2004-662-Minutes for Meeting March 31,2004 Recorded 4/7/2004DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 1004.661
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/07/2004 02:50:08 PM
11 jil][I 11111111111111111111111
2 $112
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly and Dennis R. Luke; Commissioner
Tom DeWolf was out of the office. Also present were Dan Peddycord, Health
Department; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Judy Stiegler,
CASA; Ted Schassberger and Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Gary Judd,
Road Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Tom Anderson,
Damian Syrnyk and Catharine Morrow, Community Development; media
representatives Barney Lerten of bend.com and The Bugle, and Chris Barker of the
Bulletin; and approximately twenty-five other citizens.
Chair Mike Daly opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
JULIE BIBLER:
I'm with the National Children's Vision Foundation. I'm also with the State
P.T.A. Health and Welfare Committee, and was born and raised in Bend. I
wanted to let you know my background on being with the Health and Welfare
Committee for the State P.T.A. I have learned about things having to do with
air quality and other issues that relate to health in children.
I want to talk today about my concern about this plant that is coming out across
from High Desert Middle School, the pyrolysis plant. I've been studying up on
it and looking at some of the data and watching how all of this stuff is coming
down. I have some huge concerns regarding some of the possible contaminates
that are going to be within proximity of our children. And with the inversion in
the winter, it could affect our community as well.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 1 of 19 Pages
I think about the time and money that we have put in as a community towards
portraying ourselves as having a clean, healthy environment. I'm really
wondering if we have looked at the whole picture. I was there to talk with the
people who are bringing it in, and they paint a pretty picture. But I've seen
information and have studied some of the very chemicals that they are talking
about and what it has done to other communities.
I wanted to encourage you to reconsider whether this is what we need for our
community, to be health and clean, and what those possible ramifications could
be to people finding out about this system coming in, financial and all of that.
LUKE:
Have you had an opportunity to look at the information the Department of
Environmental Quality has made available on this?
BIBLER:
I have. And I've looked at several other places for information.
LUKE:
What kind of action is your group taking, based on the article in the newspaper
on what the diesel buses that are making children sick?
BIBLER:
Haven't gone to that one yet. I've been swamped with a bunch of other things,
but I do know that this is something that I talked with a lot of people about, and
we have a very strong concern about this.
LUKE:
From the information we have, the diesel buses are putting out far more
pollutants than this plant would. The other thing is, High Desert Middle School
burns over 33,000 therms of natural gas to heat water for their heating system
out there. You might want to check out how pollution that puts in the air.
BIBLER:
I've talked to John Rexford and the school administration about this thing, and I
know the letter they sent you indicates they are concerned about not having
notification on this permit change and everything. I know their concern as well.
Thank you.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 2 of 19 Pages
GRETCHEN GRIVEL:
My name is Gretchen Grivel, and I reside near Knott Landfill. I came today
because you weren't here on Monday (to Commissioner Daly), and I wanted a
chance to meet you and make sure you also had a chance to hear my concerns.
I can give you a copy of a letter from my attorney that was submitted yesterday.
We've had pretty short notice.
Basically, my big concern is the lack of notification about the whole project
back from 2002 until just mid-March. I actually received a letter on the 18th but
wasn't able to get the information from the planning department until I believe
the 25th of March. I work a title company, and I had my customer service
department do a search criteria based on what the County planning department
says was their notification criteria. And it is very dissimilar to who the County
actually did notify, including the school, Parks and Rec, me and a lot of the
neighbors.
Like I said, I've got an attorney working on this from a variety of different
angles. I filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals, and a local action will be
filed today. I wanted you to know that. I saw an article back in December 2002
when you tried to get the Commissioners to consider other options, and were
basically shut down. So I thought it would be nice to give you the opportunity
to know that there are people out there that wish you had prevailed at that time.
DALY:
Your concern is the landfill itself and the permitting process?
GRIVEL:
Yes. My concern is the landfill, the land use criteria, the site plan, the
notification, and that whole thing. I just hired an attorney two days ago.
LUKE:
We're starting to get into an area here, because there is a land use action taking
place that can be appealed to us. It starts to be a real problem in what kind of
testimony we can take at this time.
DALY:
Any other testimony? Hearing none, we can proceed —
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 3 of 19 Pages
LUKE:
One thing. Izzy, when you were in on Monday, you talked about the Rose pit.
And George Read isn't here today, but George said that they have gone out and
inspected it, along with the DOGAMI, and they do only have five acres open.
The other has been seeded and the grass didn't come up, and they are going to
have to reseed it. They've been told that and know that. I wanted you to know
what we fond out Monday. I'm sure that Community Development can talk
with you about some more.
IZZY OREN:
One of the main points that I was trying to bring up was you mentioned that
everything has to go through a written complaint process. My question was if
there was no written complaint, does that mean that everything can go on in
violation? Because if I tried to build a house without a permit, I'm sure that you
wouldn't wait for a written complaint from a neighbor before I was stopped.
LUKE:
Actually, even if you are building a house illegally, the County cannot go on
your property without your permission. So, yes, there would be a process of
getting a court order to allow them to go on your property and proceed with a
stop work order. They can post that on your property line, but can't go onto
your property.
Typically the process for a code complaint, unless it is an immediate health or
safety concern, requires a written complaint so we can act on it. We do take
some by phone, and Tom took yours by e-mail, but the typical procedure is a
written complaint so we have a record. That way it is better for the public, too,
because then someone can't say that government is just picking on them.
OREN:
I'm still trying to understand. If nobody complains about me building a house
illegally, then there's nothing that will be done about it. So I could continue
violating.
LUKE:
It is a general statement that the policy is a written complaint, unless there is a
health or safety welfare issue. Someone building a house without a permit is a
violation of State and County law. If a County employee sees that, they would
act on it.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 4 of 19 Pages
OREN:
The main point I was trying to bring is that standards were set for that pit to
operate. And practically every standard has been violated. I don't know if Mr.
Rose placed his bond or if the DE came to inspect like they are supposed to, to
check the noise and dust level, and operations taking place on a windy day.
They are operating any day no matter what. The only thing they are watering is
the path of the trucks, and even that is sporadic.
If you look there, I don't know what the reclamation is, but the standards set
was they were to have only five acres exposed and the rest reclaimed. And the
reclamation part was to leave two feet of topsoil on the site plus plants, to get it
back to normal. If you look at it, you'll see fifty acres at least exposed.
LUKE:
I just explained to you that DOGAMI went out there and determined that they
have reclaimed it. They planted it in grass but the grass didn't come up. The
State agency and the County are working on that. They reacted to your e-mail.
OREN:
I thought that maybe when the County issues permits, somebody should be able to
monitor without any complaints, to make sure everything is done according to the
permits. In this case, it definitely hasn't been done because I've seen them clear at
least ten acres one time before doing anything else to the rest of the acreage that
was already exposed. That was three years ago. We have a big problem here.
LUKE:
And we may. But as Commissioner DeWolf said on Monday, he hasn't heard
anything from the public on this pit for about three years. Not even written,
phone calls or e-mails. I don't think I have either. I know that there have been
some ongoing disputes out there, but I really haven't had people contact me.
We would like to be able to supervise everything we have permits out there for,
but we don't have the staff to do that. Sometimes you have to depend on the
public to bring things to our attention.
OREN:
It amazes me, if I wanted to put in a septic tank the DEQ would show up five
times to make sure that I did it the right way. But the DEQ didn't show up here
more than one or two times in ten years. There should be the same standards
for everyone.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 5 of 19 Pages
No other testimony was offered.
2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring April 5
through 11 Public Health Week in Deschutes County.
Dan Peddycord read the proclamation to the audience.
LUKE: Move approval, with provision that Commissioner DeWolf to be
allowed to sign even though he isn't here today.
DALY: Second
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner Luke stated that in the near future Congressman Walden is going
to host a public meeting at the hospital regarding public health issues. The
Congressman's staff suggested that local public health people attend if possible.
3. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring April
Child Abuse Prevention Month in Deschutes County.
Judy Stiegler of CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) and an associate
from the KIDS Center spoke about their programs and the events connected
with the observation of Child Abuse Prevention Month. Judy read the
proclamation, and thanked the Commissioners for their support over the years.
LUKE: Move approval, with provision that Commissioner DeWolf to be
allowed to sign even though he isn't here today.
DALY: Second
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was a Presentation and Update of the Activities of the
Upper Deschutes Watershed Council. — Ryan Houston
Ryan Houston, the Executive Director of the Deschutes Watershed Council,
gave a slide presentation on current programs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 6 of 19 Pages
He said that the goal of the organization is to have a diverse representation to
deal with water issues from a variety of perspectives. The group is not an
advocacy type of organization; it is more of a facilitation environmental
organization. Members are from federal state and local agencies, other
organizations and a variety of landowners.
Some of the major projects now being addressed are:
• Water quality monitoring;
• Riparian fencing - in conjunction with ranchers in order to obtain funding;
• Educational work - including the annual RiverFest event; and
• Farewell Bend Park - developing mud flats into riparian areas and
marshlands.
He added that the group lives by the grant cycle, and spends a lot of time
writing grants, and gave an overview of funding commitments.
5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of Signature of
Order 2004-027, Certifying the Final Assessment on Covina Road Local
Improvement District.
Gary Judd said the cost came in under the "not to exceed" cost. In this case the
road had already been dedicated to the County, and the property owners shared
in the cost of paving with the County. Three property owners have contacted
him to state that they are very pleased with their newly paved road.
Chair Daly then opened the public hearing.
Being no testimony offered, Chair Daly closed the hearing.
LUKE: Move signature of Order No. 2004-027.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No 2004-
134, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and
Four Rivers Vector Control District for Mosquito Testing and Control
Services.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 7 of 19 Pages
Dan Peddycord, Bill Chapman of the Sunriver Homeowners Association, and
Bruce Landolt of Four Rivers Vector Control District discussed agenda items
#6 and #7 at this time.
Dan Peddycord stated that one agreement is for vector control services within
Sunriver, and the homeowners pay a tax for these services. Sunriver
Homeowners Association, as well as other entities such as Black Butte Ranch,
contract with Four Rivers Vector Control District.
He said the agreements before the Board today provide a vehicle by which the
Association can get this work done. In the past, they contracted directly, but the
Department of Agriculture has issued a new ruling that this contract must be
handled through the local authority, which in this case is the County.
After this year, Sunriver may have an election regarding annexing itself into
that District so that the County does not have to be involved.
Bill Chapman stated that the agreement went before the Sunriver Homeowners
Association Board early in the month, and they will be discussing options in the
near future.
Dan Peddycord explained that there is increased public concern regarding
mosquitoes and the possibility of the West Nile virus affecting Oregon. Every
indication is that cases will begin to appear in Oregon, since cases of the virus
have been moving west. The impact can't be known, but when it shows up, the
public will likely voice increased interest in the County's involvement in vector
control. He added that he has already been contacted by La Pine citizens, who
are nervous about this issue. The public may demand that a taxing district for
the entire County be considered.
Mark Pilliod stated that the intergovernmental agreement between the County
and Four Rivers permits vector control outside of Sunriver, if funding is
available.
Bruce Landolt said that he did the survey work throughout all of the wet parts
of the County last year, and the mosquitoes that carry the virus were found in
flood irrigated areas, including areas around Alfalfa, the Bend Airport and
Redmond; and in areas south of Lava Butte along, the river basins.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 8 of 19 Pages
He added that some years ago, his company handled mosquito control in La
Pine State Park for Oregon Parks. They then bought their own equipment, and
management changed; and they then found out they were not properly licensed,
so there has been no treatment at all for a couple of years. This is a huge
mosquito area, and it is hard to control in the surrounding areas.
In regard to federal lands, the Forest Service land from Lava Island upstream
produces a lot of mosquitoes, and it is particularly bad at the north end of
Sunriver. The Forest Service has been asked if they plan to address this
problem, but said they decided not to at this time.
Commissioner Daly commented that if just private property is being treated, it's
not doing the job in the area.
Mr. Landolt replied that it certainly makes it more expensive, and more
pesticides have to be used. He prefers using larvaecides as they are gentler on
the environment. If spraying could be done on Forest Service land, this could
eliminate a lot of adult mosquitoes on adjacent properties.
He added that if there were a County-wide district, he would still only be
authorized to go on properties other than those owned by the Forest Service,
Oregon Parks and the Bureau of Land Management. Probably 50% of the
problem is on those lands. The trick is to stop the mosquitoes from coming
onto private land from government land, and he can only do adult mosquito
treatment along the boundaries of those government lands.
Dan Peddycord stressed that his interpretation of the law on vector control is
that if there is a public health hazard or even a severe nuisance, the County
could authorize vector control to enter any lands within the County to do
appropriate vector control. He has asked Legal Counsel to examine this law in
relation to the posture taken by the federal government.
Commissioner Daly asked that he be provided with contact information for the
federal and state agencies, and a brief summary of the difficulties with those
agencies. He then asked if there was additional input or questions from the
public.
Andrea Blum asked if it would be helpful for the public who uses those lands to
contact the agencies about the problem. Commissioner Luke replied that the
best people to contact are the representatives and senators who control the
agencies' budgets.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 9 of 19 Pages
Dan Peddycord reiterated that the concerns regarding West Nile virus could
bring the issue from a nuisance level to a potential public health problem,
requiring and allowing the County to act. Mr. Landolt added that the carrier
mosquitoes have been identified at La Pine State Park and Benham Falls; in
fact, these mosquitoes are collected every week during the summer months at
Benham Falls.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
135, a Services Contract between Deschutes County and Sunriver Owners
Association, allowing Four Rivers Vector Control District to Provide
Mosquito Control Services in Sunriver.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2004-
139, Document No. 2004-141 and Document No. 2004-142, Services
Contracts between Deschutes County and BestCare Treatment Services,
Pfeifer and Associates and Serenity Lane for Alcohol & Drug Abuse
Services to Low-income Citizens.
LUKE: Move signature of Documents No. 2004-039, 2004-041 and 2004-042.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
9. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the City of Sisters Proposed
Expansion of their Urban Growth Boundary.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 10 of 19 Pages
Laurie Craghead said that there may be a problem with the Sisters
Comprehensive Plan that may need to be corrected before the County can take
action on this matter. The recommendation is that the Board hold the hearing
this morning, take all testimony, and leave the hearing open and continue it to
not a date certain. After the City of Sisters knows what action needs to be
taken, the County would renotice the hearing for taking new information.
Damian Syrnyk said he has copies of all documents available for the public. He
gave an overview of the process and the County's involvement. At the February
12 meeting of the Planning Commission, they voted to forward this on to the
Board for approval. This was after a joint public hearing with the City of
Sisters Planning Commission on January 22.
NEIL THOMPSON:
I'm the Planning Director with the City of Sisters, and with me is Brian Rankin,
my assistant. We would like to submit this morning the minutes and the
corrected document that was referred to earlier —
LUKE:
Do you need to wait until the public hearing portion to submit these documents?
They aren't County staff, okay. That's my question. Is this part of the staff
presentation?
CRAGHEAD:
You can do it either way. Again, they are acting in the stead, by virtue of an
intergovernmental agreement, as County staff.
At this time, Mr. Thompson said that it was delegated to the City staff. He then
explained that this process started in 1994 when growth in the City was slow.
Since the sewer system went in, in 1997, there have been dramatic changes. He
also said that a lot of people would like to make this process of population
forecasting into a science, but when you're talking about people it moves into
being an art.
This type of thing cannot be reduced into a formula either. It is a very complex
mixture of elements and pieces that they have to make some kind of sense out
of. There have been a lot of meetings of agencies, experts and citizen
committees. It is hoped that these efforts can continue to move on.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 11 of 19 Pages
There have been dramatic changes in population, with major structural changes
in demographics in the area. With the sewer being completed, an inordinate
amount of growth is expected. A modest urban growth boundary expansion is
needed. Diligent work has been done to make the areas inside the City more
productive, but a modest expansion is needed.
Three modest areas of expansion are desired. The logic for spreading them out
is to avoid concentration in one area and the demands on infrastructure. A
matrix analysis of over seventeen characteristics of these areas was done to
determine which would be the most beneficial to add to the City. They did go
outside what would be exception lands, going through the State in a mandated
process. He said they feel this is responsible and the right thing to do, and
asked Deschutes County to take the next appropriate steps.
Commissioner Daly then opened the public hearing.
PAUL DEWEY:
(He provided a handout, which was given to Laurie Craghead.) I'm
representing the Friends of Deschutes County and the Sisters Forest Planning
Committee. There are a couple of matters I wanted to address regarding
procedural issues.
Just yesterday, as I was looking at the materials, I found a discrepancy between
the support documents and what was included in the Comprehensive Plan. We
had noticed a discrepancy before in numbers, in terms of whether or not there
really was a need for so many acres to go into the UGB. It appeared from the
documents that the City of Sisters had given to us that there really wasn't that
much of a need. As I was looking at it again yesterday I thought perhaps there
might be some other documents out there that we hadn't seen.
I called Damian Syrnyk, and he apparently had the same records we had. And I
tried to call Neil, but he wasn't there. So Brian checked and found out there
was a discrepancy. There were some materials that should have been in the
record or in the Comprehensive Plan that we hadn't seen before.
We're going to be asking the City to reopen the record so that we can comment
more fully on these issues. I haven't had a chance to look at these documents,
since they were just faxed to me. It's just a mistake on their part. But we would
like the opportunity to comment on that. I was also going to ask that there be a
continuance, but I guess you are going to do that anyway.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 12 of 19 Pages
The other procedural issue came up yesterday, and I don't know why it wasn't
discussed earlier. We've appeal the City of Sisters' decision, their ordinance, to
LUBA. And there was some question as to whether you all should go ahead
and have this hearing until that appeal is done. And it is our feeling, and the
City of Sisters' too, that you should go ahead with this. Because this is a de
novo hearing; you really are two separate bodies having hearings on this.
As a practical, economical factor, this appeal on the Sisters' decision could go to
LUBA and come down again. And you all would then have to consider this
application de novo. It's an open hearing, and new people can walk in and raise
different issues, because it is a different body. It makes more sense for the
County to also make a decision on this matter so that it can go up as a whole.
LUKE:
If the County takes your suggestion and it goes up to LUBA, would you be
willing to waive your attorney fees if we lose it?
DEWEY:
Absolutely. I never have claimed attorney fees from a government body.
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
Attorney fees are only granted if there was no legal basis for an argument. And
LUBA has not granted those ever. It's rarely an issue in a LUBA case. The
other issue would be the cost. There are costs that they do order for the losing
party to pay the prevailing party; it's about $175 generally.
I want to clarify that as of this morning, it was the City's request that we delay a
decision on this matter and continue the hearing to a later date.
DEWEY:
I won't go into all the details of the material I presented to you, but I wanted to
raise a couple of the primary issues.
A key one is the population forecast. As you know, the Sisters Forest Planning
Committee appealed the County's original coordinated population forecast on a
variety of grounds, and that continues to be a primary issue of concern here.
The City of Sisters is following a somewhat different approach than Redmond
and Bend have. They have been using building permit data, and trying to
project out what the permits will be in the coming years. We've had a couple of
objections to that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 13 of 19 Pages
One is, there was a lot of pent-up demand before the sewer went in. When it
went in, they got hit with high numbers for a couple of years. They are using
those high numbers to project out into the future. Our argument is that there is
really no basis for assuming that this pent-up demand will be continuing. I
believe it is also in the record that the number of partitions and the number of
subdivision lots, the applications, actually decreased three years after that.
Another issue we've raised on building permits is that you can't just take what
applications come in for a building permit. Sometimes those building permits
are for replacements, and there are demolitions involved. It's not just a net new
house; it would be a net zero house if a house is being destroyed.
I just got some documents from the Portland State University folks who do the
population forecasts, and they sent me a copy of what Sisters has submitted for
the past several years. It turns out that in these materials proposed to you, they
used their gross building permit numbers, not their net numbers. That, again,
has tended to expand the size of the projected need.
The third element on population forecasts that we are concerned about is that
the City in projecting from 2010 to 2025 used as a growth rate double what the
State OEA came up with. It may be appropriate to double it, but there has to be
some explanation for doubling it, versus tripling it or one and a half times, and
we haven't seen that rationale. Again, that was one of the primary reasons for
our original appeal of the coordinated population forecast; the rationales were
not there to substantiate the population forecast.
Neil is right to some extent in that this is an art in some points, and not science.
But to the extent it can be math, it should be; for example, the building permits
or the calculation of the growth rates.
In regard to the UGB expansion itself, we raised a number of issues regarding
need. Again, the building lands inventory numbers that we have seen before do
not support what they are doing. These new numbers may, but we'd like to
examine them.
The findings also found that there was no more need for commercial and
industrial land over the next twenty years, but then they have proposed adding
more lands for commercial and industrial. We don't believe it is appropriate to
add that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 14 of 19 Pages
Also, something that has just come up, the City is considering a new ordinance
to decrease the density within the City. I think it is currently six to seven on
residential lots per acre, and I think they are planning on decreasing it to four to
eight or perhaps even lower. That suggests that there actually isn't the need to
be expanding the urban growth boundary, if you have so much land that you
can actually decrease the density of development within it. Now, that hasn't
been finally decided on by the City Council so it is not before you.
LUKE:
Some of that is a quality of life issue. There are those who suggest that
4,000 square foot lots in Bend don't provide the quality of life a lot of people
want.
DEWEY:
Absolutely. That is certainly a consideration, and a valid one for a number of
existing neighborhoods and their quality of life. It's just that in this context it
suggest that they don't need as much land and they say they need, if in fact they
have so much land within the UGB now that they can decrease the density to
allow it. That's not going to be allowed, what they are proposing, by DLCD, if
there isn't the capacity within the City.
And I'd like to address one further issue that was brought up this morning. It's a
difficult problem for jurisdictions, in terms of priority of urban growth
expansion. ORS 197.298 requires a prioritization that cities first include
exception lands, such as lands within the urban area reserve or other exception
lands like rural residential, before they bring in forest and EFU lands. I believe
Neil has commented that what the City is doing here is kind of spreading out
the expansion on all sides of the City.
I have to respectfully say that the law doesn't say that, and I don't think LUBA
is going to uphold the City on that issue. A City policy of wanting to distribute
growth all around the City doesn't trump the statutory requirement that you first
look to exception lands. And the exception lands are on the east side of the
City, and we believe were not properly considered.
LUKE:
Is that requirement an OAR?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 15 of 19 Pages
DEWEY:
No, it's a statute. I have heard that the new LCDC folks are thinking of
abandoning Goal 14 to relax the prioritization scheme administratively, but this
is still at statute.
I have other comments that I will just leave with the written record. Thank you.
Laurie Craghead then said that the City has recommended and staff also
recommends to not set a date certain, and additional public testimony can be
taken.
CURT KALLBERG:
I'm from Sisters. What I'm here for is that I've kind of been along with Neil on
this long ride. There has been a lot of work done by a lot of volunteers and
professionals. It's maybe not perfect. We've lost a few people along the way.
It has finally been approved by the citizens, the Planning Commission and the
City Council, and we've also got approval from the Deschutes County Planning
Commission. I'd like to see this go through soon. I'd like to thank Catherine
Morrow and Damian Syrnyk of the County for all their ideas and help. We've
waited a long time, and now it's in the County's Court.
Being no further testimony, the hearing was continued to not a date certain.
Notice will be posted and mailed as appropriate.
Laurie Craghead added that this was noticed as a legislative action and has been
treated as such. However, it could be quasi-judicial. That issue has not been
raised by the public. If people contact the Commissioners on an individual
basis, the Commissioners should put this on the record at the next hearing.
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-
019, Adopting a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-04.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 16 of 19 Pages
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
11. Signature of Letters Appointing John Ahrens, Bill Kuhn and Genevieve
Waldron to the Deschutes County 4-H/ Extension Service District Budget
Committee for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$7,402.35.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the
Amount of $2,753.60.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 17 of 19 Pages
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $285,806.05.
LUKE: Move approval, subject to review.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
15. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA.
Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-
024, Appointing an Acting Director/Directors for the Community
Development Department (while Director George Read is out on medical
leave).
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Michael Daly
adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 18 of 19 Pages
DATED this 31St Day of March 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
I�w4� fo�
Recording Secretary
(yc.a".." A
Dennis R. Luke, ommissioner
r jtL�41;t
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
Exhibit A: Public testimony sign -in sheet (one page)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Page 19 of 19 Pages
U)
a)
N
N
V
N
.E
r
M
'
�
Z
i
(0
UI
K
*0
LL
w
N
L
�
r
N�
C
.C±
N
Q
V
T
'Qa
0
1
r
Vo
Z
y
a
4
Ehibit
P e
( if