair Linda Swearingen then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2000-033, by title only, and declared an emergency. Chair Linda Swearingen then conducted the second reading of Ordinance No. 2000-033, by title only, and declared an emergency. SWEARINGEN: I move adoption of Ordinance No. 2000-033. LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2000-119, Approving a Petition for the Designation of Territory as Summit Acres No -Shooting District. Mark Amberg explained that pursuant to Chapter 9.08, and as filed by Clara Gates, chief petitioner, this Order now comes before the Board. He stated that the Clerk has certified signatures of 62% of the registered voters; the proper notice was published, and the hearing is to take place at this time. Doreen Blome' confirmed that the total fee of $83.50 has been paid by the petitioner. Chair Swearingen opened the public hearing at 10:12 a.m. No one wished to testify, but by Chair Swearingen asking for a raise of hands of those citizens specifically attending the hearing, all six raised their hands in favor c f passage of the order. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 2 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 Chair Swearingen closed the public hearing at 10:13 a.m. LUKE: I move for signature of Order No. 2000-119. SWEARINGEN: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 4. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of the First and Second Readings and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2000-021 (Zone Tax) and Ordinance No. 2000-022 (Map) of the Airport Safety Combining Zone. Steve Jorgensen asked that this be postponed to Wednesday, January, 10, 2001, due to ongoing discussions with representatives of the Sunriver Airport. Chair Linda Swearingen then reopened the record until December 27, 2000, at S: 00 p.m. for further comments. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2000-111, Approving the Williamsen Annexation into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2. Rick Isham stated that the property is located off Dodds Road; and that 100% of the voters within the proposed annexation signed the petition. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the public hearing at 10:1 S a.m. Being no comments offered, Chair Swearingen then closed the public hearing at 10:16 a.m. SWEARINGEN: I move approval of Order No. 2000-111. LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 3 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. LUKE: I move approval. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Consent Agenda Items: 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2000-086, Adopting the Deschutes County Self - Insurance Plan Document and Summary Plan Description for Medical, Dental and Vision Benefits under the County's Self -Insured Plan. 7. Signature of an Assignment of Assets and Liabilities from Mock Enterprises (Caffee Diva) to Royal Blend Coffee Company, Inc. (Assumption of Borrower's Obligations under the Loan Agreement). CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $849.45. LUKE: SWEARINGEN: VOTE: LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. Second. SWEARINGEN: Aye. Chair votes aye. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $3,782.67. LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. SWEARINGEN: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 4 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $575,049.32. LUKE: SWEARINGEN: VOTE: LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. Second. SWEARINGEN: Aye. Chair votes aye. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA a) Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2000- 037, Adding Chapter 14.10 to the Deschutes County Code - Regarding the Ramifications of the Passage of Measure 7. Rick Isham indicated that this ordinance is similar to others now circulating around the state. Some of the issues relating to this ordinance are providing that claims made for any kind of compensation would be made to the County Administrator or his designee, so he can decide if compensation is appropriate or can delegate it to another. There is a fee involved, and there is an appraisal requirement. There is also a notice requirement and a public hearing. He explained the basics of how Measure 7 would work. It provides for compensation under certain circumstances; and seems to indicate that if cease applying a zoning regulation or another regulation to a specific application, that there is no duty to pay compensation. In other words, you allow the use that was eliminated, writing an amendment to the ordinance, which basically provides the same sort of zoning or planning regulations that were in place at the time the person acquired the property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 5 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 He further explained that this ordinance attempts to set up a procedural framework by which a person could make application for compensation. It would have that application come before the Board with the recommendation to hold a public hearing, and either relieve the property of the restriction that was imposed subsequent to their ownership, or pay the compensation. If you pay the compensation, you basically get in return some sort of restrictive covenant that would then remain on the property forever. Isham stated that the "1,000 Friends of Oregon" stated they do not believe the counties and the cities have the right to relieve a property of a restriction. Also, there is pending litigation and an application for an injunction that may take affect today that would prohibit the governor from certifying the result of the election declaring this part of the Constitution. There is a possibility that someone could make a claim tomorrow; hence, we have an ordinance that probably needs to be improved upon. However, it needs to be adopted before December 7. Isham stated that the second item to address is the fee. If person is entitled to compensation, under the constitution, they could end up in the absence of an ordinance just filing a lawsuit claiming that they are entitled to compensation. The fee for filing a lawsuit is $135, but is not necessarily similar to a land use procedure. The planners are finding that these individuals who wish to file a claim are probably going to have to come to the Planning Department to get help in order to put together the information they need to make a claim. The information someone would use to make a claim is available but difficult to find without the assistance of the planners; and the planners feel this should be a cost of service. LUKE: If theoretically I have such a claim in mind. If I meet with the planners, if something is left out that would make my case stronger, what kind of liability does the County have in this regard. Some of the records could go back many years. ISHAM: It could be considered negligence if they fail to know their own records well enough to give you what you ask for. But the file may not be where -the information would be found; it may be in the historic records from a number of years ago. This requires someone to investigate the Clerk's records or Community Development records to identify these. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 6 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 ISHAM: The owner has to be a current owner, and a change in regulation must have occurred subsequent to ownership change, and the owner has to have been the one to make the application and been denied the use in the past. It also has to be continuous ownership. If someone is unsure if they had been "down - zoned", their ability may be reduced in this regard. The may not be able to get all the correct information from the County, although this may not purposefully occur. (A general discussion the occurred regarding old material that may be in archives.) ISHAM: If it was my choice, I would not charge the fee, but almost every jurisdiction will be doing this. The fee may keep the "tire kickers" from submitting minor claims. If there is a fee deposit, and as costs are incurred by the County, they are charged against that fee. Additional fees above the deposit would have to be paid. The next issue is the appraisal. Some appraisers are already holding seminars on how to present this. In a condemnation case, an owner is entitled to testify as to what he feels the value of his property is. It could be a clear case; but may not. If it's bare land that is worth little if it's unbuildable, but could be worth a lot more if it's buildable, you may want to make the appraisal optional. An appraisal quantifies a dollar amount, but I'm not convinced that an appraisal is necessary in every case. If you have a large claim, you would probably want to have one to have the best information possible. Likewise the County may want to have an appraisal done, too. S WEARINGEN: I don't believe that you need more than one appraisal as long as the appraiser is properly designated. LUKE: I agree that one appraisal should be plenty. I find it difficult to pay out taxpayer's money without a professional evaluation of the property. If this goes back ten years and the property lost value, is the tax bill going to be retroactive and therefore higher? Would the taxes go back retroactively? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 7 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 ISHAM: You may have instances where you have something on farm deferral versus commercial use next door; if you get a waiver of EFU on the property, that owner has a windfall; the owner hasn't paid taxes on commercial value, loan costs have been less, and so on. Does the board want to have a public hearing on this situation? LUKE: The purpose of a public hearing is to allow people to testify against or for the claim. I don't mind having public hearing or an item on the agenda. S WEARINGEN: You have to have a public process, but may not need to hold a public hearing. ISHAM: This would allow you to put additional information into the record; and informs the neighbors so they can either do the same thing or be aware of what's going on. Many people have not applied for something and have held the property for a long time. Some will make application and at the same time apply under Measure 7. Within 90 days they'll get their waiver, give it to planning, and then planning will have to allow the use or for compensation. S WEARINGEN: The ordinance provides for a process that makes sense. We have to do something. GENE PREDDY (Citizen): We bought twenty acres in Cloverdale in 1990 with the idea we would build in the future. It turns out we were finally able to move here this year, although we have visited every year since 1990. The purchase of the property was contingent on septic approval, etc., so we believed we could build a house all this time. We learned the uses are more restrictive now, so we would be forced to work with land use people and hire an attorney. Why should we have to put more money into a conditional use permit since the County indicated it would be turned down; nor can we afford to hire an attorney. What do we do now? Do we apply for a waiver? One parcel was bought next to us and they built a home. We were forced to buy another property, but have built a barn on the original parcel. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 8 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 S WEARINGEN: When you bought, you were allowed to build. Due to changes at the state level, this use changed. You need to make an appointment with the planners and go through this system. LUKE: There will be an application for an injunction to stop this from going; into affect. You need to watch the news. ISHAM: Our ordinance implements when Measure 7 does; I would suggest that their application be postponed if there is an injunction. I suggest they start right away if the injunction doesn't happen. Under this ordinance, you have to apply to build a home, and apply 1 or compensation since it was down -zoned. You need to apply to planning and to the Board. The Board can do two things; it can allow compensation or it can allow a waiver to build. If that happens, the Board will tell planning they have waived the restrictive zoning on that parcel. S WEARINGEN: You need to meet with the planners, but you also need to see what the State will allow us to do. I believe your type of situation is what the Measure was meant to address. It's ridiculous that you aren't able to build. (A general discussion occurred regarding hand engrossing of changes in the ordinance and how fees would be handled.) LUKE: How do we word the motion if the injunction holds? ISHAM: I assumed we would reconvene if Measure 7 were delayed. LUKE: How do I make a motion, that this ordinance be designed to take affect when and if Measure 7 does? Or when it's certified? We want people to know when and if to make application. What if it's found to be in error later on? What happens to the applications that have already been applied for? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 9 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 ISHAM: This is a procedural ordinance. You could repeal it or change it. SWEARINGEN: You could refund their money. LUKE: I make a motion for first and second readings, by title only, including hand engrossment, striking J, exhibit A. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Chair Linda Swearingen then did the first reading of Ordinance No. 2000- 037, by title only. Chair Swearingen then did the second reading of Ordinance No. 2000-037, by title only. LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2000-037. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. b) Before the Board was Discussion of a Situation Regarding County -owned Property being Built Upon in Error by a Private Party. Jim Bonnarens explained that the property, located in Oregon Water Wonderland, has had improvements and a residence built upon it. Arrangements are being made to exchange the private party's lot, which is next to the County's, with the one that has been built upon. It has been improved with a sand filter septic system and a manufactured home. Commissioner Luke stated that there is no desire to punish the individuals, but that they do need to reimburse the County for the costs associated with publications, staff time, and so on. He explained that the exchange should not move forward until this is agreed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 10 of 11 Pages Wednesday, December 6, 2000 c) Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Lee Petmecky to the Mental Health Advisory Board. LUKE: I move approval. SWEARINGEN: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Being no, further input, Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 11: OS a.m. Dated this 6`h Day of December 2000 for the Commissioners. ATTEST: Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 6, 2000 County B j,. Linda L. Swearingorf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Page 11 of 11 Pages