Loading...
2006-856-Minutes for Meeting February 06,2006 Recorded 8/30/2006COUNTY OFFICIAL P NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS ICJ 006.856 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL loll 1,,,1 1111 08/30/1006 04:22:25 PM 2005-8Sd Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book and Page or as Fee Number Es C Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MEETING MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Bev Clarno and Michael M. Daly. Also present was Mike Maier, County Administrator; Teresa Rozic, Commissioner's Office; Tom Anderson, Cathy White and Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Teri Maerki, Finance Department; media representatives Chris Barker of The Bulletin, and Barney Lerten of News Channel 21. Five other citizens were present. Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006- 011, Declaring Certain Personal Property Surplus and Directing Disposition (Wood Chipper.) DENNIS MORRIS; I am Dennis Morris with the Road Department. We have a wood chipper that we would like to declare as surplus property and donate to the City of Bend Public Works Department. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 1 of 32 Pages CLARNO: Move approval of Resolution 2006-011. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. At this time Commissioner Luke asked Tom Anderson to come up to discuss if he was transferring a piece of property back to La Pine Fire (modular unit.) He asked Mr. Anderson if that was going to be declared surplus or be kept. Mr. Anderson stated that they would like to keep the unit. It will not be declared surplus. CDD is making arrangements to move it to the South County building. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Documents No. 2006- 053 through 2006-061, Service Agreements for Evidence and Abandoned Vehicle Tows. SUE BREWSTER: For the record I am Sue Brewster from the Sheriff's Office and I have brought with me Rebecca Hallin, who is our Civil Deputy. COMMISSIONER DALY: You only have one Civil Deputy? BREWSTER: Yes, funny you should say that. Even though we do as much paperwork as Clackamas County that has seven Civil Deputies, we have one. MIKE MAIER: We have one real good one though! LUKE: She said you have two. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 2 of 32 Pages DALY: Does she get a lot of overtime? BREWSTER: She does get overtime every time we have a land sale, for instance. LUKE: I believe you have two Civil Deputies. BREWSTER: Well, there is an assistant to Rebecca, yeah. I apologize for the volume; we have, I think, nine contracts. This is an annual event where we contract with the tow companies to do the Sheriff's Office Abandoned Vehicles and the Evidence Vehicle tows. A prior Board decided to see these every year and put these out every year, even though it does not reach the threshold amount for money that you usually see in contracts. LUKE: How prior a Board was it? BREWSTER: It was probably twelve years ago, maybe fifteen. LUKE: It was not any member of this Board? BREWSTER: No, it was not any current members. At some point in time you could decide not to see these if you chose. This has been kind of a tradition every year that you review these. We can break these down into zones so that you have tow companies that contact for each zone. We added a provision in the contract this year about land use in that they had to be in compliance with land use. So we lost our two from South County; Marcum Towing and name covered up by another talking.). LUKE: They may have been located on land where they were not supposed to be located. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 3 of 32 Pages BREWSTER: That is apparently correct because they could not get the pass from Community Development. LUKE: You are probably not using the one that actually took the snowmobile that he impounded and put somewhere else. BREWSTER: That is one that is not in front of you. DALY: So, you have no towing service in South County now? REBECCA HALLIN: We are currently using Bend tow companies in South County. DALY: Bend tows? HALLIN: Yes, they are rotating in South County. DALY: Are the two South County people trying to get legal? BREWSTER: I don't know. They weren't at the time that these contracts had to be in front of you. DALY: When they do they can probably get one? BREWSTER: They would have to wait until next year. DALY: They would? Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 4 of 32 Pages BREWSTER: Yes. DALY: Why is that? BREWSTER: Because tow companies come and go we made the decision, instead of dealing with this throughout the year, we would deal with it one time. They needed to meet all the criteria at one time. LUKE: They know this? BREWSTER: They know it. They have known it for years. LUKE: If we just deputize Teresa, we will not have to deal with these things, right? BREWSTER: We may get there, at least with land sales. COMMISSIONER CLARNO: Sue, how many of these a year do we have? BREWSTER: This year we have nine. It might be eight, actually. Tract Towing just sold so I will be in front of you next week when the new people have a new contract. CLARNO: Average about nine a year? BREWSTER: That is right, different contracts. So you know that this is different, we also have a non preferential tow where if your car, as a private citizen, broke down 9-1-1 would call a tow. We don't get involved in that that is a separate... Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 5 of 32 Pages CLARNO: Move approval of Documents No. 2006-053 through 2006-061. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. DISCUSSION of a Hearing (Scheduled for Wednesday, February 8) on File No. M37-05-64, Order No. 2006-011 (Applicant: Mitchell) - Tom Anderson, Community Development; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel This item is scheduled for Wednesday. 5. DISCUSSION of a Hearing (Scheduled for Wednesday, February 8) on File No. M37-05-66, Order No. 2006-012 (Applicant: Shaw) - Tom Anderson, Community Development; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel This item is scheduled for Wednesday. 6. DISCUSSION regarding Developing a Master Plan for County-owned Acreage Located near Redmond - RFQ or RFP Process - Tom Anderson & Catherine Morrow, Community Development; Mike Maier, County Administrator MAIER: This is a follow up on the meeting we had with the City Council of Redmond the week before last. I think the direction was at that time to discuss the next steps to follow up on the RFQ/RFP process and master planning. I asked Tom and Catherine if they could kind of guide us through. I thought I was going to put this on Admin Liaison but it does not matter any way, you have a light agenda today so... I don't know if you are prepared Catherine to kind of give them an outline of where we should go or where we could go and we can get some direction. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 6 of 32 Pages CATHERINE MORROW: For the record, Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Planning Director. I don't know that I have anything to add to what I said at the liaison meeting with the City Council. My understanding after that meeting was that the City was going to take the initiative to draft an RFQ and that the Board would be able to review that to see if it had the elements that you thought were important for a respondent to do a master plan for the County owned property on the east side of Redmond. LUKE: I did not get that impression and perhaps you could check with City staff and see. I would hate to have this thing just sit out there. Maybe come back on Wednesday and talk with us a little more and see exactly where they are at in that process and how we might be able to assist them. One of the things that kind of concerned me, that I read in the Bulletin, was the Redmond School District going to sell a piece of property which is right up next to this or very close to this. One of the contingencies of the sale was that the City would have set the time line to bring it in to the Urban Growth Boundary, including utilities. That kind of pre-empts their whole process unless the School District has an agreement with them already. It seemed like a strange thing to have in a condition of sale. Did you read that article about the School District? MORROW: I probably did. As you know, and it was displayed at that liaison meeting, the City is working very hard and Peter Gutowsky from our staff is attending a lot of their technical advisory committee meetings with their public works people. They have identified land on the west side as the first priority for bringing it into the UGB. I think the land that they have identified there is sufficient acreage to meet their established need. So, if they were going to bring other properties in on the east side, whether it be the school property or any portion of the County owned property then they would have to reduce the land on the west side that they were bringing in. So, that would be an important thing to understand if we were going forward with a solicitation for qualified developers is what the timing would be for either bringing the school property in or County land. So, I will inquire about that. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 7 of 32 Pages LUKE: Correct me if you read that differently than I did but part of the condition of sale was that the City was going to agree to bring it in or at least give it a high consideration to bring it in. Otherwise, why would the person buy it? Sewer and water is not available to the property unless they bring it in. MORROW: I will inquire about that. The proposal that has been presented to the Planning Commission and to the City Council is a preliminary proposal on this. It is subject to adjustments. LUKE: I am not here to tell them what they should bring and what they should not bring, that is why they are elected to do that. I thought it was a little strange because it kind of preempts the planning process. DALY: Does that show the areas they are planning on bringing into the Urban Growth Boundary now? MORROW: No, Commissioner Daly. This is the map that was adopted that's the Urban Reserve. I would be happy to email you a copy of the map. I'll bring it on Wednesday of the land that they are talking about preliminarily identifying. DALY: Are you saying that all of it is on the west side? I thought some of it was on the east side too. MORROW: The map that they, I believe, handed out to you at that liaison meeting just shows land on the west side. DALY: I was not there. MORROW: Ok, I will make sure that you get a copy of that. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 8 of 32 Pages TOM ANDERSON: I was just going to add that Jim Hendrix is going to be in our office tomorrow morning for our monthly meeting with the builders and we can discuss with him roles. We were planning on making it a joint process and reviewing any material that they had developed in terms of an RFQ before anything goes out so we can insure that the County's perspective is included. Unless it is your preference that we take more of a lead roll in that, that is what we were planning on doing was just making that a joint process. LUKE: We just need to determine who is going to take the lead roll and get moving, is all. MAIER: Another thing which would be helpful is identifying not who is taking the lead roll, but how the process is going to go. Who is going to be on, for example, the selection committee of identifying who's qualified? Who is going to approve what the RFP says? Is it going to be the Commissioners, is it going to be City Council, a combination or... There was a discussion to have BLM involved, DSL involved, school districts... I don't know if you want to get into a great big giant party with a dozen people or do you want to keep it smaller, I don't know. I think we have got to lay that out and that's going to be the steering group that's going to say this is the wording, get it on straight. MORROW: We can sort that out with Mr. Hendrix and the City before Wednesday. We may not have a proposal but we will make sure that we get those questions qualified. The thing I would like to understand from the Board is what's your perception of the timing? I mean, is it important to move forward quickly or not with the RFQ process? LUKE: Personally, I think it is important to move forward quickly and still get a quality product. I mean, you don't want to move any quicker than it takes to get a quality product. You have to get a quality product out of this. You mentioned that there are different levels of master planning. I think you are talking about ...I think you can get too specific. You need to talk about where the main roads are going to go so people will know. The City should Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 9 of 32 Pages have most of that mapped out anyway where the connector roads will tie, where the utilities will go, all of that. Generally, where is the commercial, where is the residential and those can always be adjusted as people come in with their own plan. I think those are the key areas we are looking for. Is there something else you would add? MORROW: I think that this first step is just to get a group of qualified developers or respondents. We would just be asking for their qualifications, financials, and their ability to take on a project of this scale. Then, once a selection committee reviewed that and interviewed, they would select a respondent and then that respondent would actually come back with a proposal. That would be the sort of thing that you are talking about. I guess the thing that we will have to identify in the RFQ is, what it is that we are going to want in the RFP so that we can evaluate whether their capable of doing the actual proposal. It was not clear to me in light of UGB expansion and City plans whether the RFQ would have to identify any timeline for actually bringing any of this land in. LUKE: I don't think you can force the City to do that. I think, unlike the process that is being conducted currently in Madras, maybe it is done and the Prineville one, I think Brooks Resources is doing that. I don't think you are ready to come in, in the near future. I don't think you are going to bring that land in the way the City is. I could be wrong, I don't know when the City would bring it in. You are not going to bring the whole 1800 acres in, it will come in pieces. MORROW: Not for a long time. LUKE: It is different than the Madras plan and it is different than the Prineville Plan. What was suggested to us was that the land value would be more if people knew, eventually, what they would be able to build there. When we were going through this whole process about do we sell land for the jail, I called Brooks Resources and talked with them. They are the ones that said smaller chunks of property that they could sit on, they could justify that within their business plan because they are here for a long time. So is Hap Taylor, so is Matt Day, a lot of other developers are here for a long time, Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 10 of 32 Pages whether the actual person is here or not, the company should be here. They need to invest in their future but they can't afford to put all their money in their future because some of it has to be today. What will you guys be looking for? CLARNO: I think when we discussed at the Redmond meeting Catherine, what did you say is the RFQ and RFP... would be a time length? Was that when you were talking about 9 to 10 months or was that just the RFQ? MORROW: Well, I think the points that Commissioner Luke has raised about we need to identify who is the steering committee and who needs to make decisions on the RFQ before it even goes out. Hopefully, we can wrap that up pretty quickly, maybe by the end of February or something. The actual document could go out and maybe it would be open for a month, then we get respondents, and then another three weeks or so to have interviews. So, it could be a three or four month process just to select a qualified respondent and then one would have to negotiate what would be expected in terms of a proposal. Is that how you would see it working Mike? MAIER: I got the impression that we are looking at about six to eight months. Six months being very fast and eight months being more realistic to get to a point where we have got someone that there is going to be a public/private partnership with. The other thing I really want to be clear on; the development of all this stuff. It would be by the private partner in the sense that we're not looking at spending money except for our own time and our own staff. But, we are not going to go out and hire a consultant for six figures to do this. That's where I think we are at and I got the impression that it could be done without a great deal of expense. MORROW: On the County's part? MAIER: On the County's part. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 11 of 32 Pages MORROW: Right. The City, and this is something we can talk with Jim Hendrix about, ultimately, I guess the City Council is... There may be more contribution from Redmond in terms of infrastructure but that would be worked out when the private/public partnership was established. MAIER: Some of these monies could come from the land that we sold them for 47 cents a foot that was identified for infrastructure development. I know that they are in the process of disposing of that land at more than 47 cents a foot. LUKE: They were supposed to get their infrastructure costs. MAIER: This could very well fall into that. CLARNO: Mr. Maier made a point that I support in that we should not have a multitude of folks making the selection process. Certainly encouraging input but it seems to me like the City of Redmond and the County would be the major folks that would determine the... MORROW: So, in terms of our discussion of who might be the small selection committee for the RFQ, would you expect one of you Board members to be on that committee? LUKE: Why don't you talk with the City of Redmond and come back to us. I don't want to prejudge what the City is thinking, although, this is our process. I need clarification, I guess. When they chose the master developer in Madras and Prineville there was a reason for that company to put funds into the master development process, because they were going to develop it. A master plan to me of this area, because we are not ready to develop... So, what is the advantage to a private company to do the plan for us for free if they are not going to develop it? Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 12 of 32 Pages MORROW: I guess we will have to find out in the RFQ if there is an advantage. MAIER: I got the impression you do the RFQ, you narrow it to say two qualified people and they are going to spend some money in making their proposal. They are going to spend thousands of dollars to put something of quality together to the Board and the Board is going to select, say, ABC Incorporated. Their willingness to pump funds into this is that they are going to be the developer. LUKE: But you are not going to have it developed for a while. You are predisposing their buying the property. MAIER: Then if we are not going to develop it for years and years, no one is going to put any money in, we ought to just leave it alone. LUKE: I think you need to master develop it so you know where the roads go, how the City wants to zone, where they want the industrial and where they want the commercial. MAIER: Then I think you have a whole different deal. Then you are looking at six figures to hire your own consultant to do the plan and you are not working with the private sector and what they think could be developed. DALY: I think that is exactly what I was thinking too is, I don't know of a private developer that will spend a lot of funds without some assurance that they are going to be able to reap some benefits in the end. MAIER: I think the assurance will be that you would sign some type of agreement that they are going to be the developer. I am assuming something comes in, in two years, three years, or five years. They are betting on the long haul, I would assume. That is my thinking. Duaiu ui wmmissioners- Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 13 of 32 Pages DALY: We're talking property that won't even be brought into the Urban Growth Boundary for fifty years, right? Some of it I mean. MAIER: Todd Taylor was not talking that way when he was talking to us at that meeting. They said there is going to be public/private people that would be more than willing to step up, at least that is what I heard. MORROW: I think we have some projections about what the growth rate is going to be. We won't know until the Urban Growth Boundary is actually amended whether there will be any on the east side or not. What Mike Maier suggested is that after we go through the RFQ, then we do an RFP. The RFP will lead to a negotiated private/public partnership that presumably will have terms that give some benefit to the person who is going to do the master plan. That benefit, presumably, would be that they get a piece of the action. When that would be would be dependant on the City's need for additional commercial, residential, and industrial land. Their plan that they would submit as part of their RFP would lay out the components of the commercial, industrial, and residential transportation infrastructure. LUKE: We need to have some more discussions. MORROW: We will. DALY: The other option would be that City of Redmond and County jointly hire someone and do the master plan ourselves. LUKE: I like the idea of the private sector being involved in helping plan this. I am not sure I want to go...Mike is probably referring to Juniper Ridge where the City of Bend has gone. I am not sure I would want to do that. I think you need, very much, the private sector being involved in this process so you get a product that someone in the private sector might want to buy someday. --u -w minbsioners worK session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 14 of 32 Pages DALY: I agree, the private sector would be great if they will step up and do it. We have to be very careful on how we pick this private person to do this because we don't want to get a lot of criticism. ANDERSON: We probably can't dictate at this point where we are going to be at the very end of the RFP process, the second phase. This is kind of a one step at a time type of flow here. I think a lot of questions may be answered, some more questions will come up, and issues will come up once we get through the first process, the RFQ process. As part of that the respondents are going to suggest the different next steps, different ways this could go and also their interest level based on the expected timing. This will be an interactive process that we go through. LUKE: We will look forward to you coming back Wednesday, after your conversations with Redmond. This item will be continued on Wednesday. 7. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-036, Transferring Cash among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2005- 06 Budget, and Directing Entries - Marty Wynne, Finance Department LUKE: Items 7 through 12, I asked Teri to come, Bev, and just talk about it. We do this every month so I thought I would have her talk about the first one. TERI MAERKI: Teri Maerki with the Finance Department. The first item is the order transferring cash. This is prepared monthly by the Finance Department. The items that are listed on here are pulled from the schedule that is attached to the order. The schedule is prepared at the end of the budget process where we summarize all of the cash transfers between the funds. It is determined whether they should be monthly, quarterly, semiannually transfers and then each month we will go through and pull the numbers off there to create this document. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 15 of 32 Pages LUKE: Let's do the first one. You are pulling money from the general fund, non- departmentally, to transfer to Community Justice. This is part of the general fund transfer that Juvenile Justice will get every month because we transfer certain amounts of money to them. MAERKI: That is correct. DALY: What determines that amount? MAERKI: This comes from the budget, so when the budget is approved we go through the process of how much they need and what the Commissioners and lay board members decide that they are going to transfer and that is where the total comes from. Then we decided if it is going to be monthly or quarterly. Most of the ones that go to the Juvenile Justice, Health, and Mental Health, those kinds are done monthly so that their cash flow stays even. DALY: Is typically $430,000.00, is that the amount that they get every month? MAERKI: Every month. LUKE: Teri, another one, on page two of that one. To account 255, transfer the Sheriff's Law Enforcement Fund transfer from Transient Room Tax so this is somewhat determined by how much money we get in to the Room Tax every month, or every quarter? MAERKI: That's true. LUKE: Then the Sheriff gets a certain percentage of that. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 16 of 32 Pages MAIER: Sheriff gets 80% and COVA gets 20%. I think we have a budget number based upon our estimate. MAERKI: We do have a budgeted number. MAIER: If we exceed that we can handle it, hopefully we exceed it. LUKE: All of them are summarized on the last page there. CLARNO: Move approval of Order No. 2006-036. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 8. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-012, Transferring Appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to Capital Outlay (La Pine Senior Center Fund) - Marty Wynne, Finance Department LUKE: The next one is for the La Pine Senior Center? MAERKI: That is correct. We are trying to get all the expenditures into one fund, Fund 127. Currently I think it was planned to be split between the Community Development Block Grant Fund and this fund but we thought it would be better to get the project all into one fund. -vaiu ul wminissioners worK Jesslon Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 17 of 32 Pages LUKE: It is easier to track the expenses against the income. This particular project has four or five sources of income grants, some general fund money, and some other funds. So, you have taken all those different funds and put into here? MAERKI: We are going to funnel it right through here, right. CLARNO: Move approval of Resolution No. 2006-012. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 9. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-013, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance Department Luke: Next one is transferring appropriations within the Fair & Expo Fund from Contingency to Capitol Outlay. This is to buy a piece of machinery? MAIER: Yes, I think it is a replacement compressor that blew, but I am not positive, Dennis. DALY: Phone system. MAIER: The phone system, sorry I was thinking of something else. DALY: The phone system was higher than they figured and then they bought some other stuff figuring it was going to be lower than they figured, but they are a little bit over budget, $2,000.00 is not too much. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 18 of 32 Pages MAIER: I think on the phone system we also included 4H/Extension, which they did not have any money so we paid for that. LUKE: It is our building. CLARNO: Move approval of Resolution No. 2006-013. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 10. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-014, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Health Department Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance Department LUKE: Resolution 2006-104 is the Ocean System, which is the accounting system out at health. MAIER: The Ocean system is a system that we co-op with, with a number of other Counties. We were very fortunate to be a part of that. It was a multimillion dollar system which cost us a fraction because of the grants we got from the State and because of the Ocean product. It does all of their medical billings and everything. Teri probably knows a little more of what exactly it does but it has been a real god send for us out there. LUKE: This transfer continues to pay for that system. boarct or commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 19 of 32 Pages MAERKI: It is because it was originally based on how many patient visits that they thought they would get. They underestimated so this is an additional piece they have to pay. DALY: They underestimated? MAERKI: The number of patient visits, that is right. DALY: So it cost us more than we figured? MAERKI: A little bit more, yes. DALY: Ok. CLARNO: Move approval of Resolution No. 2006-014. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: CLARNO LUKE: Yes. Aye. Chair votes yes. 11. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-015, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County General Fund, Veterans' Services Department - Marty Wynne, Finance Department LUKE: Resolution 2006-015 General Fund, Veteran Services Department from Personnel category PERS line item to Capitol Outlay. I think we had to buy a laptop. We did not need the money in personnel? Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 20 of 32 Pages MAIER: No. Actually, we are doing pretty well in there. Mike has been a part of that task force, for whatever, where we picked up funds from the State. I think they are in the process of putting together a proposal for Board consideration but the State Department of Veterans Affairs has increased the monies coming to the County Veteran's Offices. We have received the same amount since 1984 and have not had an increase. We subsidize the majority of our Veteran's services here with general fund monies but this last legislative session... Mike, the amount you are telling me, are we are going to get $45,000.00 a year for two years? DALY: More than that, I think it is $70,000.00. It was eighty something but we had that Multnomah County... LUKE: Is that bi-annum or per year? DALY: I think that is per year. It is a huge jump in what we were getting. MAIER: The only thing is you can't supplant funds that you are already spending, which is understandable. There are no assurances that the money will be there the following year. I have talked with Susan, Susan has Veteran's, and they are going to put together a proposal for the Board to look at. We don't want to go and ramp up and then cut it in two years. One thought is maybe we try to sustain it over a number of... We don't have to spend all the monies right away but maybe we do something over a five or six year period. It is to improve or increase outreach to the Veteran's. DALY: We had quite a battle there. Multnomah County was not going to get any money out of this but they ended up getting about $100,000.00, I think. MAIER: They were not going to get any money because they do not spend any money. That was the gripe that we had was that Multnomah County does not put any County funds into the Veteran's Services like a lot of other counties. This was Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 21 of 32 Pages to complement the County funds that were being put in. Multnomah County has a little clout, so they still ended up with a little bit of money. DALY: The biggest issue was it was based on need, and the State Department of Veteran's Affairs figured Multnomah County already had a maximum number of service officers there to service their Veteran population. A lot of counties in Eastern Oregon did not. It was based on need is the way they were trying to disperse the dough. Anyway, Multnomah County took exception and it was quite a battle but they did get some money out of this which reduced ours about $10,000.00 a year, basically. LUKE: Many cities in the State have what we call category budgets where we are a line item. MAIER: They have a program budget and generally you don't know where the money goes, it just goes into a program. LUKE: Because we have a line item budget, we have to do these to be able to move... They can move money from one line to the other up to a certain amount. MAIER: Ours may seem cumbersome at times, but you can read out budget. Even though it is thick, you can sit down and say how much do the County Commissioners get and they are not stuck in a big program of $7,000,000.00. You can see exactly what they receive so we probably have a way more understandable budget than most local governments in the State. MAIER: It is a little mechanical. LUKE: Any questions? nuaru of k-ommissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 22 of 32 Pages CLARNO: No, I just like Mr. Maier's comment about being careful if you have a larger amount than usual but this seems to be... We are not necessarily going to have fewer Veterans to take care of. MAIER: We have a real high ratio of Veterans to the population, one of the higher ones in the State, so we will see a lot more. CLARNO: We need to keep a cushion there. MAIER: I don't know what the proposal will be. If it is for more capitol stuff, it will probably be better. Hopefully, we don't get into personnel and it is something we can sustain for at least five or six years. CLARNO: Move approval of Resolution No. 2006-015. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: CLARNO LUKE: Yes. Aye. Chair votes yes. 12. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-016, Appropriating New Grant Funds in the Health Department Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance Department LUKE: The last one is a grant that came in and you had to appropriate the grant or move the money into line items so the money could be spent. MAERKI: Right, this is for the Health Department. MAIER: It is a lot harder to hide money in a line item budget. nuaru ur i,ommissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 23 of 32 Pages LUKE: We typically won't go into this much detail every month so as you go through our agendas if you have questions make sure you highlight them and we will make sure somebody from Finance is here. Do you have any questions? CLARNO: Move approval of Resolution No. 2006-016. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 13. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for Sisters/Bend KOA LUKE: Discussion and consideration of Chair signature of Oregon Liquor Control License application for Sisters/Bend KOA. DALY: Move approval of Chair Signature of Liquor License Application for the 4 Seasons Garden Resort LLC in Sisters. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 14. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for El Pescador, Sunriver LUKE: Discussion and consideration of Chair signature of Oregon Liquor Control License application for El Pescador. tsoara or Lommissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 24 of 32 Pages CLARNO: Move approval of Chair Signature of the Liquor License for Sunriver. DALY: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-037, Amending Order No. 2006- 019 regarding the Sale of Real Property - Teresa Rozic, Property Management TERESA ROZIC: For the record, Teresa Rozic, Property Specialist. We are asking you to consider an amendment to the order that you signed a few weeks ago for the Public Auction. In conversations with the Sheriff's Office we have become aware of some amendments to law from the 2005 session that affect the ability of successful bidders to use cashiers checks. We have also become aware of some logistical issues having to do with the proof of publication and the time needed to file that with the County Clerk and then file in the deed records. The Sheriff's Office is concerned that my schedule was not adequate. I left a week for that task to be accomplished and historically that can not be accomplished in a week's time. So the second amendment this order addresses is the date of the auction. We are moving it from the 17th to the 30th of March. DALY: So you need a motion to approve Order No. 2006-037, I will make that motion. LUKE: The Sheriff's Office is okay with this and they will be conducting the sale, is that what I understand? BREWSTER: Because we typically do a lot of these and the County has not done one in seven years, a lot has changed. For this sale it made more sense for Rebecca to conduct the sale and go through the process as a learning tool. Boarct of Lommissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 25 of 32 Pages LUKE: That is one of the reasons we are going with a smaller sale because there is a larger sale coming up, to work out the bugs. LUKE: Mike Maier pointed out we might use an auctioneer on the larger sale but on this one we weren't looking at doing that, is that correct? MAIER: I would like to give serious consideration to doing that. I know when we had the last one we had a professional auctioneer and I think they can squeeze a little extra money out of that especially if you have competition. We are not going to have some of the competition, conceivably, with these particular lots. That auction, I think, probably got us and extra 20% by pumping these people up. So I think Teresa is going to look into that on the next one. DALY: That will be conducted in this room, is that right? LUKE: This order changes some of the date and some of the notification requirements, is that pretty much what it does? ROZIC: Not the notice requirement, but just the language within the requirement that addresses how cashiers checks can be accepted. MAIER: Make sure this room is available, it might not be. ROZIC: It is. DALY: Move approval of Order No. 2006-037. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Aye. LUKE: Chair votes yes. -"ucuu vi %-umirnssioners woric session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 26 of 32 Pages Reopen the Record in Case Files A-0506, SP-05-13 & LM-05-22, the Christian Life Center Amphitheater, to allow the applicant and others to respond to new evidence submitted in rebuttal period that ended 2/2/06. LUKE: This is a discussion on whether to reopen the record, or we already have reopened the record, or what do we have? CATHY WHITE: My name is Cathy White, I am Associate Planner with the Deschutes County Planning Division. On Friday we received a request to reopen the record and the last request that the Board approved was January 23rd to reopen the record. There is a provision in that Order, Order 2006-033, I think it is, that says for new information that came in by February 2"d, if somebody wants the record to be reopened to respond or rebut to what they believe to be new evidence that came in on the 2" d, that they had to submit their request on Friday. That is what Liz Francher did, who represents the applicants. Before the Board today is a request to reopen the record but the Board needs to make a finding. I am going to pass out the Order 2006-033 and then the opponent's traffic study. The Board needs to make a finding that there is or is not new evidence submitted. We believe this to be a legal question and we discussed this briefly with Legal Counsel this morning who can advise the Board about that. LUKE: Cathy, before you pass those out, you said January 26th? WHITE: The order is January 23rd LUKE: If I remember, we had both the applicant and the opponent, represented by Paul Dewey, came to that meeting and asked that the record be reopened and that the opponent was going to pay for the mailing. WHITE: That is correct. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 27 of 32 Pages LUKE: Commissioner Daly I think you were gone. I was going to vote no because I thought there was no reason to open the record but since he was not here I voted yes because both the applicant and opponent were here. So the record was open and in the mean time we have received more written correspondence because of the record being open. WHITE: Yes, the Order that the Board approved in January 23rd has a provision in there that allows the applicant or a party to request the record to be reopened once again if the Board determined that new evidence was submitted by February 2"d. The applicant's attorney is arguing that new evidence was submitted and therefore the record should be open. Then there is a new revised schedule to follow. LUKE: Okay, whatever you want to pass out. WHITE: I am handing out the Order and what the applicant is objecting to is the traffic study and that is what that blue tab is. MARK PILLIOD: Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel. As I understand it the Board is operating under, you might say, the ground rules that were established in this Order, 2006-033. You have received materials relative to what has been asserted by Liz Francher to be new evidence and what Mr. Dewey believes is not new evidence. The request by the applicant's attorney, Liz Francher, was submitted in a timely fashion. Again, the ground rules, 2006-033, basically leaves it to the Board to decide if this is new evidence or not. If the Board finds that it is new evidence and there has been a timely request for reopening, again, follow the ground rules laid out in that order and you reopen it. I am not here to offer any opinion about the quality of the evidence or whether it is the best evidence that could be presented. Clearly, it is not a study, if you will, conducted by a traffic engineer, but it is an opinion based upon observations and submitted by a person who is reportedly a traffic engineer. Again, if it is not repetitious of what is already in the record, which I don't believe it is, then I think the Board would be justified in determining it is new evidence. Again, following the ground rules laid out in that order, reopening it in accordance with those rules. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 28 of 32 Pages LUKE: I guess this is not a Public Hearing. This is for Staff and the Commissioners, it is not for the public to testify. PILLIOD: You mean today? LUKE: Yes. PILLIOD: Yes, that is correct. WHITE: I would just like to add that if the Board does not find that it is new evidence, then the procedures to follow go back to what the Board established in the Order 2006- 033. If the Board does decide that this is new evidence then the reopening of the record gets revised just a little bit in order to allow different submittal times. LUKE: If you open the record only the applicant has the opportunity to rebut, is that how I read this? WHITE: It looks like, if you reopen the record, February 24th says the deadline for filing rebuttal of evidence or argument to any new evidence filed during the comment period that ends on the 2nd. To me that would mean any party because it does not seem to exclude or particularly include a party. Is that your reading on that? PILLIOD: Yes. LUKE: We can put this off until Wednesday if you want to have an opportunity to go through this. The question becomes how much time do people have to respond to this if we put it off? Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 29 of 32 Pages DALY: I just have a question of Mark. The total issue here is whether or not this statement by this traffic engineer is considered new evidence that he is to be rebutted. Is that correct? PILLIOD: That is correct. DALY: Did I hear you say you think it is new evidence? PILLIOD: Well, if you are asking for my opinion, I believe it is but the Board needs to make that judgment. It is really the Boards decision to make. I think the Board could, based on what's been presented here, conclude that all things considered, it appears to be new evidence and not simply an argument over evidence otherwise submitted to the Board. DALY: I will go a little bit further in looking at Mr. Dewey's submittal here, he is taking something out of the record apparently from Mr. Allen Morris. He has underlined that fact that they go very fast over that hill and they are going to have to stop and there are going to be problems associated with that. I think that's probably the same hill that this traffic engineer is supposedly making his comments about, is that correct? PILLIOD: I think, if I understand the point that Mr. Dewey is trying to make, it's that there has previously been submitted what he refers to on the second page is substantial evidence dealing with the traffic conditions in and around the entrance to this facility, or proposed facility. I don't think that the Board has any, the Board could find that they agree with that statement. That does not really assist the Board in determining what has now been presented, is evidence. The fact that the argument has been presented, that there has been other evidence that has been presented, that the issue is squarely before the Board, is irrelevant to the Boards decision to be made today which is; has the material that has been submitted, i.e., the letter or the statement from this traffic engineer, evidence. Is it or not? Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 30 of 32 Pages LUKE: I don't know what Allen Morris's occupation is but if it is not a traffic engineer, that's different than an ordinary citizen making that type of observation and a traffic engineer making that. PILLIOD: Again, it really goes to the weight and the credibility of that evidence. We are not here to reflect on that. We are here to determine is it or is it not new evidence. CLARNO: Did you not, in an earlier statement, say in your opinion the last paragraph prior to Mr. Bernstein's signature, that paragraph is not repiticious? PILLIOD: I really don't know that because I am not familiar with the record. I don't know whether it is repetitious or not. DALY: So, if we allow for rebuttal, I think that is what the request is, the applicant is asking to be able to rebut this statement by this supposed traffic engineer? PILLIOD: Yes. DALY: That's the sole issue? Is that the only thing that they are going to be able to talk about if we allow the record to remain open for rebuttal? PILLIOD: I am assuming that the only material that might constitute new evidence that was submitted by the deadline of February 2°d was this written opinion from this professional engineer. Again, referring to the ground rules in 2006-033, that would be the focus of any rebuttal evidence. DALY: Okay. LUKE: You want to wait until Wednesday or do you want to make a decision today? Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 31 of 32 Pages DALY: I can make it today. CLARNO: I am fine with today. DALY: Move approval that we allow the record to remain open for rebuttal. LUKE: So you are making a finding that Robert Bernstein's statement is new evidence? DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Second. VOTE: DALY: Yes. CLARNO: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Being no further items coming before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 11: 00 a. m. DATED this 6th Day of February 2006 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 2 s R. Luke, Chair Bev C y rno, Vice Chair, ATTEST: is 'el .Daly, ommissioner /Recording cretary Board of Commissioners' Work Session Minutes Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 32 of 32 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend 1. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Visitors who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up sheet provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. 2. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-0115 Declaring Certain Personal Property Surplus and Directing Disposition (Wood Chipper) - Dennis Morris, Road Department 3. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Document Nos. 2006-053 through 2006-061, Service Agreements for Evidence and Abandoned Vehicle Tows - Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office 4. DISCUSSION of a Hearing (Scheduled for Wednesday, February 8) on File No. M37-05-64, Order No. 2006-011 (Applicant: Mitchell) - Tom Anderson, Community Development; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel 5. DISCUSSION of a Hearing (Scheduled for Wednesday, February 8) on File No. M37-05-66, Order No. 2006-012 (Applicant: Shaw) - Tom Anderson, Community Development; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel 6. DISCUSSION regarding Developing a Master Plan for County-owned Acreage Located near Redmond - RFQ or RFP Process - Tom Anderson & Catherine Morrow, Community Development; Mike Maier, County Administrator Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 1 of 7 Pages 7. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-036, Transferring Cash among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2005- 06 Budget, and Directing Entries - Marty Wynne, Finance Department 8. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-012, Transferring Appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to Capital Outlay (La Pine Senior Center Fund) - Marty Wynne, Finance Department 9. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-013, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center Fund - Marty Wynne, Finance Department 10. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-014, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Health Department Fund -Marty Wynne, Finance Department 11. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-015, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County General Fund, Veterans' Services Department - Marty Wynne, Finance Department 12. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2006-016, Appropriating New Grant Funds in the Health Department Fund -Marty Wynne, Finance Department 13. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for Sisters/Bend KOA 14. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for El Pescador, Sunriver 15. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, February 6, 2006 Page 2 of 7 Pages ❑ -t Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006 1. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2006-037, Amending Order No. 2006-019 regarding the Sale of Real Property - Teresa Rozic 2. Reopen the record in Case Files A-0506, SP-05-13 & LM-05-22, the Christian We Center Amphitheater, to allow the applicant and others to respond to new evidence submitted in rebuttal period that ended 2/2/06.