Loading...
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