2002-149-Minutes for Meeting February 25,2002 Recorded 3/8/20021130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752
www.deschutes.org
Tom De Wolf
Dennis R. Luke
WORK SESSION MINUTES Mike Daly
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Sue Brewster and Jon
Sholes, Sheriffs Office; George Kolb and Tom Blust, Road Department; George
Read, Paul Blikstad, Doreen Blome; Damian Syrnyk and Kevin Harrison,
Community Development; and Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel.
Also attending were Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Media
Representatives Barney Lerten of bendnet.com and Mike Cronin of the Bulletin;
and no citizens.
Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 03 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an
Agreement with Motorola, Inc. to Service Data Equipment Used in the
Sheriffs Office's Communication System.
Sue Brewster explained that the equipment involved is not data equipment, but
is two-way communications equipment. There are three different contracts; two
of them are under $25,000, but this one is not. This is the annual insurance
policy so that Motorola will service the communications equipment purchased
by the Sheriff s Office two years ago. She indicated Jon Sholes helps with
decisions as to what equipment is really necessary.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 1 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
Quality Services Performed with Pride
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Public Hearing (Scheduled for
Wednesday, February 27) and Consideration of Signature of Order No.
2002-003, Vacating a Portion of Tetherow Bridge Loop.
George Kolb gave a brief overview of the property involved, referring to a map.
4. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of
Oregon Transportation Investment Act Agreement No. 19418 (Document
No. 2002-064), for the Replacement of the Johnson Market Road Bridge.
George Kolb explained that old T.I.A. funds will be used to replace the bridge, and
that the Oregon Department of Transportation has asked that the County do so.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order
No. 2002-039, Declaring the Intention to Create a Local Improvement
District Known as Mountainview Road L.I.D.
Tom Blust gave a brief overview of where the proposed district is located, and
indicated there are 59 lots that will have an assessment of $7,200 each. It has
been strongly supported by the residents. This order sets the public hearing.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 2 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order
No. 2002-038, Declaring the Intention to Create a Local Improvement
District Known as Gift Road L.I.D.
Tom Blust asked that this be delayed for a week as his department is
investigating the possibility of acquiring a small sliver of land for access to
County -owned land.
7. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Sub -
Contract (Document No. 2002-062) between Deschutes County and CODA
(Comprehensive Options for Drug Abusers) for Chemical Dependency
Program Services.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was Discussion of the Second Reading (Scheduled for
Wednesday. February 27) and Consideration of Adoption of Ordinance No.
2002-014, Regarding a Text Amendment to Title 9 of the Deschutes County
Code, Reflecting the Addition of Federal Land to the Deschutes River
Corridor Restricted Area ("No Shoot Zone").
Doreen Blome' explained that the second reading on this text amendment is
scheduled for Wednesday, and she hasn't heard a word from the public on this
action.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 3 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
9. Before the Board was Discussion regarding the Continuance of An Appeal
(Scheduled for Wednesday, February on Appeal No. A-01-18/File No.
LR -99-49, an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision on a Lot of Record
Verification (Rastovich Property).
Damian Syrnyk said that the attorney involved has asked for another
continuance, and is hand -delivering a letter today requesting it. He would like
to continue this to late March or early April.
10. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION of a Decision (Scheduled for
Wednesday, February 27) Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings
Officer's Decision on File No. CU -01-96 (Non-farm Dwelling in an EFU-TE
Zone; Applicant: Canyons Land & Cattle Company, Gardner &
Humphries).
Paul Blikstad stated there were two appeals of the Hearings Officer's decision
regarding Canyons Land & Cattle Company. This was part of an attempt to
develop property that was proposed to be a destination resort.
Lgo] 114 0
Did the Hearings officer put into the record that she did a site visit? There's a
difference between the Hearings Officer's decision and staff s recommendation.
BLIKSTAD:
She did not do a site visit as far as I know.
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
There were two appeals, both by opponents and the applicants.
LUKE:
One is asking de novo. I think we should do both, de novo.
LUKE: I move that we hear these de novo.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
An order directing the setting of these hearings will be brought before the
Board on Wednesday.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 4 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
11. Before the Board was Discussion of a Public Hearing (Scheduled for
Wednesday, February 27) and Consideration of the First Reading of
Ordinance No. 2002-004, Amending Title 22 of the Development Procedure
Ordinance of the Deschutes County Code in Order to Comply with Oregon
Revised Statute.
Eileen Obermiller gave a brief overview of the issue. She said that Legal
brought to her attention that the preliminary statement and land use action
hearings that appealed before the Board did not meet particular ORS statutes.
A decision was made that it is probably best to actually repeal this out of the
code, but have the current version available for the Board to read when
necessary. It's a simpler version.
DEWOLF:
I have questions. On the burden of proof and applicable criteria, what if it isn't
the applicant who appeals? The way this is written, it sounds to me like all it
deals with is the applicant. "Applicant has the burden of proving they are
entitled to the land use." What if ARLU DeCo appeals something that they did
not apply for?
The burden is always on the applicant to prove that they comply. When there is
an appeal, the appellant also has a burden of proof. It's kind of a shared thing.
DEWOLF:
So, that's not listed in here. And I have more questions. Right below that, on
the hearings procedure - - -
CRAGHEAD:
The primary burden still remains on the applicant, though, to prove that they are
in compliance with the land use and are entitled to the land use approval sought.
DEWOLF:
So that's okay?
CRAGHEAD:
Yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 5 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
DEWOLF:
Right below there, on the hearings procedure, it says, "the Board of County
Commissioners decision on the application will be based on the record before
the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, and testimony and
evidence presented at this hearing."
The thing that is confusing on that is, would it matter whether it was de novo or
on the record? This sounds like it only applies for de novo hearings. Maybe it's
because when we do on the record reviews, we wouldn't be doing this in a
public hearing, I don't know. But I wanted to get that clarified.
That probably should be reworded so that there is an optional paragraph.
DEWOLF:
Can we have an optional paragraph above that at least acknowledges that
somebody is the appellant and not the applicant; and that it would clarify that
there is also a burden of proof on the appellant to prove whatever it is they are
trying to prove?
CRAGHEAD:
I'll research that further.
LUKE:
If we put this off for a week, would that give you time?
CRAGHEAD:
I can probably get that done today.
DEWOLF:
Next is the order of presentation. "The hearing will be conducted in the
following order. Staff will give a report; the applicant will then have an
opportunity to offer testimony and evidence. " Now, is that the original
applicant, or is that the appellant?
CRAGHEAD:
The original applicant.
DEWOLF:
So, no matter whom appeals, the original applicant, by our rules, will go first.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 6 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
CRAGHEAD:
That's the way it has always been.
DEWOLF:
Okay, that's fine. And down below, also in order of presentation, is "prior to
the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing"; in that paragraph, we're
limiting ourselves that "the Board shall continue the public hearing to a date
certain at least seven days from the date of this hearing, or leave the written
record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence."
CRAGHEAD:
This is statutory.
DEWOLF:
We don't have any options?
CRAGHEAD:
If this were an initial evidentiary hearing, and now that I think about it perhaps
there should be an optional paragraph there, too. If the hearing before you is an
initial evidentiary hearing, this applies.
DEWOLF:
If this is on an appeal, we could keep it open for three days.
CRAGHEAD:
Correct. I'll clarify that.
DEWOLF:
And down below, the very same thing. So on both of these paragraphs, there
should be that option depending upon what kind of hearing we're having.
OBERMILLER:
We would like to take this out of the ordinance; we can work on wording.
CRAGHEAD:
The main purpose of the ordinance is to repeal it.
OBERMILLER:
So the idea is that you can make the changes that you would like without going
through the official process, and noticing and all that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 7 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
LUKE:
As long as it matches Oregon Revised Statute.
12. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Approval of a
Waiver of Planning Fees for the La Pine Water District Totaling $2,525.25.
Eileen Obermiller gave a brief overview of the request. Commissioner Luke
stated that in reading through this, it appears to him that the new neighborhood
will be in the district. He said he realizes they have a cash flow problem. He
suggested a waiver of later hookup fees.
It was decided that a memorandum of understanding would be developed to
address this issue.
13. Before the Board was Discussion of the Continuance of a Public Hearing
and Consideration of the First Reading (Scheduled for Wednesday,
February 27) of Ordinance No. 2002-011, Amending Title 15.04 of the
Deschutes County Code, Building and Construction Codes and Regulations
(regarding Water Districts).
Laurie Craghead went over the revisions to the copies provided to the Board.
CRAGHEAD:
Another issue that was brought up by Commissioner Luke this morning was
whether under 15.04.220, there should be a fourth one covering in the event that
they apply for a building permit but then don't follow through with getting the
permit and go ahead and build anyway. Then, does it become a code
enforcement issue.
LUKE:
Not only building the building becomes a code enforcement issue; the water
source does.
CRAGHEAD:
Two things about that. Original wording proposed by the irrigation district was
removed, thinking it was covered by us not issuing a building permit. I hadn't
thought about someone would go ahead and build even though they didn't get
the permit. The second thing is, it kicks you over into what you had said at the
hearing in Sunriver, that you don't want to be the water police. That would
make you do code enforcement.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 8 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
LUKE:
But I believe it doesn't, from my standpoint. I don't want our inspectors going
out and looking for cisterns that are being filled by irrigation water. And if the
irrigation company finds one, I don't want to be the group that goes out to force
these people to change.
But, if those residents come to us voluntarily and they find out to add on to their
building they have to change the source of water going into the cistern, then
they forget about the building permit and build it anyway, we know about it.
They've brought it to our attention. They wouldn't have been able to build the
building, or making them pay double fees, that doesn't cut it. Some people may
think that they can ignore it so they don't have to change their water source, and
go ahead and risk paying double fees. I don't care if they don't build the
building. Once they apply, I think we have some obligations.
We could put in an additional number 4 there that says that failure to complete
the building permit process but going ahead with the construction constitutes a
code violation for an improper water source.
DEWOLF:
Well, that's different than being the water police. This is strictly an issue of
you've violated the conditions of your permit.
CRAGHEAD:
I think what Commissioner Luke is talking about is if they don't even complete
the building permit process. They come in, apply for the permit, and find they
need to change their water source and decide not to finalize their permit.
LUKE:
No, that's not what I meant. I said, if they built the building anyway. If they
did the remodel anyway.
CRAGHEAD:
That's what I mean.
LUKE:
You said, if they didn't complete the process. If they are required to have a
building permit ---
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 9 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
DEWOLF:
If someone builds something without a permit, that is our deal. We're not
asking the water companies to do that. What we are leaving within the water
districts' purview is everything that isn't connected with building permit.
CRAGHEAD:
The difference is that instead of just not having a building permit being the
violation, it would also be not having a proper water source.
DEWOLF:
I don't know that we need to add that. It's already covered in our statutes, isn't
it?
All we would be doing is getting them on a code violation for not having a
building permit. What this would do would be a double whammy. There
would be two code violations; one for not having a building permit, and the
second violation for not having the proper water source.
LUKE:
I think you actually need the second one in case you have to do enforcement
action and it ends up in court.
CRAGHEAD:
I'll make the additional changes and have them to you right away.
14. Before the Board was Discussion of a Public Hearing (Scheduled for
Wednesday, February 27) and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No.
2002-006, Approving the Issuance of Hospital Revenue Bonds by the
Hospital Facility Authority of Deschutes County.
Rick Isham explained the Board has done this before; there have been three
financings over the history of St. Charles Medical Center. It was first done by
the City of Bend, which ended about twelve years ago. The initial project was
done through Deschutes County; and this is the new project, which is still under
the same Authority formed by the County initially.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 10 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
ISHAM:
Someone has to be the bond issuing authority. There is no liability to the
County, under Oregon law, unless there was fraud committed by the Board of
County Commissioners in the sale of the bonds. Basically it allows a hospital
to access municipal debt financing of capital improvement projects that would
be undertaken by the hospital, as opposed to private financing.
They are issued in the name of the Authority, but the Authority owns no assets
and suffers no liability for any default in the repayment of the bonds. They are
issued as revenue bonds, and so the people who may buy the bonds review the
financial statements of the hospital and make a decision whether to purchase the
bonds, based on the ability, in their opinion, of the hospital's ability to repay the
obligations.
MIKE MAIER:
Are they tax-exempt?
ISHAM:
Yes, they are. So they get a good rate, depending on the program. I went back
through the statute to make sure of the compliance. There is no liability to the
County of these revenue bonds.
LUKE:
There is some expense to the County; the work of you and Marty Wynne. Can
this be reimbursed?
ISHAM:
This was never discussed. Most of the work was done by a law firm and the
hospital authority consultant.
LUKE:
Mike Daly is the signing authority. Any liability there?
ISHAM:
There is none. Commissioner Daly was elected to this, and it is required by
statute.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 11 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
15. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an
Intergovernmental Agreement (Document No. 2002-060) between
Deschutes County and the City of Redmond regarding the Provision of
Finance and Accounting Services to the City of Redmond.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
16. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an
Intergovernmental Agreement (Document No. 2002-061) between
Deschutes County and the City of Redmond regarding the Provision of
Information Technologies Services to the City of Redmond.
Mike Maier said progress has been good. They are very pleased with our staff,
and may want to put together something for an ongoing program.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
17. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of
a Grant Agreement between Deschutes County and the Department of
Environmental Quality for COCAAN's "Feed the Need" Project.
Susan Ross explained this is a pass-through grant. The applicant has to be a
municipality, and the County was asked to sponsor it. It's qualified under the
DEQ program and is considered part of the recycling program, and involves the
distribution and use of perishable foods not used by grocery stores, restaurants
and so on. Melanie Harper at COCAAN takes care of the follow up.
LUKE:
If they don't fulfill part of the grant, since DEQ is a state agency, what is the
County's liability?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 12 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
ROSS:
Probably all of it.
DEWOLF:
Do we have an agreement that indemnifies us?
ROSS:
No.
MAIER:
Whenever it's a pass-through grant, the County is technically liable.
DEWOLF:
Shouldn't we have an indemnity agreement in here that protects our position?
ROSS:
Just is just the formalization of the grant; you already approved it.
I'll check with Rick regarding future agreements; perhaps a standardized
indemnity clause can be added.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
18. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a
Letter Reappointing Dwight A. Smith to the Deschutes County Historic
Landmarks Commission as the City of Sisters Representative, ending
February 1, 2006.
LUKE: I move approval of item no. 18 through 24.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 13 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
19. Signature of a Letter Appointing Christine Barnes to the Deschutes County
Historic Landmarks Commission as the City of Bend Representative,
ending February 1, 2006.
20. Signature of a Letter Appointing Delight Stone to the Deschutes County
Historic Landmarks Commission as the City of Bend Alternate
Representative, ending February 1, 2006.
21. Signature of a Letter Appointing Donald E. Stevens, A.I.A. to the
Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission as a County At -Large
Representative, ending February 1, 2006.
22. Signature of a Letter Appointing Derek K. Stevens to the Deschutes
County Historic Landmarks Commission as a County At -Large
Representative, ending February 1, 2006.
23. Signature of a Letter Appointing Douglas G. Knight, P.E. to the Deschutes
County Historic Landmarks Commission as an Ex -Officio Member, ending
February 1, 2006.
24. Signature of a Letter Appointing Nicole Nathan to the Deschutes County
Historic Landmarks Commission as an Ex -Officio Member, ending
February 1, 2006.
25. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Letters
Appointing Dave Langland (Oregon Department of Agriculture), Ditino
Martin (Deschutes County Road Department), Mike Elmore (City of Bend)
and Byron Cheney (U.S. Forest Service) to the Deschutes County Noxious
Weed Board as Technical Advisors.
Roger Olson explained that the Weed District is being worked on right now,
and they may have to revisit the by-laws.
LUKE: Move approval of item no. 25 and 26.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
26. Signature of a Letter Appointing Bill Walker to the Deschutes County
Noxious Weed Board as a Community Involvement Member.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 14 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
27. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a
Letter Appointing Tom Pilling to the Board of Howell Hilltop Acres
Special Road District.
LUKE: Move approval of item no. 27 and 28.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
28. Signature of Letters Reappointing Gary 011ernshaw and Diana Adams to
the Howell Hilltop Acres Special Road District.
29. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Letters
Reappointing Kyle Cummings, Bill Kopacz and Tom Anderson to the
Economic Development for Central Oregon Board through December 31,
2002.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
30. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of
Deschutes County General Policy No. P-2002-094, Adopting a Revised
Policy regarding the Duties and Responsibilities of the Employee Benefits
Advisory Committee.
Commissioner DeWolf asked if the membership is the same. Mike Maier
explained that a representative of COIC and another labor representative have
been added.
A general discussion then occurred regarding meeting requirements. Chair
DeWolf suggested removing the line allowing a member to appoint an alternate
to meet in his or her place. Timm Schimke said that there had been some
discussion on this point, as if someone is sending an alternate too often, the
member would not be informed enough to vote.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 15 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
Mike Maier directed that the second sentence be removed, and then could be
approved by the Board with that change.
LUKE: I move approval, with the statement regarding a member appointing
an alternate being removed.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
31. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
A. Before the Board was Discussion regarding Weekly Vouchers.
DALY: I move that Dennis Luke be given authority to allow for one
signature of this week's approval of bills.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
(LUKE abstained.)
B. Before the Board was Discussion regarding the Purchase of a New
Scraper for the Landfill.
Timm Schimke gave an overview of the need for the purchase of a new scraper,
with now being a good time to invest in one since there is a low interest rate on
investments and a favorable rate available through the County. A general
discussion followed.
LUKE: I move approval for $350,000 for Marty Wynne to get financing for
the scraper, as detailed in an e-mail message we received.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 16 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Second.
DEWOLF: Chair votes yes.
C. Before the Board was a Discussion on a Waste Problem at the Tetherow
House.
Timm Schimke explained that in the outbuilding at the Tetherow House
property there are some containers of waste that need to be removed. He said it
all appears to be auto fluids, such as used motor oil; although there is other
garbage on the property. He asked if the Board wanted his department to
remove these items, which they would do at no cost.
With the Board's consensus, Mike Maier directed Timm to handle the problem
appropriately.
D. Before the Board was a Discussion on Sand Filter Systems within Sisters.
Timm Schimke said that now that Sisters has a sewer system, a number of
sand filter systems need to be removed. There is permission from DEQ for
these to be taken to the Fryrear Transfer Station, simply dig a trench and
throw them in and cover up with the material out of the trench. They have
been sitting for six months as required. He said they want to make this as
easy as possible so people don't dump them in the woods, which has already
happened with one.
Mr. Schimke proposed that these be taken in at the County's cost at $2.00 per
cubic yard, which includes a fee that goes to DEQ. The Board stated they feel
this is being very reasonable.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair De Wolf adjourned the
meeting at 11:05 a.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 17 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002
DATED this 25th Day of February 2002 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
Tom DeWolf, Chair
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
ATTEST: Michaelaly, Co missioner
�V4��
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 18 of 18 Pages
Monday, February 25, 2002