Loading...
44-572-Minutes for Meeting November 11,1982 Recorded 12/3/1982DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EC 3 1982 NOVEMBER 11, 1982 - REGULAR MEETING RRY ~U1V 4 Chairman Shepard called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M. Commissions-ft er Paulson and Commissioner Young were also in attendance. Amendments to Chairman Shepard noted that the agenda would be amended. the Agenda to include a. Discussion regarding Disposal Fees to Non- licensed Haulers. Discussion re- Mike Maier, Director of Administrative Services noted garding 1982 that attorneys representing both sides of the Don Hall Elimination of Grievance were present and asked Richard Miller, attor- Equipment ney representing Deschutes County explain the issue now Mechanic II before the Board. At this point, Commissioner Young re- Position quested that introductions be made of all present. All present were: Richard Miller, attorney representing Deschutes County; Larry Huettl; Mike Maier; Larry Tuttle; Don Hall; Sharlene Sherwood, attorney represent- ing Don Hall; and June Wismuth. Mr. Miller had prepared a document for the Board out- lining the issue before them which he handed out. He stated that at this time the Board is being asked to determine whether or not they want to hear this matter. The basic issue before them has been raised by Ms. Sherwood in regard to the termination of the Equipment Mechanic II position in the current year budget. The other issue is whether Don Hall should have been the Equipment Mechanic II to be laid off as a result of that budgetary cut. The Board does have the option of having another body hear the matter. There was much further discussion in regard to how the position had been eliminated in the current budget and budgetary procedures. There was also considerable discussion in regard to the issue in general. Mr. Miller stated that they were prepared in the event that the Board should choose to hear the matter today. Ms. Sherwood stated that she did not feel that it would be appropriate for this Board to hear the matter as they were a party to the budget procedure, and would be in the position of not only serving as judge but as witnesses in the matter because of their decision in relation to the budget. She felt that another body should hear this or else wait until the two new Commis- sioners take office and let that Board hear the matter. Mr. Miller responded that he would be agreeable to having the new Board hear the matter in regard to the selection of the employee to be laid off, but would resist any hearing on the elimination of the position. However, if the Board should deem that the matter on elimination of the position should be heard, they would NOVEMBER 11, 1982 MINUTES: PAGE 1 Vol 4 4 not object to the new Board holding that hearing. Mr. Miller stated that he objects to hearing the budgetary (position elimination) matter because that was a legislative decision and is not subject to review through a contested hearing of this nature. Chairman Shepard felt that this budgetary matter should be addressed, Commissioner Young did not. Mr. Isham commented that there is a 60-day period in which to appeal legislative decisions and that time limit has expired. Ms. Sherwood responded that because she had not been notified of the decision the time limit should not be made to apply. There was further discussion in regard to the appeal procedure for legislative decisions, as well as the legal constraints in recreating a position after it had been eliminated from the adopted budget. Ms. Sherwood stated that she recognized the concerns about the budget process, but felt that the matter could be worked out and that the issue of rights to grieve under the Personnel Policies are not blocked because of legislative processes such as the budgetary matter. There was some discussion between the Board as to how they should proceed at this point. Commissioner Young stated that he did not wish the Board to hear this matter, that it should be settled in court. He remarked that it had been indicated that his decision may be challenged as being biased. Chairman Shepard stated that he would prefer that it be deferred to the new Board. MOTION: PAULSON moved that the Board postpone action in regard to Don Hall's attorney's request for hearing until the new Board of Commissioners comes into office and that this Board not set a specific date for that hearing, leaving that decision for the Board after the new Commis- sioners take office. SHEPARD: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: NO. Discussion re- Neil Hudson, Director of Public Works, had sent the garding Land- Board a memo outlining this item. He explained that fill opera- this was in regard to Fuqua Homes' and Kim Ward's use tions for non- of the landfills. Fuqua homes is requesting that they licensed users be granted a license at a cost of $1,000 per month so that they could dump on days that the landfill will now be closed. This is approximately the same cost they are now incurring on a monthly basis for use of the dump. Mr. Ward is requesting that he be allowed to dump his garbage at a rate of $2.50 per cubic yard as opposed to $4.00. He has a compactor truck and although he is not a franchiser, he would like to have the same rate. Mr. NOVEMBER 11, 1982 MINUTES: PAGE 2 VOi44 ~f Hudson recommended approval of both requests. There was some discussion in regard to the legality of changing fees more than once per year. Mr. Hudson stated that because this was a downward adjustment, he did not think it would be prohibited. Mr. Hudson also mentioned that the Inn of the Seventh Mountain hauls compacted garbage. This issue had been discussed at the Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting. MOTION: PAULSON moved to approve both recommendations providing that the fee modification complies with the law. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Discussion re- Craig Smith, Planning Department, was present to discuss garding Fee this matter. He explained that a Type II subdivision is Waiver for a subdivision consisting of between four and ten lots Type II Sub- which does not create an arterial or collector street. division Earl Nichols is requesting the fee waiver. The current fee is $300 plus $10 for each lot created. Mr. Nichols is requesting that the fee be reduced to between $180 and $200 which is what the fees for partitions are and this type of subdivision is comparable to a partition. Mr. Smith stated that the fees are in need of adjustment and it has been the intention of the Planning Department to recommend some adjustments in fees to the Board, however as yet that has not been done. There have been several Type II subdivisions so far this year and all of those applicants have paid the fee but did object to the high cost. There was some further discussion in regard to the possibility of granting this and setting preced- ent. Commissioner Paulson stated that he did not feel that this should be granted, but Mr. Nichols could be advised that these fees will be adjust at some point in the future and could wait until that time should he choose to pay a lesser fee. There was some further discussion. MOTION: PAULSON moved that the Board deny the request for waiver of fees. SHEPARD: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Mr. Smith stated that he would speak with John Andersen, Planning Director, in regard to adjusting fees. Central Ore- Mike Maier indicated that he had not been able to reach gon Economic Charlie Hemphill in regard to this grant proposal agree- Development ment. Commissioner Paulson stated that he would be Council Agree- willing to accept bi-monthly reports as opposed to ment monthly agreements if this were of concern to Mr. Hemp- hill. Mr. Isham stated that this monthly report NOVEMBER 11, 1982 MINUTES: PAGE 3 44 rAla575) coincides with a monthly report they are obligated to furnish to another authority so it should not present a problem. This will be postponed further until Mr. Hemphill can be consulted. Request for Before the Board were two requests for refund. The Refund first was for Bob Lovlien in the amount of $250 from the Planning Department. The next was for David Buffman in the amount of $234 from the Planning Department. The Board approved the requests. Discussion re- Chairman Shepard stated that he had met with Don Garris, garding Sewer Building Official, and Jay Langley, City of Bend, in re- Inspections gard to the fact that the County and the City are both performing sewer hook-up inspections in the Phase II sewer boundary. These are for homes located in the County but hooking up to the City of Bend sewer system. Applicants are being charged fees from both the county and the city for duplicate services. After meeting, however, no conclusions had been reached. Mr. Isham explained that according to the Building Code a certified inspector must inspect the hook-up and the City personnel performing inspections are not certified. Their job consists more of doing the actual hook-up and then inspecting their own work. According to the Department of Commerce Building Codes Division a cert- ified inspector must inspect the hook-up, which is why County inspectors have continued to perform this function. Mr. Isham suggested that the County apply for a variance from this requirement, which would make the County exempt from having to perform these inspections. Default on Mr. Isham explained that he had recently received not- Pollution con- ification that North Pacific Products had defaulted on trol Bonds their pollution control bond of which Deschutes County is named as issuer. He stated that the First National Bank of Oregon became a trustee under a lease/purchase agreement where Deschutes County became leasor and North Pacific Products became lease/purchaser. There has been a technical default on the part of North Pacific. Mr. Isham stated that he has not yet determined what every- one's rights and liabilities are, but will continue to keep the Board informed as new developments occur. NOVEMBER 11, 1982 MINUTES: PAGE 4 Being no further business, Chairman Shepard adjourned the meeting. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF CO ISSIONERS CLAY C SHE' RD, CHAIR. N ALBERT A. YOU[ffd',,/¢OMMISJYJ~6NER ROBERT C. P'AUL SON, JR., COMMISSION /ss NOVEMBER 11, 1982 MINUTES: PAGE 5