Loading...
2003-862-Minutes for Meeting May 07,2003 Recorded 5/9/2003COUNTY TES FICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS CJ 2003'9fi2 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0510912003 04;45;12 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111111 203-000862 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 79 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Larry Blanton and Tim Edwards, Sheriff's Office; George Read, Community Development Department; Tom Blust, George Kolb and Gary Judd, Road Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representative Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and nine other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. The Board began the meeting by awarding a plaque to Gary Judd of the Road Department for his twenty-five years of service with Deschutes County. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation Declaring May 11 through 17 Peace Officers' Memorial Week in Deschutes County. Larry Blanton read the Proclamation to the audience. He said that the actual ceremony is to be held at Bend PD on May 12th at 10 a.m. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 1 of 7 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that he is working with the Oregon Department of Transportation on a proposal to include a Sheriff's work room in the ODOT weigh station that will be built south of town. Dave Edwards explained that a facility on the south side of town would be very helpful, as it would reduce response times from the Sheriff's Office located on the north side of town. The deputies could make phone calls and write reports there as well. ODOT also encourages the use of the scales. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing to Take Testimony on the Proposed Improvements of the Hurtley Ranch Road Local Improvement District. Gary Judd explained that a majority of the property owners has to approve the improvements; if it fails, another petition cannot be filed for a period of one year. One objection was received in writing from Steve and Patti Janego of Corvallis. (A copy is attached as Exhibit A.) Commissioner Luke then opened the public hearing. DAVE HURTLEY: I really encourage that this gets paved. It's currently a cinder road and in poor shape. BOB TAYLOR: I live on Hurtley Ranch Road, and circulated the original petition. I have lived here for about five years. Everyone but one person is enthusiastic about the road being paved, since it is in really poor condition. Gary (Judd) did a great job holding the public meetings, and is very cooperative and to the point. It's very encouraging the way things are handled here. TONY ACETI: I have delivered hay down that road for years. It definitely needs to be improved, as it is very dusty and in bad shape. BURNELL JOHNSON: I own property on the road, and would like to see it paved. Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke closed the hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 2 of 7 Pages 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 040, Declaring the County's Intent to Issue Obligations to Reimburse the County for Local Improvement District Expenditures for the Hurtley Ranch Road Local Improvement District Project. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 039, Directing Improvements to be Made by Contract Account for the Hurtley Ranch Road Local Improvement District. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing to Take Testimony on the Proposed Improvements of the Covina Road Local Improvement District. Gary Judd said that there have been no written objections received. The road is already County -maintained, and the base and subgrade recently improved. The only assessment is the cost of paving. There were a couple of "no" votes, but the majority were in favor. Commissioner Luke then opened the public hearing. Two individuals in the audience said they are for the improvements. (They did not use the microphone.) Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke closed the hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 3 of 7 Pages 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 042, Declaring the County's Intent to Issue Obligations to Reimburse the County for Expenditures for the Covina Road Local Improvement District Project. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 041, Directing Improvements to be Made by Force Account for the Covina Road Local Improvement District. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003- 263, an Amendment to the La Pine Stormwater Management Grant from the Central Oregon Community Investment Board, reducing the Grant Amount; and Document No. 2003-264, Signature of the Project Completion Report. Commissioner DeWolf said that he contact COIC, and an adjustment has been made to split the unused funds. DEWOLF: Move approval of both documents. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 4 of 7 Pages 10. Before the Board was Consideration of the Adoption of Policy No. 2003-101, regarding the Use of County Meeting Facilities and Equipment. This item will be addressed at a later date. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $59.85. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $465.05. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,062,682.41. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 14. Additions to the Agenda. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of an OLCC License Application for Paulina Lake Lodge, Inc. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Commissioner DeWolf asked why the Board has to approve these formally, when it is his understanding that these cannot be declined by the County as long as the Sheriff's Office reviews and approves the applicants. He indicated the Board should talk with Legal Counsel about this; perhaps the applications can just be signed by the Chair as they come in. Being no further items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. At 11:00 a.m., the Commissioners went into executive session under ORS 192.660(1)(h), pending or threatened litigation. Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and Chris Barker of the Bulletin. The topic of the executive session was how to address the problem of room taxes that have not been paid by Twin Lakes Resort, and which are now seriously past due. After a brief discussion, the Board then went into open session to make a decision on this situation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 6 of 7 Pages DEWOLF: I move that County Legal Counsel draft an agreement to be signed by the owner of Twin Lakes Resort that a default judgment filing against the owner and her properties will be delayed to no later than June 10, 2003; and that the owner agrees that payment in full of taxes owed plus a deposit on the current year's taxes will be made by that date; and that the owner further agrees that she will not file for bankruptcy before that date. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes no. (Split vote) This meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. DATED this 7 t Day of May 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. r 2" D nnis R. Luke, air Tom De olf, C oner ATTEST: is aelM. Daly, Co issioner Recording Secretary Attachment: Exhibit A: Copy of a letter dated April 5, 2003, from Steve and Patti Janego of Corvallis, objecting to the Proposed Improvements of the Hurtley Ranch Road Local Improvement District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Page 7 of 7 Pages Hello Deschutes County Commissioners, April 5th, 2003 We are writing you this note to ask for your help and support in re4ecting the proposed road - paving project for Hurtley Ranch Road currently under discussion. First some background My wife Patti and children, Jessie and Josef, are proud property owners of a 20 -acre parcel of land 1 mile off the Redmond Highway on Hurtley Ranch road. Our love of the Sisters area for over 25 years led us to purchase this land 15 years ago in hopes we could someday move to this area and enjoy all Sisters and Deschutes County has to offer. We currently live in Corvallis where I work at Hewlett Packard Company. We have not made any improvements to our property over the years and have let the neighbors use it as they ride horses, drive 4 wheelers, and walk through the property. We are currently planning to build our log home on the property once we can get our two kids into college and off to a good start. We think that may be 5 to 7 years away. Since we purchased our property, several homes have been built, Aspen Lakes Golf Course developed, and new neighbors have arrived. We have lived on gravel roads much of our lives in Western Oregon and are familiar with the trade-offs. Our Problem We received notice earlier this year that several of our neighbors were getting tired of driving down the cinder rock road to and from the Redmond Highway, citing washboards and dust as a big problem for them during the summer months. The neighbors got together and funded a feasibility study to have the road paved, and we were notified. After talking it through as a family, we came to the conclusion that we did not wish to have the road paved even if it had a positive impact on our property value. Listed below are the pros and cons we came up with. With the economy the way it is, the job situations looking very grim, we feel it is not the appropriate time to go into this type of debt for a perceived benefit that we are not requesting. Pros 1) Pavement would eliminate the dust caused by the cars and trucks going down the road. 2) Pavement would eliminate the rough, "washboard" ride as people traveled down the road. 3) Pavement may increase property value if potential property buyers liked paved roads to their homes. 4) Pavement would eliminate the gravel maintenance needed to keep the current road in shape. Cons 1. Pavement brings additional development and progress. We purchased our property on Hurtley Ranch Road to get away from the "in -city" feeling. 2. Pavement brings faster driving speeds in an area rich in wildlife crossing the roads. This will undoubtedly increase road kills in a big way. (Deer, quail, rabbits, snakes, lizards, coyotes... ) 3. Pavement brings a higher volume of traffic. More traffic in a rural setting decreases the appeal of the property our on Hurtley Ranch Road. 4. Huqe increased expense to the property owners at a time when the economic climate is very tough. 5. Not all property owners will see any benefit from the investment. Those of us that have not built a residence at this point of our lives and do not plan on driving on the potential paved road Illave no incei tive toj^viii 1;n the fulldlllg. Exhibit Page / of 6. If the paved road gets close to Camp Polk Road, incentives may exist to punch it through and create a main travel route for fast, additional traffic. 7. Environmental impact from the pavement with run-off of asphalt oils, grading of adjacent land and trees. The Real Surprise To top things off, I found out that the State of Oregon actually has a law that states that if 51 % of the property owners along a roadway agree to pay for the improvements, then the remaining 49% of the property owners get a lien put against their properties and we are forced to pay! I was shocked that this type of law exists in our state. The last estimate that we received informed us that each "benefiting property" must pay over $21,000 dollars! Now, if you have stayed in touch with college tuition these days you know that we have a huge financial hill to climb getting our kids through school. We do not want the improvement done to Hurtley Ranch Road, nor do we have the money or want to go into debt to fund it. We have failed to understand the reason each of our 13 neighbors is willing to spend $21,000 dollars to drive less than a mile on a paved road? Why would: • Anybody want to go into debt at an economic time as tough as the one we are facing? • Anybody want to enhance a road that is better than most gravel roads we have seen, lived on, and is certainly capable of carrying traffic to and from the highway? • Anybody want to take on the payments or negative cash flow at a time when our country is at war and we can't even fund our schools in Oregon? • An Oregon family be forced to pay for an enhancement they DO NOT want, nor ask for? • Deschutes County enforce a state law that does not make sense? I did some checking with Benton County road commission and they did inform me that the County has quite a bit of latitude in how these policies and laws are applied. I wish to appeal to your understanding and judgment around this proposed plan and help us reject the proposed enhancement. Consider Other Options 1. Why not set up a neighborhood road maintenance fund where all benefiting properties contribute on an annual basis? 2. Why not sub -contract out to a local, road -maintenance team and pay a fee on an annual basis? 3. Why can't the county maintain a gravel road, rather than needing to pave it, there must be other county -maintained gravel roads in Oregon? 4. Put off the pavement option until which time the economy looks like it may be on a healthier path? 5. Why not have the neighbors that are really pushing for this improvement pay for the entire improvement? 6. Why not base the cost allocation method on the number of vehicles and use per property owner , it seems that the property owners that travel the road multiple times per day with multiple vehicles pulling livestock trailers would derive much more benefit than property owners that drive the road a couple times a year? Conclusion & Request v vc 1 iavc 11 U a ui cal i i w ulii u Our retirement ci i icy u i Odic Oil a iii property for over i .1 year s ri^vvv. v c have faithfully paid our property taxes each and every year while leaving the property natural and Exhibit a Page a of 3 available for our neighbors on Hurtley Ranch Road to enjoy while I work 50-60 hours a week, trying to get enough money saved to get kids through school and have some retirement saved. We have sent our letters of concern to the Road Commission and to our neighborhood meeting offering alternatives such as a yearly road maintenance fund for the neighborhood residents for additional gravel and grating. Please support our request to reject this proposal that will cause the kind of financial hardships at this very sensitive economic time. Thanks very much for your attention to this important matter. Please let the official public records show we do NOT support the road improvement. Respectfully, Steve & Patti Janego 7900 NW Skillings Dr. Corvallis, OR. 97330 Exhibit Page 3 of ��