Loading...
2004-10-Minutes for Meeting December 17,2003 Recorded 1/6/2004COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/06/2004 03;16;06 PM IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III 2004-10 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE t C TEs 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.orp, MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 179 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; George Read, Damian Syrnyk, Catherine Morrow, Devin Hearing, Paul Blikstad and Steve Jorgensen, Community Development Department; Mark Pilliod, Sue Brewster and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Larry Blanton, Sheriff's Office; and Roger Kryzanek, Mental Health Department. Also present were media representatives Chris Barker of the Bulletin, Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio, and Barney Lerten of bend com and The Bugle; and approximately 50 other citizens. Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Citizen William Kuhn of Sizemore Road, Tumalo, asked for help with a trespasser in regard to jointly held property; he wants at least a notification ahead of time. He explained that the other owners have invited others to the property, one of whom was a convicted drug felon who later assaulted him. Mr. Kuhn said he called the Sheriffs Office, but since there is no agreement regarding access, the Officer was only able to take down the specifics of the situation. Both parties were ordered by a judge to enter into a civil agreement, but they can't do anything until other situations are handled, as there are issues pending before the Board that is holding this up. Commissioner Luke said that Mr. Kuhn may want to talk with County Legal Counsel, so the Board can be properly advised. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 1 of 22 Pages Mr. Kuhn stated that he recommends that the possibility of an ordinance be submitted to the Planning Commission and the Board that requires when land is developed and certain conditions are required, that if those conditions are not fulfilled, no further land use applications can be submitted to Community Development. He said that initially the Planning Commission thought this was a good idea, but when it went to Community Development, George Read indicated that his department is not interested in enforcing something that goes back twenty years. Commissioner Luke asked Mr. Kuhn if he has spoken with the judge who issued the civil order. Mr. Kuhn replied that there is an appeal on that, which is languishing now. Commissioner Luke recommended that Mr. Kuhn provide some specifics of the event that occurred to Legal Counsel. Mr. Kuhn said he would. 2. Before the Board was a Presentation and Overview of the Upper Deschutes Management Plan. Robert Towne and several other representatives of the Bureau of Land Management gave an overview of the Plan. He said they are in the process of the 90 -day comment period, and this is the twelfth briefing. After the presentation, Commissioner DeWolf asked if the BLM has any firm plans to close the Badlands to vehicles. Mr. Towne replied that it is not heavily used by off-road vehicles. The road network is about twenty miles and is open seasonally, and another eight miles consists of County roads. He added that they would lose about twenty to thirty miles of routes in the Badlands; however, next door in north Millican, they will no longer close the roads in the winter; so it should balance out. He said a bigger issue is providing access to the disabled without allowing motorized vehicles. The BLM is trying to provide a mix of recreational settings. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003- 515, a Release Agreement regarding a Lien on Cascade Highlands LLC Property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 2 of 22 Pages Nancy Craven explained that two agreements were recorded in error; they are asking for the release of one and a modification of another, since the $500,000 payment for the Southern Crossing Bridge has been made. Laurie Craghead confirmed this information. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was a Discussion of the Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance, with Members of the Deschutes County Planning Commission. Damian Syrnyk stated that after the last work session with the Board in regard to this ordinance, staff presented the issue to the Planning Commission for feedback. The Planning Commission members were asked if any of them would meet with the Board to discuss this, and Tammy Saylors volunteered. Ms. Saylors said she would like to present the Planning Commission's perspective to the Board. Commissioner DeWolf stated that in his opinion it would be better for the Board to meet with the Planning Commission separately to discuss the issue when the Board has more time. The other Commissioners agreed. A meeting will be scheduled accordingly. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2003-119, Clarifying the Transfer of Land to the City of Bend. Catherine Morrow and Brian Shetterly with the City of Bend gave an overview of the issue, which clarifies the original order. It requires master planning, and would break into two phases in order to expand into the urban growth boundary. The order also requires public involvement in the master planning of the property, and that 10% of the land is to be designated for a public park or other open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 3 of 22 Pages Brian Shetterly added that the revised order doesn't change the substance; it just clarifies. There will be a very public process and hearings on the expansion of the urban growth boundary, including workshops. Mike Maier added that this issue was discussed with the Mayor and Councilors, along with the proposed deannexation of property near the County's public safety complex. Deannexing the property would allow a Justice Court to be operated close to the city. Commissioner Luke opened the public hearing at this time. Being no testimony offered, Commissioner Luke closed the public hearing. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2003- 032, Changing Deschutes County Code to Reflect a Name Change from "Project Impact Steering Committee" to "Project Wildfire Steering Committee". George Read explained that the steering committee, which includes representatives from the whole area, has developed a business plan. Wildfire is the number one hazard, but there are others as well. Commissioner Luke opened the public hearing at this time. Being no testimony offered, Commissioner Luke closed the public hearing. DALY: Move first and second readings, by title only. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Luke then did the first and second readings of the ordinance, by title only, declaring an emergency. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 4 of 22 Pages DALY: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003- 531, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and Oregon State University Extension Service regarding Project Wildfire. George Read stated that Oregon State University Extension will provide staffing for the organization and will administer grants. The agreement is not in its final form yet. Mike Maier asked if this creates any job crossover with the forester position that is being considered by the County. Mr. Read indicated that it should be complementary. After a brief discussion, the Commissioners decided to discuss this issue further at a December 18 meeting that was previously scheduled to clarify the forester position. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Document No. 2003-532, an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Office of Emergency Management regarding Hazard Mitigation. Laurie Craghead said that the scope of work still being developed. This will also be addressed at the December 18 meeting. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003- 530, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the La Pine Special Sewer District regarding the New Neighborhood. This item has been delayed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 5 of 22 Pages 10. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of the First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2003- 038, Amendments to the Firearms Training Facility. DEWOLF: I'd like to make a suggestion. My very strong inclination, and what I'm going to support doing, is moving this to the Planning Commission and calming this thing down. There are a whole lot of issues here that when we are dealing with them; they are politicized beyond anything that the Planning Commission faces. I think that's where we ought to be going. To get a sense of things this morning, we could hear from a couple of people on both sides so that we're kind of setting a stage. But, if we have everybody here who has been so patient with us this morning testifying, we could be here until 4:00 this afternoon. LUKE: One of the reasons we appoint people to the Planning Commission, and one of the reason we use them in the manner that we do, is because they are supposed to help give us the citizens' view of planning in Deschutes County. Of course, they have to follow the applicable laws as well. We really appreciate their recommendations but don't always follow them 100%, but quite often. I agree with Commissioner DeWolf. When this came to us the first time, there weren't a lot of people here. The major media sources here have been good about publicizing this, which is a good thing. The problem we are running into is that this has become a site-specific issue, and the ordinance we are looking at is not site specific. That is where the biggest problem has come from. The discussion as to whether this is a good or bad thing in a forest zone has been separated from being a good or bad thing in my particular neighborhood. We need that separation. I believe a more recent hearing before the Planning Commission is the way to help do that. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission might be able to get to this in January. DEVIN HEARING: We did research this, and the first available date is actually February 12 for this issue. It's a busy time of year for the Planning Commission; they're dealing with the EFU zone update and those kinds of issues coming up next year, and some of our bigger issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 6 of 22 Pages IWE114 This is a public hearing, and it is open to anyone who wants to testify, and we will honor that. Commissioner Daly, where are you on this? DALY: Has the Planning Commission looked at this at all? HEARING: Here's the quandary. I believe there are going to be issues raised today that haven't been raised yet, and the Planning Commission never got to speak to them. Those are the larger policy issues. Also, on the flip side, I'd like to remind you that this is applicant driven, so they would have some say in how they want to proceed with their application as well. LUKE: I think Legal Counsel has an opinion on that. HEARING: I mean, whether they want to continue or modify; what their options are. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: Given that this is a legislative matter, the Board can direct how it goes and there is not a time limit involved. DALY: I'd like a little more information on the where this zone is, how much acreage it covers, and so on. Obviously we are not dealing with something site specific now, so it could be anywhere in Deschutes County. There was some discussion earlier that we are looking at the forest zone, and possibly a wildlife overlay where those exist, in relation to all the private properties in the area that may be encompassed by this. I believe there is some tabulary information now, but we don't have the mapping information. DEWOLF: And that's the difficulty and why I'm not interested in moving forward with this right now at this level. There's a lot of information that has come up just because of the way things bubble up. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 7 of 22 Pages This overlay zone adds an entirely new wrinkle to this that I think the Planning Commission ought to delve into. That's why I think it is counterproductive to keep everyone here for hours to go through this, when where it really belongs is with the Planning Commission right now. I mean, we can hear from the applicants and a few others, but I don't see keeping people here all day. LUKE: There's a signup sheet, and what I suggest is that you sign it if you want to testify today, as it is a posted hearing. But understand that there are at least two votes and perhaps three to have this go to the Planning Commission, so you may want to wait until then instead of testifying all over again. If there is written testimony, we'd be happy to receive that as well. HEARING: I have some electronically received mail for the Board and for the record. (These documents and others distributed at the meeting are held by Mr. Hearing at Community Development as part of the original record on this issue.) LUKE: Please remember that your comments should be related to the zone only, as this is not site specific at this time. The comments should deal with whether this is appropriate in a wildlife overlay zone or a forest zone. LIZ DICKSON: I'm an attorney, speaking on behalf of the applicants, Living Water Development LLC. In the staff report, they identified applicable standards and criteria for this text amendment, those being Title 22, Title 18, OAR 660.0025, and the Deschutes County 2000 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, I would like you to consider a few additional criteria, the first one being Statewide Planning Goal 4, which I provide for the record. Statewide Planning Goal 4 regards forestlands, and says that local governments shall adopt zones that contain provisions to address the uses allowed by the Goals in Administrative Rules, and apply them to the designated forestlands. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 8 of 22 Pages It also says in the implementation portion that forestlands should be available for recreational and other uses that do not hinder growth. And that's the criteria provided by LCDC in Goal 4 and the Statewide Planning Goals. So you're looking for uses for recreation and other uses that do not hinder growth in the forest zones. LUKE: Are you going to appear before the Planning Commission if it goes there? DICKSON: We'll see if we need to go there. I'll try to make this as quick as I can. The second criteria that I would like you to consider is ORS Chapter 197, Miscellaneous. That says is that firearms training facilities are considered in the current comprehensive land use planning coordination chapter, the miscellaneous section. What it says in that section is that it defines a firearms training facility and explains for statutory purposes how it should work. So you have that definition available to you in the State Codes already, and I will provide that for the record as well. It also grandfathers existing facilities. This means that if you have a current facility such as the one we have here, which is currently located within the Bend city limits and within the Bend UGB, according to state law it would be allowed to stay there as long as it is still operating. Whether that is appropriate, compatible or feasible is another matter. But that's the law. The original applicable standards and criteria that were identified also included OAR 660.006 and .0025, which deals with uses authorized in the forest zone. I've included a copy of that for the record for you. The important thing that's noted there is that as it is currently drafted, private hunting is now allowed outright in forest zones, according to State Rules. And conditional uses are listed as being uses that should be considered in forest zones. They specifically say that a firearms training facility is an appropriate use in the forest zone. So that matter has already been considered in State law at length. It subjects that allowance to what is called Subsection 5, which is essentially what we think of as conditional use criteria or compatibility criteria. That's how the OAR recommends that it be done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 9 of 22 Pages We've also consulted directly with Ron Ebert, a farm and forest specialist at the Department of Land Conservation and Development, the implementing agency for LCDC. We asked him flat out where you put firearms training facilities in these zones in the state. And what he told us, and I'll provide the e-mail to you, is that you don't put new ones in the EFU zone since there's no State Code provision for that; and of course you don't put new ones within an urban growth boundary. In the State of Oregon there are only three choices. You either go within the UGB's or you go within resource lands. If you can't put them in farmland, the only thing left is forest. He said the reason for the Oregon Administrative Rules and for the statutory analysis, and the reason for the stand of DLCD is because they need to be done, and that's really the only place to put them. We also have provided some proposed provisions that you might want to put into the local Code, if you choose to make the text amendment. We've included these in draft form as possible conditional use criteria that you might want to add to this as a conditional use, which would make it, I think, Z in the forest Code. It is our understanding that some proposed conditional use criteria might be helpful, and we have provided them for your reference. They deal primarily with compatibility, and fall very closely in line with what was recommended by the OARs. We have now done some research throughout the State for some other states and counties that have looked at this issue, to get some guidance as to what they've done and how they've done it. The two best examples we found were Marion County and Washington County. They have both put this facility into their forest zones, and have both made them conditional uses. They both laid out the specific compatibility conditions that they would use to do that. We're providing these to you as well. For completeness, I've included their conditional use procedures so that you'll understand exactly what hoops they make you go through. Washington County also put this into their code and used it in the forest zone. And they have very detailed compatibility standards. They seemed to provide the most thought in the process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 10 of 22 Pages Where we are here is that we have a use that is an important one in Deschutes County. We have over two hundred members of the Bend Trap Club who don't feel that it is appropriate for them to continue to operate at their current location, where they've been for nearly 75 years. It's time for them to move. There are subdivisions located on two sides already, and Bend is looking at increasing density possibly to as little as 4,000 square foot lots. And it doesn't make sense to have a shooting facility in the midst of all that, so they want to move. They have to move outside of the UGB somewhere in Deschutes County, and the two choices are farm and forest zones. Farm is not allowed under State statute, so forest is really all that is left. There has been quite a bit of concern over possible locations, but I would stress strongly that this is not an appropriate thing to discuss at this juncture. What we are looking at now is a legislative decision; do we want to officially accommodate these kinds of facilities in the County and, if so, where should they be and how can this accommodation be made. That's the question that's before you. The site specific question would be one that I assume would be a conditional use compatibility issue, and would be looked at in some detail. If it is possible for people to separate out the issue of, do we want to provide for these legally in Deschutes County versus where do we want to put them, I think that would be really helpful to the process. I don't see the need for this to go back to the Planning Commission if we can keep the two issues separate. I believe strongly that the issue of putting these facilities in a legal context somewhere in Deschutes County makes a lot of sense. I think the Planning Commission has already looked at that issue. What's before this group is a simple question of whether this should be put in the forest zone in Deschutes County when we have clear State guidance that this is appropriate. It is what other counties have done, and it has worked for them. LUKE: I would point out that a lot of Bureau of Land Management ground is not forest, and it is not EFU, and we currently have shooting ranges on BLM land. So there is another alternative, because it is called public purpose. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 11 of 22 Pages DICKSON: LCDC and DLCD are recommending that you go with forest instead, rather than rely on federal lands. I think it is important to know that not only are there two hundred members at the Bend Trap Club, there are also another club in Deschutes County, the Redmond Club. LUKE: We leased land to them, out by the airport. DICKSON: I think the point of the matter is that it is close enough to the UGB that if the issue hasn't been dealt with yet, it probably will come up soon. If there are questions about the wildlife issues, the overlay zone issues, we can go into those. (The information submitted by Ms. Dickson will be held by Mr. Hearing of Community Development, along with the balance of the original record on this issue) LUKE: I'm pretty sure those will be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. Does anyone else want to be on the record now? DAN VAN VACTOR: I'm here on behalf of Marianne Walker, who is here; and Skip Golde who is not here; and several affected landowners that are concerned about any text amendment in regard to its impact on the wildlife area combining zone - not in regard to a specific site. Rather than belabor the issue and take up time, we'd like to reserve that time before the Planning Commission, if that's where it goes today. If it does not go there, we'd like the opportunity to address all of the issues that we came here prepared to do. LUKE: If this doesn't go to the Planning Commission today, there will be another public hearing. DEWOLF: It's going to the Planning Commission. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 12 of 22 Pages MIKE GOLDEN: I will be brief. I'm a wildlife biologist, retained by Marianne Walker and Skip Golde to assess the impacts on wildlife on the overlay zones. My main reason for being here is to talk about the history and how important it is that these overlay zones were established. It was done in a very contentious manner, and there were arguments over which side of a pen was in the winter range and which was out, and how important these were. So, all of these issues are extremely important. If it's not going to the Planning Commission, I think that I should speak further. I would like to reserve my time as well. DEWOLF: Can we make a motion during a public hearing? CRAGHEAD: You can make a motion, but you had noticed this for a public hearing. WTI -Na There are at least two votes that this is going to the Planning Commission, just so people know. DALY: Anyone who wants to testify still has that right. CRAGHEAD: I would recommend that you take public testimony first. GOLDEN: I want to be sure that all of the maps and documents that were brought here are part of the public record. LUKE: The record is open, and will be for written documentation, maps, or whatever people want to submit until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 19. This information will then be provided to the Planning Commission. MARIANNE WALKER: First of all, I want to say thank you for having a second hearing. If you hadn't had a second hearing today, none of us in the area that has driven this group to come today would have known about it and it would have been a done deal. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 13 of 22 Pages I own a ranch that is located in the Tumalo winter deer range, and I'm in a wildlife combining zone. My husband worked thirty years ago when they developed that winter deer range. We've all learned to live with it. It is huge. And when you look at the maps we've brought, you will see that BLM couldn't have done a better job to proceed us. They really did lay the groundwork for what we are concerned about. The Cline Buttes area is a huge wintering area, which is shaped like an hourglass which funnels down through the area where I live, which is near the viewpoint on West Highway 20. Then it spreads out again into the area going up to the Cascades. Deer and elk now use that area, and move through my place and the lands next to mine. Besides the wildlife, and they don't have a representative here today except for a few of us, there are a lot of people who really enjoy the winter deer range area for hiking, horseback riding, birding and hunting. I don't know if you know it has a road closure, with no vehicular traffic during certain times. I think a number of the people here today are here because we found out two weeks ago about the hearing, and they've read about it in the paper. My family is here today with me. I also hold a BLM lease that is over 1,300 acres that is in that winter deer range. It's a very highly prized area, and I put my lease into what they call permanent retirement. We no longer will raise any cows on it, and it's there for public use. I think that is the highest and best use for that area. And I'll be back on the 121h GARY MOSS: Just a quick comment, and I'll refer my other comments to the Planning meeting. I am a person who is involved in shooting firearms; I enjoy hunting and the outdoors. But I'd like to encourage whoever is in charge of developing this ordinance that they look at some of the other compatibility requirements for this use, especially some of the impacts of deposits of lead and steel into the soils. Thank you. GARY HOSTICK: (Off the microphone.) I will testify later. JIM GUILD: I'm a builder, and live in Tumalo. I saw this article yesterday in the paper, and appreciate the public meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 14 of 22 Pages I understand, not as a lawyer or the legal methodology of applying for zone changes, but do think that the zone change needs to be seriously considered. It is not just that property; we have to look at Shevlin Park, Broker Top, Inn of the 7th Mountain, Widgi Creek, Sunrise Village, and all the other private properties that adjoin the forest zone. I do think that there is a compatibility issue with all of those properties. I feel that maybe there are better areas, maybe east. Or maybe by the Redmond Trap Club - why do we need two trap clubs? I do think there are a lot of people in the Tumalo community who will object to this, and community -wide we could find a huge amount of people who would object to this. The site specific thing is only because it is adjoining other residential properties, and it is going to be inevitable that other changes happen in forest zones, as we've gone through with the trades that went on. The gun club will hinder growth. What about the private properties that are already been approved for residential use? And having 200 members of the trap club, is that the same as a firing range for the police? I don't believe those issues and don't believe it's a legal concern that should even have been brought up. Thank you. RAY ROSE: I'm secretary of the Bend Trap Club. We provide a good facility to allow families a place to exercise a certain type of firearms shooting - shotgun, trap shooting. The County has a need for that. My family shoots there, and we have a lot of families that come down there, and quite a few junior shooters attend those shoots. We are in the process of outgrowing the facility where we are, and we're surrounded by neighbors and would like to get to a more open area, somewhere outside the city. As far as the firearms training facility goes, it sure would be nice to have someplace safe to shoot other kinds of firearms in the County, without having to drive all the way out to Millican. As it is now, people just take their rifles out to the pits somewhere and site in for deer season. We've got a lot of concealed weapons permit holders in the County, and there's no good place to train those people. There's no good place for those people to practice. This facility amendment is an important thing for the County, not just for the Trap Club, but for all citizens in the County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 15 of 22 Pages LYNN BETTELYOWN: I'm a three-year past president of the Trap Club. Basically what we are asking you to do, and you've heard many times that it just changes the text amendment to allow us to move somewhere else. Without you doing so, we have to stay where we are as long as we stay within the parameters of the city. This shooting facility is very important for training individuals. We have a man here today who was part of the training of a youngster who is now probably going to be in the Olympics as a shooter. He has also just been inducted into the Shooting Hall of Fame, and we're fortunate enough to have him as a Bend member, and he's present here today. Bend actually throws more targets than any other club in the state. We'd sure like to move to an area where we could throw more, but again that will be addressed in a Planning Commission meeting. Thank you very much for your time. TOM GRIMM: I live in the Tumalo area. I have nothing against trap shooting. I do have everything against noise. And I would urge the Planning Commission and the Commissioners in their deliberations and regulations to specify that before anything of this nature is approved, that a sound study be done. It should indicate how much noise would be heard and who would hear it. If the newspaper is correct and they are proposing twenty-two trap ranges, that's a certain potential for a lot of noise. Also, I'm concerned if this area is selected, because it is not far from Route 20. LUKE: Noise is also being addressed by the applicant, and I think they'll talk about that. We want to stay away from this being site specific. The question is, is this proper in this zone. If there is an application for this location or any other, there will be extensive testimony and study by both sides of the issue and by staff. Noise is a very big consideration. But we don't want to talk about a possible specific site. GRIMM: Okay. I'll just say again that noise is an issue. When the Central Oregon Sport Shooters Association was establishing their range near Millican, that was one of the things that the BLM required. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 16 of 22 Pages With all of the tourists driving along Highway 20, if there's a sudden barrage of shots, they may be caught off guard. NUNZIE GOULD: I'm a County resident. I'm here because this is a very big issue. A small text amendment for one particular industry will then be asked from another industry for just a small text amendment to accommodate them. I think the scope of that is the ever-growing challenge in front of our County and the growth and long-range planning of our County. So this really isn't NIMBY -ism, not in my backyard. It starts that way because someone who is immediately adjacent to it has the largest vested interest. It could be negative or positive vested. But this really isn't a very broad issue. I'm not hear often, but I come on topics that I feel aren't necessarily unfolding today or tomorrow, but things that might unfold in twenty or fifty years. So I come to speak to that. The other concern I have involves leapfrog development. The forest zone is the least developed of our zones and the idea of that is to have the least intensity and the least amount of growth in those areas, starting from a core and growing out to that forest zone. So I'm concerned specifically that there is greater intensity within the forest zone. I do believe that your group here will ultimately be hearing this. I think it has broader ranges, so the Planning Commission will be pressured to have it viewed by you. So I'm sure I'll see again on this topic. Commissioner Luke then closed the public hearing. DEWOLF: I move that we forward this issue to the Planning Commission for consideration before it comes back before us. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Luke added that the record will remain open until S: 00 p.m. on Friday, December 19, 2003 for written testimony and exhibits to be submitted to the Community Development staff. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 17 of 22 Pages 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 144, Appointing an Administrator to Oversee the Mental Health County Financial Assistance Grant Agreement for 2003-05. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2003-127, Authorizing the Refund of Taxes. DE WOLF : Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 140, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Sheriff Fund. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 14. Before the Board was Consideration Signature of Resolution No. 2003-141, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Information Technologies Fund. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 18 of 22 Pages VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Policy No. 2003-106, Regarding Opening Bank Accounts for Deschutes County. DE WOLF : Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Reappointing Lee Smith to the Fair Board. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 17. Before the Board was Consideration and Consideration of Signature of a Request to have BOCC Reject Bids on the Sheriffs Office Communication Tower Construction. Sue Brewster said that there was a protest that the solicitation document was ambiguous. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 19 of 22 Pages 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Addendum to the Motorola Phase 3 Contract. Sue Brewster said microwave dishes were to be included on the U.S. Forest Service tower, but the Forest Service said that structurally there was a problem with the weight. Larry Blanton explained that this will stay in the radio pool in hopes that a smaller microwave dish can be added in the future. There are some coverage issues now, all are overloaded. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 142, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County 9-1-1 County Service District Fund. DE WOLF : Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $209450.63. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 20 of 22 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 21. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $574.73. 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 22. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,720,475.26. DALY: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DALY: DEWOLF LUKE: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2003- 143 to Transfer Appropriations within the Deschutes County Solid Waste Fund. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 21 of 22 Pages B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2003- 537, Amendment #1 to Services Contract No. 107206 with State of Oregon Department of Human Services. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. DATED this 17th Day of November 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. renis R. Luke; Chair TAi De f, Commissioner 411, Irz - /X///. 4 ATTEST: i ael M. Daly, ommissioner An x1 itA (-'raae.— Recording Secretary minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Page 22 of 22 Pages