Loading...
2004-171-Minutes for Meeting February 25,2004 Recorded 3/5/2004DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 1004'111 NANCY BLANKENSNIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 03/05/2004 10;14;33 AM IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 2004-171 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE -: C [ 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 BOARD MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 259 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Les Stiles, Larry Blanton and Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office; Gary Judd, Road Department; Kevin Harrison, Damian Syrnyk and Catharine White, Community Development Department; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Tammy Credicott, Property Management; media representatives Barney Lerten of bend.com and The Bugle and Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Mike Daly opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. LYN CALLAHAN: I'm Lyn Callahan, and I have Callahan Backhoe and Dump Truck Service, here in Bend. I'm setting the floor plan for a bid that was proposed from Deschutes County on Antler Avenue, which is 1805 East Antler. And there was a series of us contractors that bid on this particular job. And we came in as third high bidder. After the bidding procedure was over and work started, it was brought to my attention that the County felt that they needed to pay the contractor above the said price for the contract, which was $17,000 roughly. My view is that a contract is a contract. When we take a contract, we bid that contract for that said amount, and we do that work. If it exceeds that amount, we eat that contract. So, in all fairness to bidding procedures, this opens the door to a situation where I feel if we wanted to bid County jobs in the future, I would bid five dollars and just simply send the County a bill for whatever I felt was correct, or what I wanted outside of the contract. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 1 of 38 Pages And I'm certain everybody is aware of what I am talking about. Do I need to go into detail? Now, Mike (Daly) sat here and stated that he was in full — he agreed to the fact that a contract should be held to the contract. And, therefore, we had some discrepancies that somebody else felt we should pay the bill. Well, not only as a bidder and a taxpayer, I'm here to say that we haven't spent the County's tax money properly. And we need to do something to rectify the situation. And my view on the whole situation is contractors should be paid for the contract, and that only. We could go into numbers and details, but I don't see a reason for that. A contract is a contract. MIKE DALY: Thank you, Lyn. I appreciate you coming in. Is there anyone else who wants to make comments to the Commissioners on this issue? Or any other issue? LEXUS JOHNSON: My name is Lexus Johnson. I work for S.A. Moore, LLC, I'm the business manager. We do sand and gravel, excavation and that type of work. We were the second bidder on this job. There have been a number of things come up that I feel is important for the Commission to know with respect to this job. That was, that when we bid the job, we specifically stated that it was a lump sum price. We also stated that it was the intent to recycle all of the acceptable wood to be removed from the site, and this minimizes loads to the landfill. We did exclude, however, if there was any contamination found on the site, like oils or anything like that. And we stated that the work would be accomplished within the scope of work, A through G in the memorandum dated 11/17, which meant simply that we recognized that memorandum. If you look at a transcript of the bids, the Callahan Backhoe, S.A. Moore and R and J Enterprises, we were within $2,500 and Callahan's was about the $7,000, and the other two bidders were at $5,600 and $7,400. So, when you look at that, it was obvious that the three low bidders intended to do something else with the material besides haul it all over to the landfill. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 2 of 38 Pages It was understood that the landfill would be an outrageous price to haul all of this material to. So, my feeling is that if there were something in this job that was found that was extraordinary to the contract, then the work probably should have stopped. And there probably should have been a negotiation with the County to increase the value of the contract because of the circumstance of something else being found that was not recognized nor identified in the contract documents or in the bid documents. So, something has to be someplace that says something to the effect that this material, maybe there was a bid, huge hunk of concrete found or something like that that nobody could see or know about. So, that then would certainly add some cost to the contract. The other thing is that there is a charge in the bill given to the County of some $8,000 for — or $7,524 — dump fees. I looked at the materials that were dumped at two locations, and those materials in my opinion amount to maybe up to 500 yards at each of the two locations. So, I don't see how that particular part of the bill is justifiable when the haul for all of that should have been included in the original bid of some $16,000 or $17,000. I want to clarify one thing for sure. That is that our intent for this material was to take all of the material that was available on the site that could be ground, and take it to the Lower Bridge site that we lease, and put it with some other material that we have already stored up there. And grind that material up and recycle it to use in the reclamation of the leased property from which we remove gravel products for sale to the County and others. And, so, that was how we were going to do the job. I think the other two bidders were intending to do it pretty much the same way, maybe not at our site but at another site. But about half of this material came to our site at no cost. We did not charge for any dumping fees of any kind for that material to be dumped at Lower Bridge. We didn't ask for any, and we felt that, okay, we can use the material. We didn't pay anybody to haul it there, and we didn't get paid to haul it there, and we didn't haul any of the material. We never touched it except to have it dumped at the site for something that we could use it for. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 3 of 38 Pages There are some misunderstandings that I want to make clear. And that is that the Lower Bridge site is leased by S.A. Moore, a limited liability corporation. We lease it from Ryman Snyder, Wygand and another gentleman. I brought a copy of the lease with me. And this lease was exercised on January 1, 2003. It's a five-year lease. We are obligated under the lease to do a certain amount of reclamation work. There is no connection between E.A. Moore estate or E.A. Moore and this lease. This lease is strictly with S.A. Moore LLC. TOM DEWOLF: Are they related? Or is it just a coincidence of the name? JOHNSON: No, Scott Moore, who owns S.A. Moore LLC, is also a part of the estate. But this lease is in S.A. Moore LLC, of which Scott Moore is a member and I am a member. DEWOLF: And who is E.A. Moore? JOHNSON: E.A. Moore is the former holder of a lease of this property. DEWOLF: Are E.A. Moore and S.A. Moore related? JOHNSON: No. DALY: E.A. Moore is deceased. JOHNSON: E. A. Moore passed away a couple of years ago. DEWOLF: Was E.A. Moore related to S.A. Moore? JOHNSON: Well, no, well, Scott Moore is his son. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 4 of 38 Pages DEWOLF: That's what I was trying to find out. JOHNSON: Scott Moore is Eugene Moore's son. But Scott Moore, when setting up the LLC in January, we have this lease. DEWOLF: What does that have to do with the price of this? JOHNSON: What it has to do with it is that the material was dumped here. DEWOLF: Illegally? JOHNSON: No. It was dumped there legally, with our permission, at no cost. And you are being asked to pay fees for dumping the material. MIKE MAIER: We got an invoice yesterday for $7,524, which identifies 2,508 yards at $3.00 a yard, which, according to this invoice, is the cost to dump this debris at both pits, Lower Bridge and Purcell Way. If there's no cost — DENNIS LUKE: $3.00 per yard is probably the hauling cost. DALY: No, the hauling is included in the bid. MAIER: I guess I have a question, there's a big discrepancy between 2,500 yards and 1,000 yards. And a discrepancy between $3.00 a yard and zero. JOHNSON: My suggestion to you is there is that through your public works department, you should have one of your people go out and measure the piles at Lower Bridge. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 5 of 38 Pages LUKE: This invoice is from the estate of E.A. Moore. It's an invoice from that company to R and J Enterprises. It's an invoice. JOHNSON: I understand. Okay. But I don't know how you could get an invoice for materials being dumped at Lower Bridge when E.A. Moore has no interest in the Lower Bridge property. We have the lease on the property and we are responsible to the landowner what goes on the property. And we gave permission to have the materials dumped there. And we charged no fees for the dumping. MAIER: So we shouldn't pay this, whether it is 500 or 1,000 or 100,000 yards, it doesn't matter, because there was no charge to dispose of this debris. JOHNSON: That's exactly what I'm telling you. Well, not at our site. Now, there may be a charge for the cinder pit site. We have no interest in the cinder pit site. We only have an interest in the Lower Bridge site. But I think that as was stated before, this was to be a lump sum contract. We bid it as a lump sum contract. Others bid it as a lump sum contract. And if there were extras involved, they should be identified in detail to the County as to what the extras are. And the County should have approved some sort a written change order to the contract, and I don't think any of us would be here talking about it if that procedure had been followed. And this is not, we're not upset particularly because we were the second bidder. What we are upset about is that there is a claim for additional monies on a lump sum contract that perhaps were not properly executed or properly documented. That's going to cost the taxpayers some additional monies, and that's not right. DEWOLF: I'd like to point out a couple of things. The contract that we signed, under maximum compensation, which is number 4-A on page 8 of 14 of the personal services contract, exhibit 1, says, "If materials, once hauled, reveal additional necessary cleanup, the contract will be renegotiated." Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 6 of 38 Pages And then, on exhibit A of the contract which we signed — right or wrong, this is in the contract — "should we uncover any concealed material that would cause additional time or equipment to be used, this contract will have to be amended to cover the additional cost. If we run into this situation, we will stop work, you'll be notified immediately to allow you to inspect and evaluate so you may make a determination as to an appropriate course of action". I just want people to understand that that is the contract that we signed; it did allow for that. And with that, Mike, can you explain the process that County went through in approving the change, the $7,000? MAIER: (Hard to hear; microphone on mute?) We were contacted by R and J, that they uncovered material that was not covered in the contract. They were on site and asked for authorization to move that material. They talked with Tammy Credicott, and she spoke with me. There was a process followed. In hindsight, probably we should have looked at it, but didn't. Discussions have come up that maybe it was the same stuff they should have included in the bid. I'm not sure if this is true or not. JOHNSON: I don't disagree that if you found something that was — let's say for example that you were doing the excavation and cleaning it up and so forth, and all of a sudden you found a loader tire. A huge tire. Okay, we'll dig that up. And to and behold you found there are ten of these kinds of tires that are buried. I think then that you come to the contracting official with whom you put the contract together and say, look, here's what we've run into. We've run into a bunch of loader tires that had been buried on the property some years ago, and we didn't know it and you didn't know it. We're going to have some additional costs. I think it would only be normal to do that. But for a berm of material or for a little of this or that, or for figuring you've got more cost in the job that you are going to be able to recover, so now here's something, we can say that's that, and then get it into the format of a bill and expect the County to pay an additional sum of some $13,000 or $14,000, and justify it by a huge savings to the County for $48,000 of dump fills at the landfill that probably never existed in the first place, doesn't make any sense to me. I'm sorry. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 7 of 38 Pages And as a contractor, I think that it's duly put to us to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen to a relationship between contractors and the County. We want to do a lot of work for the County. We want to do it on a level playing field. We want clarity in the identification of what the scopes of work are. We want to understand that a fixed fee contract is a fixed fee contract, and we want to bid it that way. If it's going to be a unit price contract, then, fine, we want to bid it as a unit price contract. But we want to see the procedures of contracting followed regardless of what agency it is. Public works follows certain procedures. We are prequalified with public works to do work for them. Other agencies that have responsibilities for things don't necessarily always understand everything there is to do with the contracting aspects. So they should impose on people like public works or what have you to assist them in some way to control or monitor what's going on. Like, when this came up, for example, if you couldn't go out, maybe you could have called somebody at public works and asked if they would go out and take a look at it to see if it is within the scope of work. MAIER: I'd also like to say that nothing has been paid. JOHNSON: Oh, I understand that. That's why we are here, and that's why Callahan is here. That's why we are concerned. When you read in the paper that it has been approved by two of the Commissioners, then you say, wait. What were the circumstances? We know what the circumstances were. And we know what would have normally been expected to do. In good conscience, I think that the contract needs to be reviewed, or the whole set up circumstances needs to be reviewed, and something needs to be done. LUKE: For the record, I don't know if you know me or not, but I've been a general contractor in this area for about thirty years. This job was a little different from most of our jobs in that there was a time frame problem. We have a radio station antenna that has to be up and on the air or they lose their license. So we had some commitments there. One of the reasons that it was probably rushed more than it should have been. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 8 of 38 Pages As somebody that was bidding it, I think the County would have been better if they had taken a backhoe out there and maybe opened some of those piles up. That would have been ideal. It wasn't done. JOHNSON: Or they could have put it in the specifications of the bid. LUKE: Okay. They could have done something like that. When the new stuff was found, we probably should have shut the thing down. It would have cost more to bring them back if they had left, maybe. There were some problems there. We all know if we've been in construction for any length of time, it's a learning process. And our hope is that as we are learning, we don't go broke in the process. After you've been in this business as long as you guys have, you look back and watch these new guys start and some of the mistakes they make. I don't know that there were mistakes, there may have been, but we learn from that. There's no question about that. If we weren't under the time crunch, I would have shut the thing down and said that we need to look at this a lot closer. We will look at it closer. We will look at the bills, and if that one invoice from the Moore estate is wrong, then we'll find that out. But we were under a time crunch and things were done here that probably shouldn't have been done, but they were done because we had a commitment to somebody else who could lose their license, a very expensive license. We were in effect the landowner and made commitments to these people. Again, it's always a learning experience, and you hope that the learning experiences aren't expensive. And we will investigate, there's no question. I'm like you. If you're bidding with someone, especially the government, the government has an obligation to make sure it is a level playing field and everyone has the same amount of information. That's what we have to do. I don't know of anyone up here, the three Commissioners, who don't believe that also. We go out of our way to make sure that there is no favoritism. JOHNSON: The only comment that I would have is that the issue here, looking at it from your perspective, is that the prime contractor, RJ, has a contract with the County, the owner. And subcontractors and suppliers have to deal with R and J. And have no relationship with the County other than through R and J. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 9 of 38 Pages So, my feeling is that our only purpose is to bring it to your attention that we do not feel that additional costs to this contractor are justified. And I think that we've accomplished that mission. So, consequently, if there are any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. But my feeling is that we should not interfere with the County and the prime contractor in any way, except to clarify things that we think are wrong. DALY: I have a question. You were out there and measured both of these piles that we are being charged $3.00 a yard for. And your estimate of total yardage, including the dirt pile, what is it? JOHNSON: Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards. Roughly 500 at each location. DALY: We're being billed for 2,500 yards. Is there any chance that any of that — are we even close to that? JOHNSON: I don't believe so. But I again refer you back to possibly dealing with one of your people in the engineering department of the County or what have you, and go out and physically measure the pile using the appropriate instrumentation. The way I measured the pile was that I walked so many paces this way and so many paces that way, and it's so high, and make a calculation. Now, what is the accuracy — I could be 10% or 30% off. I don't think I'm 50% or 100% off, though. I think I'm fairly close. LUKE: Is your estimate of only the material that you have control of at the pit, or the other pit? JOHNSON: Both locations. DALY: The next thing, we were also billed for load out and haul off and dispose of 158 yards of logs. That's about 16 big dump truck loads of logs. Have you seen that dumped anywhere? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 10 of 38 Pages JOHNSON: I don't know where those are. DALY: There was also 50 yards of concrete. None of that was dumped there? JOHNSON: I don't know. DALY: Tires to the landfill. Did you see tires in this pile? JOHNSON: No. There might have been one or two, but nothing significant that I could see. DALY: And there is 81 cubic yards of metal to Swift Steel Scrap Yard. I'll just comment on that. I was out at Swift Steel yesterday and they went through all of their records and they have no record of any of this coming into Swift Steel. So, we have some concerns. I'm just asking the contractor, if you hauled all this and it's somewhere, show us where it's at and we'll measure it up. That's all I'm asking for. It sounds to me that there is pretty close to 1,500 yards, and I looked at both of these piles and took pictures. And another thing, the actual contract itself says, "The objective of this contract is to leave most of the native soil found on the large debris piles on site". And they are charging us for 500 yards of dirt that they hauled off site. We weren't supposed to pay for that dirt anyway. JOHNSON: The way I understood it — I let's put it to you this way. The way we were going to process it is we were going to set up a grizzly and get everything out and leave the dirt. And leave anything that went through the grizzly on site and take all the debris off. Because we didn't need any large rocks or anything like that. We just were interested in the debris. DALY: If this 500 yards of dirt was grizzlied, that has value. How much value? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 11 of 38 Pages JOHNSON: The dirt itself, probably $3.00 to $5.00 a yard. DALY: So that's $2,500 or more worth of dirt there that belongs to the County that should have been left on site. JOHNSON: If in fact it was sorted out that way. DALY: Those are the issues that we need to be concerned about. I think that we need to look at all of these different sites where it supposedly is. If the stuff is there, it's easy to find. Swift Steel said they didn't see any of it, but we were billed for 80 yards of it. That's eight big dump trucks full of metal that is non-existent. JOHNSON: Right. Again, I want to emphasize that we have no quarrel with the material being dumped at the pit that we lease. The other thing that I want to make clear is that when we bid this job, we had a valid business license. The only reason I bring that up is that there is a rumor around that we did not have a valid business license or a contractor's license. We had a valid contractor's license when we bid the job. And I have the documentation here to show you if you need to see it. I understand that this issue may come up in other conversations. MAIER: We hadn't heard this. JOHNSON: I'm just pointing it out, if it does come up, I have the information here. It's within the time frame of the bid. DALY: Anyone else want to come up and address the Commission on anything? BOB CORDES: My name is Bob Cordes, and I'm a general contractor and the owner of R and J Enterprises. I would just like to make a statement, and if you have any questions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 12 of 38 Pages We contracted with this contract and dealt with Tammy Credicott, your staff member here. It was absolutely clear to her and to us that we had a contingency in there if we uncovered any material that wasn't the piles of chips and soil and stuff in those piles, the debris, that we would have to charge extra monies to deal with that, if there was something hidden in there. At every step in the process, every time something came up, she was notified and given the opportunity to come take a look at what we were doing. We did all this work in the daytime, in plain view. We cleaned up this debris and every time she authorized the additional charges. We amended the contract so that we could bill her for the dump fees in lieu of hauling the debris to the County landfill. Because she determined with us that it would be cheaper overall for the County to dump at the pits out in Redmond than to pay the dump fees at the landfill. We have no issue with her involvement at all, because she communicated with me at every step of the way and approved the charges. Some of the accounting that has been thrown around here, the initial bid was for $17,600 or so. The extra charges to deal with the concealed materials added up to $6,000 and something, and that is the $23,000 something, the actual cost of the cleanup. The separate issue of the dump fees of $7,500 that went to the pits was amended under the contract. That's not an extra charge; that's in lieu of the County dump fees at Knott landfill. Also here in the room is Larry Myers of L.G. Myers Construction. He can address any questions you might have about where things were dumped and how much stuff was dumped. Do you have any questions for me? MAIER: I have a question. I think that the understanding was that there would be a charge at these pits. But even with that charge, it was less than diverting the debris to the County landfill. But now I'm finding out that there is no charge. Or is there a charge? CORDES: It is my understanding that the estate of Moore has a cost to sort this material and stuff, and that's why they are charging us the $3.00 a yard to dump it. But, like I said, Mr. Myers is here and he can address those questions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 13 of 38 Pages MAIER: The Lower Bridge site doesn't have any charge? CORTISS: I'm the general contractor, and I've been billed by the excavator, L.G. Myers, for these charges, and I don't know the specifics of these charges enough to address them. There are two pits that he dumped in. To my knowledge, one is the cinder pit that has to be reclaimed, and the other is the Lower Bridge, which is also a reclamation site where they need the material for fill. As to the question about the content of the material and whether or not it could have been screened, and soil could have been reclaimed; that soil and those piles initially looked like somebody had been dumping big piles of bark chips there. There were some areas that had a bunch of scrap lumber and such in them. You can see that by the photographs. One end of the pile had a bunch of scrap metal. The idea or the thought process that went into cleaning up this mess was that we would go in and cut up the scrap metal and have a scrap dealer haul that away. Snitzer Steel hauled that initial large pile of material away after we cut it up. And then to get rid of the debris piles, the wood and chips and stuff, bring in a loader and trucks and scoop it and go. Well, when we started scooping it, we ran into all of this additional debris, many more yards of scrap metal, big blocks of concrete and some logs, etc. And all of that had to be picked out and sorted, and that's where these extra charges came from. As I said before, at every step of the way, Ms. Credicott was informed and we offered to stop work to have her come inspect, and she said she didn't need to. DALY: Mr. Cordes, I don't disagree that you have a contract that allows for extras. I think the question is, the amount. We're being billed for 2,500 yards, and as near as we can tell there is only 500 yards in each. That's a big difference. That's my question. Then we have these other issues of extras, 158 yards of logs. I mean, that's 16 dump truck loads of logs that are somewhere. If you can show it to us, we'd be happy to pay for it. And the 58 yards of concrete, if you can show it to us. And 81 yards of metal, because wherever you dumped it, it's still there. Just show us where it's at and we'll measure it up and pay you for it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 14 of 38 Pages CORDES: Mr. Myers would have to address your issues about what was dumped where and how much. LARRY MYERS : Well, first of all I need to clarify a few things. S.A. Moore didn't have a valid license when he bid it. He didn't have a valid license until December 18. Second of all, are they not understanding that we saved you $40,000 in dump fees, we saved the taxpayers that? And you're worried about $6,000 in extras? I'm not clear, because when I read the article in the paper I was really upset. The public doesn't understand what is going on here. You're saying that we charged you $6,000 in extras, but we saved you $40,000 in dump fees. To me, that doesn't make sense, as a taxpayer. First of all, doesn't S.A. Moore rent a lot from you, Mr. Daly? S.A. Moore knew that invoice right there within ten minutes from the time it hit the County yesterday, because S.A. Moore is my brother-in-law. Isn't he your neighbor? DALY: What difference does that make? MYERS : I mean, you are talking with a second bidder that bid illegally, for one thing, which is a conflict of interest. He approached me and asked me, he said he would take the material out at his pit, just go ahead and take it out there. I didn't approach him and didn't ask him that. If Lex was at that cinder pit and he was measuring those piles, he's trespassing. That's owned by Vicki Moore, which is my wife's mother. And we got a bill from her for dumping out there so we can rent that space out there to do the same thing that these guys are evidently talking about, that they were going to screen it and resell it, and that's exactly what we are going to do. I didn't approach Scott Moore and ask him if I could dump it out there; he approached me. So we're not getting the true facts here. We're not getting everything on the table here. I don't have a problem with anybody going out and measuring it. But when we bid that, we bid approximately 3,000 cubic yards. S.A. Moore bid it approximately at 1,500 yards. And now Lex is telling me that there was only 1,000 yards. Was he going to give you a credit back? We credited you 700 yards. We didn't charge you for 3,000 yards. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 15 of 38 Pages So I guess I'm not understanding where we're going here. I don't know how Mr. Callahan bid it. I'm sure he didn't bid it to screen it on site and leave it there. As far as the logs went, we didn't haul 16 loads. We hauled them in 20 -yard tubs, and I have all of the invoices from all of the trucks. I would gladly show them to you. We have time, we have yardage, and we kept all of the records that we needed for this reason. So if you are telling me that they could have hauled it any cheaper — I mean, I thought we were doing the County a favor by hauling it to our pit there and saving you guys money in dump fees. I guess I don't understand why we we're squabbling here, because the public doesn't know how much we saved them in dump fees. Nobody is coming up with that. The County was going to charge $40 a ton. There is probably ten tons in every one of those twelve -yard trucks that we were using. And probably twenty tons or better in those twenty yard tubs we were hauling. Do you know how much one load would have cost you? And we hauled like sixty or eighty loads. We have loads counts, we have hours off the trucking people, and we have how many loads we hauled, and at both ends. Now, Scott Moore did not have somebody monitoring out at Lower Bridge when we hauled it in out there. And what we hauled out there was the house debris, the long stuff that we couldn't load with a loader. We loaded it with an excavator. But I see Scott Moore isn't here. He sent a representative. Why isn't Scott here, if he's the one that's bitching about it. Lex wasn't out there. He wasn't at the pit when we hauled it in. Nobody was. Scott's boy was out there, and he said to go ahead and dump it the back, I've got a big hole and we're going to close it up. DEWOLF: I think that where we are going here is that Commissioner Daly raised a number of concerns. I don't share them, and don't believe that Commissioner Luke shares them but I won't speak for him. I think the easiest thing would be that if you could get together with Mike and Tammy and provide the invoices that show that, we could put this thing to bed. Obviously you've got a squabble going on here. It's not my squabble, but we need to put this to rest. If you could have those invoices to show what was hauled and the charges, that would resolve it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page t6 of 38 Pages MYERS: I guess when you've done a lot of city, county and state work, and you bid something, if we would have gone over the amount that we bid, would you guys have paid for that? Heck, no. We'd have to eat that, because we are taking a risk when we bid something. S.A. Moore bid it at 1,500 yards. I don't know what Callahan bid it at. We bid it at 3,000 cubic yards, but didn't charge you for that. We're trying to be fair and honest about what we are doing. DEWOLF: Just to be clear, the dump fees were a separate issue from this contract. Going to the landfill was the most expensive way to deal with this. So, having these other opportunities saved the County a tremendous amount of money, and we very much appreciate it. But they were two separate issues. MYERS: You stay in business by making a profit. So, when you bid something you try to find a cheaper way to do it to put a little more profit in your pocket. That's why I'm still in business, and I've been here thirty years. MAIER: Weren't there some savings to you, honestly, not having to drive to the County pit? MYERS: Trucking wise, sure. That's what I'm saying. When you bid something, don't you try to find the most economical way to do it? LUKE: The one I love is when Coates got the road between Bend and Redmond done a year early and Bob Chandler at the Bulletin wrote an editorial questioning whether Coates should keep that money since he got the job done a year early. When you bid a job, you bid a job. I agree with Commissioner DeWolf, if you go with our staff and get the invoice thing squared away, and we'll move on. MYERS: I'm at the point right now where I want to just hire trucks, load it up, and you can pay dump fees. I mean, that's stupid. The thing that kills me is that they only bring out the bad points, not the good points. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 17 of 38 Pages DALY: There is a savings on this type of material to take it where you took it. I just question the counts. MYERS: I don't have a problem showing it to you. I guess what I'm questioning is how many times when you bid a city job, after the job is done, do you have people coming back saying, well, I wasn't afforded a chance to bid it like that. That's crazy. DALY: Also, all this dirt you hauled, it says right in the contract that the dirt was to remain on site. You are charging us for it. MYERS: We hauled dirt and chips. We never screen stuff on site. DALY: Yeah, but you are supposed to. You were supposed to leave the dirt there. That's the issue. DEWOLF: Just as a point of order. If we can get them together and take care of this. We've just taken up most of an hour on this. MAIER: I'm going to have Tammy work with Tom Blust (of the Road Department) and go out and measure the sites and get an accurate count. DEWOLF: That's fine. I'm just saying, we just killed an hour here, and have a big agenda to face. That would be terrific. DALY: One more quick comment. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 18 of 38 Pages JOHNSON: In regard to my bid. It was for $24,360. So far the County has agreed to pay the amount of $23,000 something, which leaves about $500 difference. We measured and calculated the job. We added the price in there for extras, tires, concrete, extra hauling. So here we sit, on the number that you people are going to pay right now. DEWOLF: $500 higher. So even with the changes, they are still lower than what you would have charged. JOHNSON: My point is, that as a contractor you should have the knowledge to bid these jobs, as Mike said, the footage in the piles, the tires, and add. You should know when you bid that job exactly what you are going to have to take out of there and cover yourself. You shouldn't have to come back and say you made a mistake. No one can see inside the pile, I'll grant you that. But years of experience, you anticipate something will be there, maybe ten tires or four hundred tires. DEWOLF: You just said ten tires or four hundred tires. I'm not a contractor, but there's a big difference in cost there, and the bid. JOHNSON: My point is, when we bid a job for that, we bid for that price. If we go over that price in dump fees or any materials to complete the job to satisfaction, we would eat the difference. That company should eat their $6,000, and that's why we're here. We expect to give you an honest bid and do an honest job. DALY: With no contingency. JOHNSON: We gave an honest bid. And now the bid is right in my ballpark. Somewhere, somebody made a mistake. Sure. But the taxpayer in the County should not have to pay for that mistake. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 19 of 38 Pages LEXUS: I only want to take one minute to show the County Administrator a copy of our construction board license. S.A. Moore was licensed on the same day as the bid. (He showed a document to Mike Maier.) I want to make sure this is clear. LUKE: I have something that is not on the agenda. Anyone else? This won't take very long. Going through the bills last week, I came upon a bill for $147 for a dinner for the Family Motor Coach Association. That's a general fund expense that requires two Commissioners, not just one, to approve. Those people, as far as I know, are on an expense account, and we bought a $147 dinner for people who are on an expense account. And I just hope in the future that we get at least two Commissioners' approval before we spend that kind of money. Thank you. MAIER: I might make a comment, Commissioner Daly did ask me for my opinion on that. And I felt that it was for their board, not their staff, and I was aware of it. In the future, I have no problem going back to you. LUKE: Those people are on expense accounts. I mean, we bought dinner for people on expense accounts. It doesn't make any sense to me. DALY: Sorry, Dennis. Let's go on to the agenda. No further citizen input was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring March 5 "Read to Kids Day" in Deschutes County. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 20 of 38 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Letters Appointing Linda Cramer, Kevin Parker and Mike Schiel to the Advisory Board of the Commission on Children & Families. DE WOLF : Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 012, Submitting to the Voters in a County -wide Election a Three-year Split Rate Serial Levy to Fund Sheriffs Services. Commissioner DeWolf stated that Bill Friedman of the City of Bend contacted him about the Blue Ribbon Committee that will be looking at permanent Sheriff funding. This group should be in place by the May elections. He added that they are taking this issue seriously. Sheriff Stiles said that one of the things he'd like to address soon is the letter sent to the Board by Alan Bruckner, in which Mr. Bruckner states he'd like to see the permanent funding issue brought to voters this year. There are some logistical problems with doing so. DEWOLF: Move approval of Resolution No. 2004-012. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes no. (Split vote) DEWOLF: Move that Vice Chair Luke be authorized to sign the ballot measure. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 21 of 38 Pages 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Documents No. 2004- 063 through 2004-078, Services Contracts with Vehicle Towing Companies to Provide Towing and Storage Services for the Sheriffs Office in regard to Impounded and Abandoned Vehicles. Sue Brewster explained that these contracts are done annually so that new towing companies have an opportunity to participate. It is open to all towing companies within the County as long as they abide by the criteria given in the contract in regard to setting rates for impounded vehicles, picking up abandoned vehicles, and so on. ROGER MACOMBER: I am Roger's Towing in Redmond. I've been in business for 35 years, and think I have a pretty good working relationship with the police departments and such. There are a couple of things I'd like to address about this contract that bothers me a little bit. One thing is on the damage to a vehicle, we're required to take care of any damage. We don't disagree. If we do damage we will take care of it, that's part of our job. The only thing is that we have people come and say, "This is bent", and we know for a fact that we couldn't have done it. We want the Sheriffs Department to have their deputies document this stuff so that can't come back and charge us for something we didn't do. LUKE: Do you typically take a photo before you load it up? MACOMBER: When you're out picking these cars up, they want the cars out of the way. That's why we do such a good job. We get there, and they're sitting in the middle of the road or causing a traffic hazard. The driver is very busy taking care of the shop. We do have cameras in every truck, but that's for a case where maybe there was an accident or something like that, as required by our insurance company. But it's pretty easy to miss something on a vehicle, even loading it and working around it. We just don't want to pay for things that we don't cause. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 22 of 38 Pages LUKE: How often do you suppose it happens in a year's time that someone will claim damage to their vehicle that you didn't do? MACOMBER: You'll have a few times a year probably. The only thing is, when these things happen they are going to call the Sheriffs Department, the City, the Better Business Bureau, and there's a lot of aggravation in it. Our hours are pretty long, and you don't need this added aggravation. When we pick vehicles up, these things could be documented. They do have inspections of stuff that is in the vehicles. So it could be documented a little bit better than it is. It's not a real serious problem, but is just one item on the contract that we are concerned about. DALY: Excuse me, Sue (Brewster). Is this part of this contract somewhere? I don't remember reading that. BREWSTER: Our deputies do an inventory, but the tower would have an opportunity at the scene to make sure the deputy has listed all the existing damage. LES STILES: The short answer is, yes, it is a part of the contract and they are responsible for any damages that they incur or that are incurred to the vehicle while the vehicle is in their custody. DEWOLF: Do they have access to that information before they pick up the vehicle? STILES: Yes. They are there. LARRY BLANTON: Without talking about the whole policy relating to tows, we do an inventory sheet and a brief walk -around of the vehicle when it relates to any potential damage or items left in the car. But I'd just like to make a point here that the tow companies are in the business to tow vehicles. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 23 of 38 Pages Towing for the Sheriff s Office or any other public entity in the County is a very small part of what they tow. Liability issues relating to damage that may be caused by them certainly would be witnessed by anyone else for any other tows that they do. But we do the very best job that we can in looking at something, but we can't see everything, be it underneath the car, the oil pan, muffler, plastic bumper or anything like that. We're not body and fender people, and are not in the business of estimating damage although we do a walk -around and make notes of issues. MACOMBER: The second thing is the abandoned cars. This has become a real serious problem. I think the Sheriffs Department and everyone else knows it. I think if they would check the records, they'll find that we always take care of the abandoned cars. It is a very large expense for us. Through the winter we've been really busy and haven't been able to liquidate or move out a bunch of these cars. I've got some pictures I'll leave with you to give you an idea of what we are taking in. What our hopes would be — the City of Redmond has started paying us a $65 bounty. $65 does nothing more than clear the vehicle from any lienholder and that type of deal. That's basically what it costs us to clear it. Every once in a while we get a situation that's beyond the call of duty. I've had a couple of pretty serious ones this year. I had one where some guy towed four or five vehicles out on a county road and left them. One of them happened to be a two -ton truck with eight -foot sideboards, and it was full of garbage. Several vehicles and a couple of old trailer houses. Some of my competitors can't pick up some of this stuff. I ended up picking up three or four out of the five, which we had to liquidate. I don't have pictures of those, but it was quite expensive, besides having to deal with the dirty diapers and everything else that was in the back of this old truck, and tires and everything. It cost us about $500 to dispose of the stuff. The second one we did this year with the County was a camper that was abandoned along side the road, someone set it there and put a for sale sign in the window. They took all the I.D. tags and everything off of it. And obviously it was a piece of junk that should have gone to the dump. I do have a picture of that I could leave with you. We ended up with about a $350 expense after we disposed of it. They are quite a job to load. And I did send the bill to the Sheriffs Department on that, and never got a response on it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 24 of 38 Pages This was not a vehicle. I think in this kind of case, it didn't have I.D. on it, we had a terrible time trying to figure out a way to clear it so somebody couldn't come back and ask what we did with their camper. We put a couple of ads in the paper and a couple of other things to try to cover our bases. Those kinds of things, I think we need some help from the County or somebody. We shouldn't be expected to pick up garbage off the road. Other than that, I have no problems. The contract we have with them, we end up with a lot of vehicles, some we don't. We take care of the ones we end up with. The contract is something we live with. I think it is doing an excellent job. I think before this happened we had these people running around with no driver's license and no insurance. I've been in this business a long time and have seen where people went out and plowed into vehicles and leave these poor people without a car to get to work. This is taking these cars away from these people, and after they lose two or three of these old cars, they start thinking that maybe it's time for them to get a driver's license and insurance. I think the deputies are doing an excellent job, and don't see them picking on anyone who doesn't deserve it. But in some cases we need a little help. MIKE WILDMAN: I'm owner and president of Consolidated Towing, and past president and chairman of the Oregon Tow Truck Association. I'm also a member of the Towing and Recovery Association of America for the western states. We have a leadership meeting in March in conjunction with out cabinet meeting. And we are going to be addressing abandoned vehicles laws. Nationwide we've got major problems with abandoned vehicles. As we continue to grow we're going to have larger problems. Last year I processed 480 vehicles for the cities, County and State; that's up 72 from 2002, a 15% increase. We averaged 40 cars a month in 2003, which is up 6 from 2002, which was 34 per month; that's an 18% increase. The average number of vehicles processed per year over the three-year period was 412. The average number of vehicles processed per month over three years was 34. We got zero remuneration for last year for 102 vehicles. Now, when I say zero remuneration, we actually went in the whole, much like Mr. MACOMBER said. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 25 of 38 Pages We pay all our people by the hour; we pay time and a half and have a full benefit package. It costs a certain amount to operate the truck. We have property and property taxes cost a certain amount of money, as you know. And that vehicle sits there. We have to do a lien process on that vehicle; that fee is now at $75 to cover costs. We have an auction, with an auctioneer. We have five people at that auction who take care of that auction, and the cost is divided among all the vehicles. Then when that vehicle doesn't sell, scrap is now up to $22 a ton. We now have to take our forklift and load it on our trailers and haul it to Swift and McCormick in Redmond to get paid $22 a ton. We don't even make the original tow bill, let alone anything else on our costs. DEWOLF: How much does a car weigh? WILDMAN: Depends on whether it has an engine, transmission, glass, seats, and bumpers. Maybe 4,000 pounds average. The City of Bend is giving us back money on some of the vehicles if the vehicle is full of trash. They will pay us to take that trash trailer to the dump. We're only talking five to ten times a year for that. What I am suggesting is that I have no problem with the contract. I would like to keep an open dialogue and maybe have a meeting after I get back. I'll make copies for you of the literature from this conference I'm going to on abandoned vehicles, and maybe at a later time have a working meeting to continue this process on how we can deal with this. DEWOLF: For my own knowledge, an abandoned vehicle still has a vehicle identification number in it, right? STILES: Sometimes. They're often stripped out. MACOMBER: With the privacy laws, sometimes it's hard to get any information. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 26 of 38 Pages STILES: Sometimes they are "flagged" — the title never gets transferred, so the new owner is unknown. MACOMBER: Sometimes we have to remove the tires, wheels and batteries and pay to dispose of them. Some cars appear decent, but many are pretty bad. We need a better solution on how to handle this. We realize these vehicles are a problem. Scrap dealers don't want to pay any more than they have to, as there are too many vehicles available. They are getting all that they want now for free, so why should they buy it. STILES: Commissioners, can I help you maybe expedite this a little bit? These contracts went out last year. All of the towers were notified in December of 2003. This is the first time this issue has been brought up regarding the abandoned vehicle process. In fact, you'll find most of the contracts have already been signed by the towers themselves. The issue on the plate is this is an annual contract, and we need those contracts to move forward. That does not mitigate in any way the concerns that I share with both of these gentlemen that abandoned vehicles are a problem. They are a problem today, and have been a problem forever. They will continue to be a problem. The only way that we know of at the Sheriffs Office to address the problem equitably is with the clauses that are in there that everybody, when the whistle blows and it is your turn in the barrel, you take it. Is that the best solution? No, but we don't have any solution for a problem that has just surfaced literally moments before an annual contract is to be signed. The appropriate time to bring this up for discussion would have been more likely sometime in December when the contracts went out. Frankly, we should have been discussing this problem years ago. I concur with them. It is only going to get worse as we continue to grow. DEWOLF: So, Mike, when you get back from this conference, you could get together and start working on this now for adjusting next year's contract. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 27 of 38 Pages MACOMBER: Yes. I signed the contract. This is the first time I've been aware that I had a place I could go to complain about it. STILES: Roger, that's the second time I heard this. I heard a comment made on Monday that I take great offense to. Commissioner Daly inferred that there were some towers that were not able to get a hold of me for an entire year. I think everybody knows my number and how to reach me. The first month I was Sheriff I called all the towers together and gave them all checks, and returned their checks in the form of thousands of dollars. I abolished a program that had been in place in Deschutes County where the former Sheriff was receiving quarterly checks from each of you for a 10% surtax on your business. I said, government has absolutely no business imposing surtaxes on private business to do business in Deschutes County. We returned the money, and during that meeting when you got your checks back, all of you should remember that I said my door is wide open, and come in anytime. So what I would like to suggest is that maybe we get together and work cooperatively on the abandoned vehicle thing, because frankly I suspect you may get more of those in the City than you do from us. If we could all work together cooperatively to address this problem and figure out a way to move forward, it would be in our best interest. Because if we drop this out of the contract, then Deschutes County is going to start looking bad in less than 90 days. BLANTON: Regarding the garbage in cars, the City offers dump coupons. About a year or so ago we appeared before you to get authorization that if there is a pickup load of garbage or a carload of garbage, Ken Jones, our representative with CDD, verifies what is in the car with our assistance. We also do the same thing. There have been three or four times this has been requested, and Ken either accompanies them out there or written something up. The waiver is available, so they just have to ask and coordinate it with Ken Jones. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 28 of 38 Pages DALY: I think it's a good idea to move ahead with this. I don't think we should ask anyone to do something for nothing. DEWOLF: Move approval of these towing contracts. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing to Take Testimony on the Proposed Final Assessment on the Hurtley Ranch Road Local Improvement District. Gary Judd explained that the assessment came in under the estimate. Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he then closed the public hearing. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-010, Establishing Hurtley Ranch Road as a County Road. DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004-011, Certifying the Final Assessment on Hurtley Ranch Road Local Improvement District. DEWOLF: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 29 of 38 Pages 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004- 060, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the Department of Forestry, Supporting the Forestland -Urban Interface Committee in Carrying Out Its Responsibilities under Senate Bill 360. Kevin Harrison explained that there are still a few details to work out on the agreement. DEWOLF: Move approval, subject to legal approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 10. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2004-004, Amending Title 21 of the County Code regarding the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. Damian Syrnyk explained that some minor changes were made to the Ordinance in regard to the findings from the City of Sisters. Laurie Craghead confirmed that the Ordinance is now ready for approval. Neil Thompson of the City of Sisters added that only one person has testified on this issue, and those concerns were satisfactorily addressed. He thanked Damian Syrnyk and Laurie Craghead for their good work on this Ordinance. LUKE: Move first and second reading by title, declaring an emergency. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Chair Daly then conducted the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 30 of 38 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 11. Before the Board was Consideration Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision Denying a Verification of Nonconforming Use (Applicant. Fleming). LUKE: I read this over, and it makes sense. What I would rather see is a zone change, but that's outside the urban area and it probably can't be done. I don't know, but I agree with staff and the Hearings Officer from what I read, unless there were additional things that were brought up Monday when I wasn't here. DEWOLF: Well, that's the difficulty. Lovlien? CATHY WHITE: My first question is, did you get a hold of Mr. Yes. And he submitted a letter stating that he would extend the 150 -day time frame by 90 days. CRAGHEAD: Also, he apologized that he couldn't be here today, although he wouldn't be able to testify anyway. Also, the issue in this case was a matter of substantial evidence presented at the time of the hearing before the Hearings Officer. Her findings were that there was not substantial evidence as to whether this even made the ten-year rebuttable presumption. The issue is, then, if you want to provide an appeal hearing to allow more evidence to come in, you could do it limited to what's on the record only, to see if you think there might be more evidence. Or the other option is a de novo hearing, at which the applicant will have time to present to you more evidence to fill in the gaps that the Hearings Officer found. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 31 of 38 Pages DEWOLF: My initial reaction was the same as yours, Dennis, that we shouldn't be hearing this. But, I guess I'm at the point where I feel like I don't want to punish somebody over technicalities and shut down a potential business. If in fact they could have done a better job during the initial hearing or should have done a better job, okay. I'm willing to hear this just to give them that opportunity. I mean, this is going to come before us at some point. They'll go to LUBA or start a different process or what have you. So we might as well see if we can find a way to resolve this here. CRAGHEAD: That is one of the criteria you have to consider, whether this information could have been presented at the time of the hearing. DALY: I'm inclined to hear it, too, because of the fact that this property has been in commercial use for as long as I can remember. I'm inclined to hear it, too, because if there is a technicality or some little issue they forgot during the hearing. Maybe it's a big issue, but I think we should give them the opportunity to present it. DEWOLF: We've got all of these other issues related to the lack of permits and what have you. It's kind of a messy case. But I'd just as soon deal with it now rather than later. LUKE: What would a zone change require? WHITE: A zone change would require a zone change application process. I think that area is zoned MUA-10 and has probably gone through the exception process. So they probably wouldn't have to go through that. So it would just be changing the zone, which is a public process that would eventually come to the Board for a final determination. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 32 of 38 Pages LUKE: Because the same thing will happen if for some reason we hear this and approve it, and then the business that is there or isn't there, whatever. If for some reason they leave and somebody doesn't take it over within a year, they're going to be right back here again. This is all a non -conforming use. DALY: Another thing that kind of swayed my opinion, too, is that the State of Oregon owns the property right next door and they are using it. DEWOLF: It would have to be de novo, because if it is on the record they are stuck. But can we hear it de novo limited to the issue of evidence providing continual use for that ten-year period? Can we limit the de novo to that? CRAGHEAD: That's basically the main issue of a non -conforming use. DEWOLF: So there's no ancillary thing, no people are going to come in and raise other issues about the type of use or what have you? CRAGHEAD: Actually, you could, because it's a matter of whether — well, no. Because of the fact that as a part of that ten years of continuous use, you also have to make a determination of what the extent of that use was during that time, the nature and extent of that use. So it's all kind of tied in together. DEWOLF: I move that we hear this de novo. LUKE: Second. LUKE: But I will want to hear more information about the single -wide mobile home. Because you can't have these things being sited on a place and just walk away and leave them. WHITE: We don't have a placement permit for that manufactured home. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 33 of 38 Pages LUKE: You might be able to get more records from the Assessor or something. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of the Purchase Agreement for the Sale of County -owned Property Located within the City of Redmond's Urban Growth Boundary, to the City of Redmond. Mark Pilliod said that he has been in contact with Steve Bryant, legal counsel for the City of Redmond. They are making some minor changes to the agreement; once this is done, the agreement is acceptable to staff. The other aspect of the sale of the property is the purchase and sale agreement. The proposed agreement has just been received and is under review. A lot line adjustment will be necessary to create a separate lot of record. Otherwise the transaction is fairly straightforward. The City will need to handle the lot line adjustment, and are anxious to proceed. Their main focus at this point is accommodating a potential purchaser of some of the property, and apparently the purchaser is ready and willing to go forward since the sale is progressing as hoped. Mr. Pilliod suggested that since two Commissioners will be out of the office for a week, perhaps Commissioner Luke should be given authority to sign on behalf of the Board. LUKE: Move that Commissioner Luke be authorized to sign the sale agreement, subject to legal review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 34 of 38 Pages 13. Signature of Document No. 2004-054, an Addendum to a License Agreement between Deschutes County and the Volunteers in Medicine Clinic of the Cascades, Extending the Term for Use of Health Department Space. DE WOLF : Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $9,471.98 (three weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $8,405.34 (three weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 35 of 38 Pages CONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD 16. A PUBLIC HEARING regarding a Health Department Practice Management (Software) System Exemption from Competitive Bidding; Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-016. Mark Pilliod said that there needs to be an exception from competitive bid process for the Health Department to move forward with the OCHIN collaborative effort. Procurement rules don't exempt this, as it is a unique situation. The Board needs to declare an exemption or go though an extensive process. Commissioner Luke explained that Multnomah County and other entities put this system together under a federal grant, and it can be adapted for Deschutes County to use at a very reasonable cost. Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, Chair Daly closed the public hearing. DALY: Move approval of Resolution No. 2004-016. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 17. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 014, Transferring Appropriations from the General Fund to the Health Department Fund for the Use of OCHIN Software. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 36 of 38 Pages 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,682,147.64 (three weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Mike Maier noted that the voucher in the amount of $1,790,541 for payment for the purchase of the Midstate Electric Cooperative property in La Pine is being added to the bills, along with the invoice for the initial cleanup of the 91h and Antler (Redmond) property. 19. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2004- 018, Authorizing the Signature of Closing Documents for the Purchase of Midstate Electric Cooperative Property Located in La Pine. Mark Pilliod explained that this purchase is ready to go into closing. The deed has been approved, and the discussion of lease terms has concluded. LUKE: Move signature of Order No. 2004-018. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. B. Before the Board was Authorization for the Vice Chair to Approve Weekly Vouchers the Week of March 1, 2004. In the event Commissioners DeWolf and Daly are not available when the vouchers are to be reviewed, authorization for Commissioner Luke to sign on their behalf was given. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 37 of 38 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Being no further items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p. m. DATED this 25th Day of February 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: (5Z"A,i- (G&� Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Page 38 of 38 Pages