2007-837-Minutes for Meeting September 26,1979 Recorded 6/19/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2001■837
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0611912007 11;21;01 AM
1111111111111111110 111111
2007-83
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
r
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
or as Fee Number
and Page
q
a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS
September 26, 1979 - DAILY MINUTES
Chairman Shepard opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. with all three commissioners
present. Mr. Shepard turned the meeting over to Charles Plummer who opened the
bids for the sedan for the road department. The first bid was from Murray and
Holt Motors Inc.. The bid was for $6,793.49 for a car as specified by the Board;
the second was from Robberson Ford, Inc., as specified--$5,981.69. Robberson
Ford appears to be the lowest bidder. The bid will be granted after Mr. Plummer
checks the extensions and returns the information to the Board.
The next item on the agenda was a discussion by Commissioner Young regarding
Folmer Bodtker's removal from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Young
reminded everyone of the draft he had read at the press conference earlier
this morning. Commissioner Young said that he would like to make a motion in
regard to the removal of Folmer Bodtker--he moved that a hearing be held at
11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 28 in Conference Room A at Deschutes County Court-
house Annex for the purpose of Folmer Bodtker being able to answer any charges
that Commissioner Paulson or Commissioner Shepard may have made against him.
There being no second to the motion, it died. There was some discussion on the
matter and the motion.
Next on the agenda was Dolo Cutter and Ross Brown in reference to CLUE(Committee
for Land Use Education. Mr. Brown was the attorney representing the group in
order to make a request of the commissioners. After giving the Board some history
in regard to the input of citizens to the comprehensive plan, Mr. Brown stated
that CLUE would like to request of the commissioners that they return the com=
prehensive plan to the planning commission for a period of 90 days in order to
allow the planning commission to speak with the heads of the various divisions;
to reincorporate or re-review citizen committee input. Mr. Brown spoke of a letter
received by the Board of Commissioners regarding this request dated September 12,
1979. Mr. Brown introduced Mr. Don Walker to talk about the agricultural side
of the issue. Mr. Walker addressed the Board in a statement against the EFU
movement the Board has made. Mr. Walker made the same request that Mr. Brown
did in that he wants the plan to go back to the planning commission. Mr. Walker
stated that the plan in its present form could do irreparable damage to the citizens
of Deschutes County. Two of the main areas of concern are Exclusive Farm Use
zoning and dimensional size lots. Mr. Walker further explained what EFU zoning
could do to the County. Mr. Walker spoke of EFU zoning as a tax loophole for
people who wanted to farm some but did not want to pay any taxes. Mr. Walker
said the dimensional standards are far too restrictive and counter-productive
for the following reasons: a) if farm land in Deschutes County is severely res-
tricted, it loses its values based upon development rights; b) the value of farm
land in Deschutes County is tied to development rights and adds to its value for
farm use. The value attributed to the development rights far outshadows its
value for farm use 10 to 1. Mr. Walker further discussed investment rights and
what it does for the land. Mr. Walker feels that pretty soon farming will not
be a way for some people to make their living; farming will diminish because it
e
just won't be profitable. Commissioner Young moved that the groups' reques Kftys
adhered to--the plan be returned to the planning commissionfRE EhHriR $ information may be gone over once more from the various committees and proceed
to write a plan according to the results of these committees. Commissioner Paulson
seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Paulson felt that the Board
had been this route once before on the matter of extension; he does not think it is
reasonable to postpone the implementation of the plan for an extended period of
time. Chairman Shepard commented that he felt a lot of people had been listened to
and a lot of time an energy had gone into the existing plan and believed that it
1
4
should not be delayed being put into action. Chairman Shepard felt that all the
same ideas would be rediscussed and he did not feel that a better plan would be
the end result. Chairman Shepard also stated that the plan is not"set in concrete"
and is changeable. He also said that this plan will in no way please everyone
as much as it has been tried to do. Commissioner Paulson stated that the plan has
been referred to as a "living document" and will probably undergo many reviews,
many changes as the county changes and ideas change. Commissioner Young stated
that he believed that the people of the county were heard but were not listened
to. Chairman Shepard moved to table the motion as to such time as the commissioners
may give the request further.consideration until Friday, September 28, 1979.
Commissioner Paulson seconded the motion. Commissioner Young-NO!. Commissioner
Paulson--aye. Chairman Shepard--aye. Motion carried.
Next on the agenda was the final hearing for Sunrise Village. Bob Lovlien,
attorney, Ron Marceau, city attorney, Tim Ward,Mammoth Lake representative and
Art Johnson, city manager were present. Bob Lovlien started the hearing
by presenting a letter dated September 7 and one dated September 14, 1979 which
he asked be taken into account as to the record. Mr. Lovlien said that he does
not think he can add much more to waht has already been stated in previous
hearings. Mr. Lovlien did give a summary of what Sunrise Village was trying to
get. Sunrise Village asks that the sanitary district be created which would allow
the community sewage system and that they be deleted from the phase II sewage
system which is now in use. Ron Marceau said the city's position is that they
feel very threatened by the sanitary district inside the phase II boundary.
The city's concern is very critical according to Ron Marceau regarding the sewage
system the city now has on the drawing board. Mr.Marceau stated that history
has shown the city of Bend that sanitary districts by themselves just don't work
inside another system. Mr. Marceau also stated that the city's policy requires
that the village's water system must meet the flow standards of the city and
Sunrise does not meet these standards. Mr. Marceau said that if there is a re-
gional facility available, it should be used. However, Mr. Marceau said that if
Sunrise were to be drawn out of Phase II the city would feel much better about
letting it form its district. Mr. Marceau says that in history it shows that
these districts sometimes do expand and the separate sewage line in that respect
would then become an obstacle. Tim Ward, representative from Mammoth Lake then
had some comments to make. Mr. Lovlien said that Sunrise Village were to be ex-
cluded from the Phase II area, it would make no difference to them and if it would
please the Board and Ron Marceau they would go ahead and do it. Commissioner
Young questioned Mr. Lovlien as to which section would be eliminated from the Village
property. Commissioner Paulson asked what the exact situation was. He felt that
it was two-fold. One being a matter of a water system and the other a matter of
a sewer system. Mr. Lovlien said that there will be a sewer system that will
probably be shared with Mt. Bachelor and will be very close between the two
villages. Commissioner Paulson asked Ron Marceau what would happen if the vote
should go against the city? Ron Marceau said that there can be no price tag put on
what it would mean to the city because the threat from the city's point of view
is to the regional sewage concept. The city would lose customers since there
would be two such systems available. It may turn out that Sunrise will eventually
be hooked up to the city. Mr. Marceau did not feel that the issue was one of
losing the city's customers. Lou Dvorak asked if it was legally possible to
set up a district that does not have the power to annex? Ron Marceau did not know
if it was possible. Mr. Lovlien said that he would do further research to
see if it is legal. Commissioner Paulson asked if he could summarize a motion.
Ron Marceau told the Commissioners he believed that they would want to close
the public hearing to all testimony--research may still be done. Lou made the
suggestion that the Board of Commissioners be given veto power over the Board of
the Sanitary district. Commissioner Paulson gave a statement of his opinion--
2
C7
he feels that based on the information presented today including the fact
that this was messed up a while ago while two things got started simultaneously--
adjustment in the phase II boundary. Commissioner Paulson felt that it would
be reasonable--at a later time--present a motion that would eliminate this
property from phase II and allow it to form a sanitary district with the normal
procedures of such formation with the condition that it be worded in such a fashion
that the sanitary district once formed to that it would not add new land as
such that would have to be piped in from another area. This district should not
compete with the City any more than it is absolutely necessary.
Ron Marceau stated that the legislature has just recently added to the criteria
that must be met in order to set up such a district a clause which says the second
criteria must be followed and this is effective October 2, 1979. Mr. Lovlien
said that anywhere this District is involved, he would be sure to get his research
and order typed before the second of October. Mr. Lovlien is to get the typed
order to the Board of Commissioners by Monday.
Next on the agenda was Dave Jaqua and a discussion on the Blake lease.
Mr. William Blake said that he owns a building on County land and would like it
be assessed with the building. The assessment that has now been made is in land
value only. After discussion with Mr. Jaqua and finding out what the problem
is: The rent is based on the value of the land. The last assessment was made
in June, 1979 and Mr. Jaqua feels that that is a land value only not counting the
building that stands on 10 acres of the total 40. In order for the rent to be
paid, which he and his client are prepared to do, the value of the land and building
together must be determined. Mr. Jaqua stated that he felt that all people
present knew that the assessor assessed land by what was on it. Chairman Shepard
felt that the Board was not quite prepared by the end of this discussion to make
a decision at this time. Lou asked for instructions from the Board as to what
they would like him to do. He made several suggestions--the assessor could go
out and assess those 10 acres,if the county has no right title to the building,
land value only and draw up a lease to that assessment. Or the standing assess-
ment could be prorated down. Commissioner Paulson does not feel the prorating
would work as the building was not the county's. Chairman Shepard does not feel
that the assessor would have to go out and make another assessment of the land
if he had already done so in June, 1979. It was decided that more information
was needed to decide this matter. Lou would do some research and return to the
Board.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/jo
3
I zl~"6
CLAY C. SH PARD, Cha rman