Loading...
2005-747-Minutes for Meeting May 11,2005 Recorded 5/27/2005DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL III][ 111111111111111111111 RECORDS Cn! V 20$7;7 CLERK 1 05127/2005 04;15;47 PM 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 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp, MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 119 2005 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; Mark Pilliod, Laurie Craghead, Larry Shaw and Mark Amberg, Legal Counsel; Sandy Humphreys, County Wellness Committee; Judy Sumners, Risk Management; Tom Anderson and Kevin Harrison, Community Development Department; Sharon Smith, representing the Sunriver Service District; media representative Lily Raff of the Bulletin, and Barney Lerten and Rick Myers, Z-21 TV; and approximately twenty-five other citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10:02 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation Declaring Wednesday, May 18 as Deschutes County and COIC Employee Health and Fitness Day. Commissioner Daly read the Proclamation to the audience. DALY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 1 of 17 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2005- 045, regarding the Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds by the State of Oregon. Commissioner Daly stated that in his opinion this action supports economic development in the area. Commissioner Luke added that sometimes public representatives have to support items that are a problem. DALY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-030, Accepting Petition and Setting a Date for a Public Hearing for the Tumalo Creek Development, LLC Annexation into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2005- 166, an Indemnity Agreement regarding the Bend Time Trial Series Bicycling Event. Judy Sumners explained that this bicycling event is currently going on; the concerns regarding safety and signage have been addressed. The organizers didn't come to the County before the event started, as they were unaware of the process. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 2 of 17 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2005-022, Regulating Social Gaming Activities within Deschutes County. Mark Pilliod said that this Ordinance would enable the Board to regulate a particular form of social gaming. Since the draft was distributed, some helpful and substantive comments have been received from the Sheriff's Office. The Board may need to address these comments at a later date. Commissioner Luke noted that there is a sunset provision, and before that time the Board should be able to review how the Ordinance is working. It is unusual that there were no public hearings held on this, but the Board can get input during the next year. It does not allow social gaming in taverns and bars, and it is very restrictive. The State is currently changing its laws on this as well. LUKE: Move first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair DeWolf then conducted the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: Move adoption. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 3 of 17 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 2005- 051, Adopting Special Procurement and Exemptions to the Public Contracting Rules for the Sunriver Service District. Bill Starks says that approval of this document is necessary in view of changes in state law enacted this year. The exception on page 10 establishes specific exemptions regarding contracts with the Sunriver Owners Association which provides specific services to the District. That language is the same as it was before. Mark Pilliod stated he has consulted with Sunriver Service District's counsel and is satisfied with how it is written. Commissioner Luke noted that except for the one item, it essentially mirrors what the County has adopted. Chair DeWolf said he hadn't had a chance to read the documents and wanted this item delayed until the May 25 agenda. CONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Discussion of a Protest of the County's Intent to Award a Contract for Mailing Services. Tom Anderson explained an RFP was issued for mailing services for his department, whereby mail pieces are transmitted electronically to the contractor who then prepares the information and mails it, certifies it has been handled as requested and electronically advises the Department of the results. They received an RFP from the existing contractor and another, Moonlight Mailing, who does provide other mailing services for the County. But in Moonlight Mailing's submittal they neglected to include pricing information on years 2 and 3 of the proposed contract period. It is a fairly straightforward issue that this piece was not included; thus their bid was rejected. They claim that it was included. Doreen Blome', staff, claims it was not with the original bid. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 4 of 17 Pages The hearing was moved back a week so they could participate, but they are not in attendance. Mark Pilliod said that because of the timing of the solicitation under new State statute, the bid protestor would need to establish one of five issues, and the only one that is even close is not including all the necessary documents; they must claim that the County has abused its discretion in this regard. The submittal they provided is not legally sufficient. He recommended they proceed with the contract award to the other bidder. Chair DeWolf opened the public hearing. Being no testimony offered, he closed the hearing. LUKE: Based on the fact that the appellant is not present to testify, and based on information and recommendations from Community Development and Legal Counsel, I move that the Board uphold the decision to award the contract to Bend Mailing Services; and that an order consistent with this decision be prepared for signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $9,382.75. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 5 of 17 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $488.79. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2005- 055, Transferring Appropriations within the Sheriffs Office Fund regarding Protective Clothing - Patrol. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $956,212.86. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 6 of 17 Pages The following items were addressed early in the meeting, after Item #3. Mark Pilliod stated that there is an opening statement for the Chair to read at the beginning of the Measure 37 hearings. Those individuals involved in the claims are entitled to speak; other members of the public are invited to submit written comments. The Board has discretion as to whether they would be able to testify. The County Administrator is required to submit a written opinion to the Board and a recommendation on how the claim should be handled. These documents have been made available to the public. The Board cannot make a final decision until the hearings are concluded. The decision has not yet been made on these claims; only a recommendation on each claim has been submitted. The Board has received for the record all of the materials submitted on each claim - the application, documents in support of the application, and comments from the applicants and other interested persons. Commissioner Luke said that if the applicant's claim is allowed and that claimant wants to build a structure or partition the property, there is a process the claimant must follow. The Chair read the opening statement at this time, to cover all of the claims addressed today. (A copy of the statement is attached as Exhibit B.) Regarding bias, prejudgment or personal interest of the Commissioners, none was offered by the Commissioners. In regard to challenges from the audience, one individual asked to speak. Lisa Angelo Randall stated that she feels a decision has already been made, and a representative of Z-21 TV suggested that it was a waste of time to appear today. She said she and her family want the Pretes to be able to build their home, but understand that the house may be built where she does not think it should, where it would block her view. Commissioner DeWolf said that applying for a building permit is a different process, and this has no effect on that process. Ms. Randall stated that she wants to protect the value of her property, and previously submitted a letter and photos to the Commissioners. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 7 of 17 Pages Commissioner DeWolf advised her that the Prete family have been before the Board several times in the past regarding their land use issue, and the Board declined to discuss it with them because of land use regulations in place at the time. He said that personally he feels they should be able to build a house, but can look at the issue with an open mind. He asked if Ms. Randall feels he should disqualify himself in this situation. Ms. Randall stated that she heard he had already told them it was approved. Commissioner DeWolf clarified that he gave them a copy of the documents. He asked if she wanted to challenge any of the Commissioners for bias or prejudgment. Ms. Randall stated no. At this time, Chair DeWolf proceeded. Commissioner Luke asked Legal Counsel to explain the process from this point forward. Mark Pilliod said that the County adopted an implementing ordinance that went into effect the day before Measure 37 went into effect; the ordinance sets out the procedure to follow. There was much discussion at the Board level prior to that. Community Development is the gateway to process the claims, and those being submitted at this time include the appropriate documentation. There are nearly 40 claims at this time, so additional staffing - a retired land use attorney - was brought in to help handle the claims. There has been considerable give and take involved between him and the claimants to get the proper documents. He has been working closely with Community Development staff, and this procedure has worked well to identify the regulations subject to challenge and the ones that were adopted after the application date. Legal Counsel and Community Development staff have largely been responsible for assembling the information for the County Administrator to review and submit for the Board's consideration. 13. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-023 (Prete), regarding a Claim for Compensation under Measure 37. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 8 of 17 Pages Tom Anderson explained that this was the first claim received by the County. The property is a twenty-acre parcel zoned EFU, and the intended use is for a single family residence. The land was acquired in 1990 and the owners applied for a non-farm dwelling in 1993 and were declined. Because of changes in State law, regulations went into effect after they purchased the property. It is believed there has been a change in value and that this is a valid Measure 37 claim. The Order attached to the report proposes to waive the EFU regulations that exist today and allow the Prete family to apply for their intended use as it existed in 1990. They have submitted the appropriate documents, paid the fee, and their ownership status has been verified. Commissioner Luke asked if the intended use would be a conditional use. Mr. Anderson said that it depends on the application. It is likely to be for a farm dwelling. They will also need to apply for septic approval. Mr. Pilliod stated that the regulations regarding siting the dwelling in 1990 will be needed for this case. It represents a necessary element whether to waive the EFU requirements, but there may be further discussion regarding setbacks and height limitations in place at that time. Mr. Anderson clarified that the siting of the residence would be a part of the land use application to come at a later date. Gene Prete, the claimant, indicated that he had no additional information to provide at this time. Chair DeWolf asked if anyone opposed the claimants' position. Lisa Angelo Randall and Joseph Randall came before the Board. They offered photos to the Commissioners. Commissioner Luke advised them that they should keep the photos for use at a future hearing regarding the development of the property. Commissioner DeWolf reminded them that the Board is only waiving the land use regulations, which has nothing to do with the siting of the house. That issue would be handled at a later date under the land use process. Tom Anderson added that it will likely come before a Hearings Officer and would be handled through a public hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 9 of 17 Pages Ms. Randall said that she and her husband certainly support the Pretes being able to build a home, but not where they have proposed to place it. She said they talked with the Pretes about blocking their views and want to make sure they don't do that. Commissioner DeWolf reiterated that this issue would be addressed at a future land use hearing. There are divisions within Measure 37 that state what has to be regulated. Septic systems are exempt, but other items may not be. They could have done what they wanted to do in 1992, but the law changed in 1993. Ms. Randall stated that she bought her property in 2001 and was told this problem wouldn't come up. The Pretes have said they want to protect the value of their land, but Ms. Randall wants to protect her land as well. She said she is the only one affected and hates to oppose this change, but doesn't want to sit back and watch a big house go up and block her views. Commissioner Luke asked if she is opposing the Order before the Board at this time. Ms. Randall said yes, if it allows them to build and block her view. Commissioner DeWolf stated that this goes back to 1990, and doesn't have an impact on the building process. Commissioner Luke said that if the Prete's claim is valid, the Board can either sign the Order, let it go to court, or pay the claim. Ms. Randall stated that she may have to hire an attorney to make sure her view is not affected. Mark Pilliod explained that the last section in the Order says something about impacting views, going back to the 1990 rules. Commissioner DeWolf suggested that she talk with Tom Anderson and his staff to find out what those rules cover. Being no other testimony offered, Chair DeWolf closed the public hearing. Commissioner Luke said that he believes staff has done an excellent job with handling this claim. He added that he feels this application meets the requirements of Measure 37 for a waiver or claim. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 10 of 17 Pages Commissioner Daly stated that he is a strong supporter of Measure 37, and feels this claim is a classic example of why Measure 37 was adopted. He added that he feels people should have the basic right to build a home on their land, and that this should have been allowed years ago. LUKE: Move to approve Order No. 2005-023. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 14. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-024 (Arnett), regarding a Claim for Compensation under Measure 37. John Arnett, 5792 NE 5th St., Redmond, is the claimant. The property is a 110- acre parcel zoned EFU, and the proposed use of the property is for approximately 25 five-acre lots. The land was acquired by Mr. Arnett in March 1969, and there were no restrictions or zoning in place at that time. Based on information submitted with the claim, this is a valid Measure 37 claim. The claimant submitted the appropriate form and paid the fee. The loss of value is alleged at $1.2 million. Approval of the Order would lift the 2005 zoning for the property and allow the applicant to apply for a subdivision with one exception, which is an important one. In addition to zoning restrictions, there is a process to govern how a subdivision can be approved. The claimant would need to make application and, as part of the process, the County would look at potential traffic impacts, infrastructure needs, safety issues and the plat approval process. This is detailed in Title 17 of the Code and governs how a subdivision gets approved, but does not preclude that use. Mark Pilliod explained that the claimant has challenged only the EFU zoning designation. To the extent that there are State regulations in place, the claimant may have to pursue a Measure 37 claim with the State in regard to ODOT road issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 11 of 17 Pages John Laherty, legal counsel for Mr. Arnett, thanked the Commissioners for their attention to Mr. Arnett's claim. In regard to the staff report, the only issue he does not agree with is the Title 17 regulations and to what extent they would be affected by a Measure 37 waiver. The issue is whether Mr. Arnett's property should be exempt from land use regulations that went into effect after he purchased the property. Mark Pilliod said that staff will need to review Measure 37 claims to determine whether those regulations have the effect of reducing property value. No analysis has been done on this property to show it has reduced its value. This issue is not before the Board today. Being no further testimony offered, Chair DeWolf closed the public hearing. Commissioner Luke said that this claim clearly falls within Measure 37 criteria. Commissioner Daly stated for the record that John Arnett is a friend of his, but that he would not benefit personally from this action. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 15. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-025 (Harry), regarding a Claim for Compensation under Measure 37. Tom Anderson explained that Marie and Laura Harry are the claimants for property located at 5170 SW Wickiup, Redmond. The property is about eighty acres zoned EFU. The proposed use is a ten-acre plot subdivision. The land was acquired in 1971. The claimant has submitted the form and paid the fee. Based on changes in land use law since 1971, this is a valid claim. Approval of the Order would waive today's EFU zone and allow the Harrys to apply for a subdivision. In 1971 the County had an A-1 zone in place for this property, which did have a five-acre minimum lot size. There were also regulations for the subdivision process that are fairly similar to those in place today. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 12 of 17 Pages This Order would allow the Harrys to apply for a subdivision. The land is owned in trust and was willed to family members, and Marie and Laura are the last remaining members of the trust. Mark Pilliod noted that the current ownership form is a revocable trust; these individuals have the authority to revoke the trust. The ownership would be the same, based on an examination of the ownership history. John Laherty, attorney for the claimant, stated that he concurs with most of the assessment of the claim, but there could be some issues later as to what specific regulations for the use of the property might be waived or exempted under Measure 37. He understands that this is not being addressed at this time. Being no further testimony offered, Chair DeWolf closed the public hearing. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 16. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-026 (Turner), regarding a Claim for Compensation under Measure 37. Tom Anderson explained that the claimants are David and Janice Turner, who own ten acres located on Bear Creek Road that is zoned EFU. The applicants propose eight one-acre lots in a subdivision. The claimants did not submit a claim form or a filing fee. The property, based on the application and its history, was acquired by the parents of Ms. Turner in 1957, and was acquired by David and Janice from the parents in 1999. Based on changes in land use rules since 1957, it is a valid claim under Measure 37. However, the language of Measure 37 in terms of ownership history, if the County chooses to waive the regulations, make it clear that the waiver would go back to the point when the current owners acquired it. The EFU regulations would be the ones in effect in 1999 and those rules would not allow the subdivision as it is proposed at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 13 of 17 Pages Mark Pilliod stated that a corresponding claim was filed by the claimants with the State of Oregon in December 2004. A copy of the draft staff report from LCDC addresses their claim against State law. The analysis the State follows is notably different, but insofar as the analysis of the Tuner's claim back to 1999, the State takes the same position as the County. Any waivers would go back to 1999, not to the date the parents acquired the property. Commissioner Luke said there are various opinions about Measure 37 after it passed. He had heard that even though you could only waive back to 1999, a claim for damages could go back to the original parents. Mr. Pilliod stated that there are a number of interpretations on how Measure 37 applies, but there has been no definitive ruling or court decision stating a specific result. Chair DeWolf opened the hearing at this time. David Turner and his legal counsel testified. It was pointed out that Mr. Turner has submitted the claim form to the County. In regard to the background of the property, their view is the waiver to 1999 is a corporate remedy. As noted in the staff report, consecutive family ownership goes back to 1957. The parents lived at the property until a couple of years ago until they had to move due to health issues. The 1999 transaction from the Fraziers to the Turners was done in large part to allow Ms. Frazier to continue to live on the property, but the property needed to be sold to the Turners. The property is a family property, and it is undisputed that it has been held in the family since 1957. It was pointed out that they are opposing the order because the State and County now read Measure 37 to completely gut the family concerns. (He referred to Subsection 3(e), which provides an exemption for property acquired by the owner or a family member.) He said that this section is ambiguous and isn't as clear as one would think. The ballot title and legislative documents show that voters contemplated Measure 37 to protect family properties and estate planning. They are prepared to challenge it in Circuit Court if necessary. Commissioner DeWolf observed that a section on page 8 also says that the owner is to use the property, not the in-laws or the parents. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 14 of 17 Pages Commissioner Luke said that there is a major bill going through the Senate that he hopes will clear up some of these issues, and it is possible they will be retroactive. Commissioner DeWolf stated that the County is not trying to get around anything; the Board wants to comply with the provisions of the Measure. If the decision the Board makes disagrees with that of the claimant, a provision is included that this can go to Circuit Court. If it is cleared up by the Legislature, it would be helpful. There is some ambiguity in the Measure, but the County doesn't want to act contrary to the Measure. Commissioner Luke added that the Legislature is working on correcting problems with Measure 37. It is very unclear in some aspects. It may take legislative action and court cases to clear them up. The County will do the best it can with what there is to work with. Being no further testimony offered, Chair DeWolf closed the public hearing Commissioner Luke noted for the record that Measure 37 can be a bit confusing, and those in the legal field have different interpretations. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 17. Before the Board was a Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-027 (Meland), regarding a Claim for Compensation under Measure 37. Tom Anderson stated that the property is located on Pioneer Loop. It is approximately ten acres zoned MUA-10. The claimants propose to partition it into two five-acre lots. The property was acquired in 1972. The filing fee and appropriate form were submitted. The property has been in continuous ownership the entire time. The Order would waive today's MUA-10 rules and allow the applicant to submit a partition under the rules in place in 1972. The zoning at that time was A-1, with a five-acre minimum lot size. This is a key point, since if the property is at least 10.0 acres the applicant would probably be allowed to split it. If it is smaller than that, a split would not be allowed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 15 of 17 Pages There is conflicting information in the record regarding the road. The GIS says it is 9.12 acres, the applicant says it is ten acres, and the Assessor says it is 8.5 acres. Bruce Meland, the owner of the property, said that he and his partner purchased the property in 1966. He bought the partner out after that time. The rules in place in 1966 should apply in this case. He said he submitted copies of the deed with the application. He would like to change the application itself and put in the correct information. There is documentation that shows ownership back to 1966. Tom Anderson noted that A-1 zoning was not in place in 1966. Mark Pilliod said that if the applicant wishes, the matter could be continued to a date certain so that he could have time to furnish this new information. Mr. Meland agreed. He said the time isn't up until July but agreed to extend it if necessary. Commissioner DeWolf continued the hearing to the Board meeting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 25, 2005. 18. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 16 of 17 Pages DATED this 11th Day of May 2005 for the Deschutes County I oard of Commissioners. Tom DeWolf, Chair ATTEST: &VAU_~ 6IkQIAI_ Recording Secretary M. ~Ddly, Commissioner is R. Luke, Commissioner Attachments Exhibit A: Sign-in sheet Exhibit B: Opening statement regarding Hearings on Measure 37 Claims Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Page 17 of 17 Pages N m H H s C Fn N L , ~ Y V E ~ C. ~ . 1 O Q S r+ N r r * m O *k ~l O C O N a M o ,J t N Cr l d H c ~b 3 G o U E xhibi t 2 a) U N D) C O U N x am w O CL Board of County Commissioners Measure 37 Hearing Process The Board of County Commissioners is now ready to open the hearing on a Claim brought against the County pursuant to Ballot Measure 37. The hearing before the Board is quasi-judicial, but not a land use decision. This proceeding is the only hearing provided by the County under the County code provisions which implement Ballot Measure 37. The Board's decision will be based upon the material submitted to county staff and furnished to the Board. The County code provides that the claimant and those persons who have previously submitted written material to the County on this matter will be given an opportunity to offer testimony bearing on the claim. This hearing is not open for comments from members of the general public. The decision by the County on this matter will be memorialized in a Final Order. The Final Order will be mailed to all those participating in this proceeding. The Final Order will also be recorded in the Clerk's Office. The criteria for this decision involving a claim under Ballot Measure 37 is contained within Chapter 14.10 of the Code. The applicable criteria are as follows: 1. The Claimant is the owner of the subject property; and 2. The Claimant or a family member has owned the subject property continuously since before adoption or the effective date of a county land use regulation; 3. The County's land use regulation is not exempt from challenge under Ballot Measure 37; and 4. The County's land use regulation has caused a reduction in the value of Claimant's property. If the Board determines that the criteria for compensation payment pursuant to Ballot Measure 37 has been established, and the claim is eligible, it may by written order decide that the county's land use regulation be modified, not applied to the claimant's property, or it may elect to pay compensation based upon the reduction in value attributed to the subject regulation. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit Q Page of The County's decision will not result in the issuance of a building permit, but will only allow the Claimant to apply for a permit without first complying with the challenged land use regulation. A Claimant must also comply with County regulations which were not challenged under Measure 37. Furthermore, the County's decision is not intended as having any effect on land use or other regulations adopted by other government entities, such as the State of Oregon or LCDC. Testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described above, or other criteria, which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Board and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue, may preclude judicial review based on that issue. The order of presentation is as follows: 1. The County Administrator's report and recommendation. 2. Claimant's presentation. 3. Witnesses who oppose the Claimant's position. 4. Rebuttal by the Claimant. 5. If new information is presented by the Claimant, then rebuttal by the witness in opposition. Any person that is interested in this matter may challenge the qualification of any Commissioner to participate in the hearing and decision. Such challenge must state facts relied upon by the party to a Commissioner's bias, prejudgment, personal interest, or other facts from which the party has concluded that the Commissioner should not participate as they are not impartial. Such challenge must be made prior to the commencement of the public hearing, and will be incorporated into the record of this hearing. Does anyone wish to challenge any commissioner's ability to hear this matter? If so, please say so now? Hearing no challenges, I will proceed. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit Page _ 2-~ of