2009-103-Minutes for Meeting February 25,2009 Recorded 3/6/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Q 2009.103
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
03/06/2409 48;47;59 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIu~llllllllll I
I IIIII
2009-103
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
or as Fee Number
and Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; David Givans, Auditor; David Inbody, Assistant to the
Administrator; Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator; Judge Michael Sullivan;
Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Anna Johnson, Communications; Tom
Anderson, Eric Mone, Dan Haldeman and Barbara Rich, Community
Development; several representatives of the media and about ten other citizens.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at I: 30 p. m.
1. Update on the Jail Construction Project.
This item will be discussed at a later date.
2. Discussion of Court Facilities in Jail Expansion Project.
Judge Michael Sullivan discussed the Courts was originally looking at a 50%
reduction in support personnel for the rest of the biennium. This could end up
at 20%, but means a closure one day a week. This will be determined soon.
The next biennium will experience severe cuts, but the Chief Justice has not yet
directed how this will be addressed.
In terms of the next biennium, it could be cuts between 16-20%, mostly in
personnel. This would likely mean a closure one day a week as well. He said
the last time they went through this kind of decline, it lasted for four months but
took over a year to recover. It will likely to take longer to recover this time
around. This could mean that there is a need for a greater number transports
rather than handling them by video. This is a substantial increase in the
Sheriff's workload. Adjustments will have to be made in other ways.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Page 1 of 6 Pages
He asked that the County allow the use of other County facilities to hold
settlement conferences and similar meetings. The Commissioners are
supportive in whatever way they can accommodate this situation.
Concerning the proposed jail expansion, there will not be enough staffing to
handle a courtroom at the jail at least in the near future. With the increased
number of arrests or people having to be sentenced to jail due to measures
passed by voters, most of these people will have to be transported to the court.
This is a safety concern.
Commissioner Luke said there are Court facilities where the judges move
around. If there is a courtroom at the jail, perhaps a judge could handle just
that, or perhaps they could rotate. Mr. Sullivan stated that the facility can be
used for some things, such as arraignments or taking pleas, or sentencing, but
other situations cannot be accommodated. Ernie Mazorol said that afternoons
are dedicated for video conferencing, but staff would have to be there as well.
They would have to be able to take filings and so on.
Commissioner Luke observed that perhaps the Sheriff could help with this
situation since it is in his department's best interest to not have to transport
prisoners.
Judge Sullivan said that programs such as Family Court, Mental Health Court,
Family Drug Court, Domestic Violence Court and DUII Court have been
successful but those are in jeopardy now. Most of these programs are not
mandated by statute but provide important services to the community. Mr.
Mazorol said that once their budgets are cut by about 7%, they have to focus on
the required services.
Commissioner Baney asked whether the County should not budget for some of
these services if the Courts cannot support them. If the County cannot pick up
the entire cost, it is unlikely that these programs could be continued. Judge
Sullivan stated that the numbers of cases are not going down, and although they
can continue these for a short period of time, they are not sustainable.
Dave Kanner referred to a memorandum of understanding from 2004 that
discusses how a courtroom at the jail, and the possibility of getting an eighth
judge. Susan Ross stated that the building design has nearly been completed
and does include the courtroom. It could be used for other things, but the goal
was to have it as a courtroom. Judge Sullivan said they do not see another
judge being added for at least another eight years.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Page 2 of 6 Pages
In regard to video courts, Susan Ross said the equipment is covered but the
County and State were to contribute to its maintenance.
3. Discussion of Temporary Rules for South County Financial Assistance.
Commissioner Baney asked if someone came in and asked for assistance to
upgrade a system, what would they be told. She asked if there is a process in
place for this now, whether this would be a loan, a grant, on a sliding scale, or
other information.
Tom Anderson said that NeighborImpact is working on this. There were
meetings in November and December with the Committee, and they had some
good recommendations. Their formal recommendations have not yet been
presented, but he will write the formal document for the Committee's review
and eventual submittal the Board.
Some of the funding has been used, which impacts the amount that can go to
NeighborImpact. One is the proposed Sunriver Sewer joint project and the
other is the transfer development credit purchase program.
Most people are in favor of the deferred payment loan. The cost is paid for
externally but the owner does not have to pay it back until the property is sold
or transferred. The loan does not go away but is deferred.
Karen Orme of NeighborImpact said the program is 80% of the area media
income, low to moderate income, for $8,000 to $28,000, and is deferred up to
thirty years, at which time the amount would be due. Typically, the owner
refinances or sells the property. Currently there is a list of people on the
waiting list for upgrades, but the delay is the people not being prepared to go
forward. (She provided an information sheet on the rehabilitation program.)
Commissioner Luke said that fixing a failing system could be more expensive
than adding an upgrade. Ms. Orme stated that she thinks there is about
$150,000 in the fund. The typical cost is about $25,000.
Commissioner Baney stated that a lot of people who own their homes and do
not owe money are upset by having to get a loan. They are often on fixed
income so cannot afford the cost out of pocket. Ms. Orme said that some are
like that. They are tracking who is asking and their specific needs. Many
people are just gathering information at this point.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Page 3 of 6 Pages
Commissioner Baney asked if other counties are using this type of program.
Ms. Orme stated that they used to do this. They cannot pay for system
development charges, however. Mr. Anderson said that the people generate a
pollution reduction credit if they upgrade or put in a new system, which is the
$3,500 set amount.
Mr. Kanner asked if federal housing dollars would be made available. Ms.
Orme said that she has not heard of any funding coming for rehabilitation
purposes.
Mr. Anderson stated that NeighborImpact's program is in place, and it ties in
with a good solution for people using these funds. In this way, the County does
not have to administer the loans. An agreement is needed to augment their
funds with other dollars. In terms of the amount of money that is available, the
$477,000 is what is available in this fund. (He referred to a spreadsheet of the
fund.) There could be more from builders when the market improves. Most is
from the national demonstration project, and is supposed to be used for low
interest loans. An additional $40,000 is a loan from the Department of
Environmental Quality. The County has obligated $127,000 for the Sunriver
Feasibility program. The program benefits about 500 properties, but it is hoped
other funding will be available in the future.
Commissioner Baney is supportive of the loan program, but would like to see
components other than loans. Commissioner Luke said you have to look at the
integrity of the program. Of course, it is nice to get money and not have to give
it back. Once the money is gone, it's gone. The loan program helps other
people. Commissioner Baney that she doesn't think the people wanting to do
this are necessarily low income, but some may want to just to do the right thing.
Commissioner Luke stated that some people have to put in sewer connections
or other improvements that are not covered by grants or loans. They don't
necessarily have a choice and could end up with a lien against their property,
plus interest. Commissioner Baney asked about the money put in the revolving
fund. Mr. Kanner said that the community grant does say it can be used for
other needs. Commissioner Luke said that it could be for a city hall, water
systems, a school, parks or other things.
In regard to the yearly cost, it was recognized that this is an issue for some. He
would like to explore various funding mechanisms. Mr. Anderson said he
would like to minimize the impact on his staffing as well. He hopes to have
suggestions from the Committee soon. One big consideration is whether the
local rule is passed in March.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Barbara Rich spoke with DEQ person who is involved with the state clean
water revolving fund. (A copy of this evaluation is attached.) She said some of
the funds have to be used for clean water purposes. The DEQ is considering
using zero interest loans. By statute, they cannot provide grants, only loans.
They are trying to find the right kind of funding, preferably those that are grant-
like. Commissioner Luke asked why this could not go through another agency;
Ms. Rich said that it is for clean water programs use and must go through the
DEQ. The loan term would be for ten years. This funding could not be used
for centralized systems and would have to be utilized right away as part of a
stimulus package. Mr. Anderson said that it is important to know the details
and whether this would commit the County to something unforeseen.
4. Discussion of Temporary Food Handlers' Permits.
Eric Mone said that the County is a contractor for the State and has to follow
State rules. Commissioner Baney said that she met with a representative of The
Source, and had questions about new laws relating to food handlers' permits for
special events and what is referred to as temporary restaurants. The Redmond
Chamber of Commerce also had questions about this.
There are about 640 restaurants and ongoing food businesses. They pay one fee
a year. The temporary ones are more problematic; they include farmers'
markets, fairs, open houses where the public is invited, and others. Letters were
sent to all promoters and Chambers of Commerce, and the food vendors who
usually attend these events. The rule applies to those who attend six or more
events a year. The Oregon Department of Human Services is worried about the
risk tied to outdoor restaurants.
5. Other Items.
Mr. Kanner distributed information on House Bill 2429 regarding enterprise
zones.
Mr. Kanner said he polled the Audit Committee and they want to see all of the
applicants for new members interviewed by the Board of Commissioners and
others.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Page 5 of 6 Pages
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m., at which
time the Board went into executive session.
DATED this 25th Day of February 2009 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
(&Uf 6-ate~.
Recording Secretary
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Page 6 of 6 Pages
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orv
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
1. Update on Jail Construction Project - Susan Ross, Larry Blanton, Ruth denkin
2. Discussion of Court Facilities in Jail Expansion Project - Hon. Michael J.
Sullivan, Presiding Judge
3. Discussion of Temporary Rules for South County Financial Assistance - Tom
Anderson
4. Discussion of Temporary Food Handlers' Permits - Tom Anderson
5. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
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.
ter
N
L
r
~
LL 0
N
cu
E
X
(a
U.
L
0
~
1
\
f
v+
1
~
~
Pa
3
4
P
CA
t
-
o
Q~L
j . ~
~
VV 11
L3.
ADDENDUM TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED APRIL 59 20049
BETWEEN THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE DESCHUTES
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES
Deschutes County Jail Expansion and Court Services Addition
Background:
Along with the jail expansion from a 220 bed to a roughly 500 bed facility, a newly
constructed court services addition adjacent to the jail would be built consistent with this
memorandum of understanding. This should result in substantial long term savings to the
county by reducing prisoner transport costs to the Justice Building and minimizing the
use of transport deputies. The Justice Building should also be safer with fewer in custody
prisoners transported downtown.
Justice Buildinjz Phase Two Expansion:
Tt is acknm~lyd,,(:d that constructing t}~e Court ~'erviees addi ic,n at the jail is not a
substitute ii)r, nor does it sl tisf% the first prop isi ~n contained in the memorandum of
understaildin~ dated ~~~ril ~~)t) } (attached 1. hen legislation passes to create the eighth
(86')~ Circuit Court Judge position in Deschutes County, the process to implement Phase 11
of the,tustice Building shall commence according to the previously agreed upon provision
between the Court and County Commissioners. It is further acknowledged that the eighth
(8th) judge's primary office and courtroom would be located at the Justice Building, and
the bench would reorganize case flow assignment procedures to assume and provide
dedicated. on-site services fit the facility located adjacent to the jail.
Court Services Addition:
The court services addition at the jail should be constructed to instill a public perception
of separation from executive services and the courtroom and offices should appear
dignified and efficient. Space must be available for a range of court services (i.e.,
settlement conferences, courtroom proceedings, judicial chambers, staff work and break
area, public viewing and service area, a private restroom, security at the front entrance,
etc.) excluding jury trials, in an efficient, aesthetically pleasing and secure environment.
Court Proceedings:
Full court services at the site would open for business upon the eighth (8th) Circuit Court
Judge taking office and when additional support staff is acquired to deliver services.
Until then, existing in custody transport procedures would remain in effect. The Court
would continue its effort to enhance the number/type of cases heard by video through
discussions with the Sheriff, District Attorney and Public Defender.
When the court services addition opens for business and dedicated judicial time is
devoted on-site to in custody proceedings, primary attention would be directed to short
matters involving the majority of inmates. It should also be recognized that a category of
inmates shall be transported to the Justice Building in order to maintain state of art
judicial programs, best practices, efficient case flow and broaden community access. At
a minimum, inmate cases processed downtown would include: 1) jury trials; 2)
complicated and lengthy motions in murder and complex cases; 3) matters subject to
specialty court procedures; i.e., family court, family drug court, mental health court and
domestic violence court, etc., and 4) matters lengthy in nature taking longer than two
hours; and 5) other matters as determined by the Presiding Judge, after consultation with
the Sheriff, District Attorney and Public Defender.
Ancillary Court Services:
To deliver court services efficiently, space shall also be provided for prosecution and
defense services. Their space should be separate from, but adjacent to the courtroom and
staff work area. It should be available when the courtroom opens for business. The
District Attorney and Public Defender should be engaged in the planning process of the
space. The State Indigent Defense Public Service Commission should be consulted, as
funds may be available to lease space provided to the local public defender.
Financial Assistance for southern Deschutes County February 25, 2009
Topics:
■ Pollution Reduction Credit purchase
• Sunriver feasibility
■ Neighborlmpact / County coordination
■ Available Resources / projected number of households helped
• Other potential sources
Neighborlmpact
Crii ica f P1cc ns. Ui•: c,-+,r Sire ices. Empottirrinjq Change.
Nei hborlmpact's Housing Rehabilitation Program
The Housing Rehab Program is designed to assist homeowners in maintaining the upkeep of their home.
Improvements that may eligible for this program include, but are not limited to, roof repair/replacement,
plumbing & electrical repairs, exterior paint and septic problems. To qualify for this program you must own
your own home and the land it is on, and you also must fall at 80% of the area median income or lower (call
for eligibility).
Neighborlmpact will conduct a site visit to interested homeowners once they have met the income and
structural deficiency requirements; the type of repairs must fall within our program guidelines of health &
safety. The loan maximum is $28,500 and depending on the household annual income the interest rate
can range from 1%-4%. These loans are deferred for 30 years, in other words no monthly payment is
required. The loan is paid back at the sale or refinance of the home, or in 30 years the entire loan comes
due.
The homeowner is responsible for hiring an Oregon licensed General Contractor to conduct the
rehabilitation work, however Neighborlmpact can assist in this process if needed. This Neighborlmpact
program is funded through grants from Oregon Housing & Community Services. Once loans are paid back
to Neighborlmpact, they are pooled in a revolving loan fund and lent back out in the community for housing
repairs in the same manner.
For questions or to apply to the program, contact Karen Orme at Neighborlmpact: 541-548-2380.
extension 111.
Exhibit E-3
2009 CDBG - REGIONAL HOUSING REHABILITATION APPLICATION
Neighborlmpact Page 44
m
N
C7
G
cn
C
L-
4)
N
L
•Lr
C
ca
V
O
E
(fl
cn 2!,
-0
0.7
O O
O c
o U
O Ln
T O
ffl c
c a)
O
O
Lo 'O
O O
C o
O O
O ~ Q
U)
L O
U p O
Lr)
'Cf)
-0 .O C 0)
i i O
C C
O C W
OU C O
CY CU
N W
C: LU
O O
o M
4- o
O
O ~ Lf) O
N O
i a) U) CU
.O O
4-
co m c E
U) E
o
cu
°
in
fn C C ~
Tn Z3 C) U U M
N CO tl-
N
O
C
d
V
Cl)
N
N
a
d
w
n
i
m
O M O
O O O
O M L()
O O U')
~
O
O
m
Ln
Ln
EA
T,
d
LO
O Q O
O Q O
=
0 LO
o Z
0 LO
o Z
cB
O
O
LO
Lo
O
~
T
O
Ln
O O In
O O 0
O O Il-
O O N
O N
O Cfl N
O
O
W
N
M
r-
N
o
LV
Vk
ti
CD LO
0 < U-)
O Z N
O Zr--
cC
2
W~
LO
o
t
LO
N
C U) O
to O
0 CD
0 CD
of
O Of O
O
o
0
o
0
-
O
p
-
O
O p -
U)
Ir*
cr
Ln
C/)
N
C:
c
co
co
O
_O
o
O
o
c
cn
N
Q
c
(D
E
0
m
m
O
rn
~o
~o
N
U -C\j
U
O
F
C
m
E
O
N
Q
C
E
E
y U
C Q
O
U
y a
m L
~ y
L `y
U ~
y tr
m ~
m
co
3
a
0
0
O
Q
U
co
N
LL
~
O
N m
O
000
, C
i . ' N
M
A
o
N r
04
Ln
u)
LL
69
m
O
It
O
N
a
0 0
v
" " C M
a
O
M
O
O N
N N
M r
00
O
O
N
N N
O
r
LL
co
O
m
o N
N
o
o
A Cl)
m OD
O v
V N
O
N
N
M r
o Go
}
N
r
vA)
N
v
LL
Yf
m
o o
N o
O N
v
ct c
A A
U N
0
oo
o m
O
m ao
N
M
N~
to
N
LL
O
O
0
co
cD (4
m
O
' C
0
0
N_ N
' N N '
o
'r
C
N
O
Cl)
co co
cm
r
m
r
}
LL
N
o
N a
O N
N
N
o
. i i . °m o
t
' ao N i
O
a;
O
c
O OD
N
N
N
r
N
ID
LL
v3l
O
G
O O
C
N
G
0
P- m
N o N
O
0
a
T
N
N
LL
N
N A
O O O
p
N
m
1~ N
N N
N O O
A O N
O
N
N A
M O A
r
N
N
N
O N
LL
M
o
O
o
v
N W
N m
O
C''''
O
r
a
N
T
R
N L
)
La
v
LL
N
O
'
Cl)
m
O
N
n
O
N
~
v
r
u.
CD
m N w
A
O
i
i O v N
11 4
i
O
p
N
m m to
N
r
m
Cl) I*
LL
v)
u
c
-
.4
m a
o m
N
i
N
LL
I
U
O.
Q m
m
cm
o U
a
m
cc
a:
p
C) O
Y
J a
a
$ w c
IL a
m
~w
3
-
z
z
to
d o E~
LLo
U
z
c c
° c
m
m N a E
m
m
>
~ C
U
IL
y y C
v
m
rn
m
N Q
d
5
c
m
O°
m
o 0 C° C7
o
d
N
y
O)
N N
C CQ
1~
U UU Q
U m 0=
I
0
CD
m
R Rw
m
wwOa o
w w o
> LL
m
F F o
00 0 w ~ F
a o o U
1
~
N
C O
m
V) ) LL
CD w ED
O M
O Cl)
19 R v
m a o M (DD m
N v N o v
O N M N CO
M M 0 ?
o V r*-: CD Ci
U W M A m
Q C. O Op A m m O M
A M '7 A N A
a aAi o v m
N N N ~ N
00 M M N? O N O N v
O O O N v N O N
ry N V co A
v to n ao 0
m oD
ON co m
N M N A N m A m
M M N CO m
N N M N v m
N 00 (O m co
n h N m
m IO m
7 co O - M A m N
N M N N
0 m /O A
N
m
l0
C4 o o 00 0 o
O C p 1~ N N
to Na N i0 m m co
O
m -
C a - -
M
N_
N
CL C
C) w
M
V
h N m ~
N m N N R N tO =
N N ~ N v m A O
U
O
N O
at$ O _
CD I,
N N C o N CO
N M
~ C4 O N Cl N N O
N N O } N e- M ,O
C
y LL
W
N N y
C. N U O C
O N m O N w
N C C
N m Z N
} m m
Z LL C O
V LO u
C C
O C o 0
yOj a N y m m O)
C II L a W v N
{M 6-1 _N II N II O
/0 V Ol 1`0 6 N O
V O L C O 3 n C n N
~ l0 7 ~ f0
V m O N m m f9 m
v n 0 a `m a `m y E
II a
U j LL 0 a 0 N 0 7 y
m m C O O N N y
H II m 10 O N N C > U L6 0
„10„ m Q N +L- fA M to t9 y d
c O.
m ~)3 z~ ° c m`II w a
cli d)
m y° C O o O T y l0
Co = L N COD 1°0 N y y
a -m0 a p 3 LL o C N d y /0
m a y a
3 0 o c c w t: 0
L a fN U N 3 N r-. y O .t
`m ~LL V~aai To nLL m~°
O a C YO jp = a C j 7 m
m O C II T "cu r ' U m _
N C m a s C T 3 m
'a ~a c~II a mU) O
--a 2
0 -0 ID d) ol 4)
m° m a 0 °1 -E m
'V N y m y c 0 E E
-O m m° 0 N y CO 7 y)
a N N m
U) II II C C
O y d O 7 U 0 O
CL
U C y -Do m U C L L
V) 'a m E O
C E U C C 3 y tmN
` Y1E Ty
E m
A a U y 0 = m
.N
CL 00 t x
m m~ AL
m E LL U
D a y o E o a `o II o o c c E
c -
= y 01 m m Q N o o j R
CL LL Q L N E C a E a a U y
e6 E m y E y E E O m io m
W C y 3 L w O in = 3 w L j E
;p m z F Q U z Q z z O F E'
y
H W Z ~N ~ E;C U U)
C
J
d
W
E
0~ Community Development Department
Planning Division - Building Safety Division • Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend, Oregon • 97701-1925
MEMORANDUM (541) 388-6575 • FAX (541) 385-1764
http://www.co.d esch utes.or. us% cdd/
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tom Anderson, Direct
RE: Temporary Restaurant License Fees/Feb 25th Work Session
DATE: February 25, 2009
Effective January 1, 2009, in accordance with direction from the state Dept of
Human Services (DHS), Environmental Health began requiring temporary food
vendors to obtain a license for each event in which they participated. Past
Deschutes County practice had been to allow 30-day licenses which covered
multiple events. Most vendors for which CDD-EH had records were sent a letter
in December notifying them of the new practice (attached).
The new practice has understandably caused considerable frustration among
temporary food vendors in the County, particularly given the current economic
environment. Staff has received a number of comments, as has the Board of
Commissioners. This will also cause hardship for staff in that each additional
issued license will require processing and an inspection. Workload will increase
substantially in the spring and summer as events begin to occur. Unfortunately,
as contract agents of the State of Oregon, we have no choice but to follow their
direction in issuing licenses.
Deschutes County does have discretion however, in the amount of the. fee
charged for the license. As a fee supported operation, fees must be set in order
to cover all costs associated with inspection and licensing. Nonetheless, staff
believes there may be opportunity for easing the financial burden of vendors,
while still maintaining sufficient revenue stream to cover costs. Several ideas
have been discussed, including a master event permit obtained by the promoter,
and modified inspections associated with ongoing events such as farmers
markets. Staff believes vendors may also have legitimate ideas, and we intend to
convene a discussion group with several of them to brainstorm how we might
ease the burden for everyone. Attached is a clarification of the situation we
collectively face that we propose to provide to vendors to begin that discussion.
We also welcome any input or suggestions the Board might have.
We look forward to the work session of February 25"' to discuss this further.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
,-V ES
cup J A Community Development Department
O Planning Division - Building Safety Division - Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue - Bend, Oregon - 97701-1925
(541) 388-6575. - FAX (541) 385-1764
December 30, 2008 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
To whom it may concern,
This letter is in response to the growing number of Temporary Restaurants we have in
Deschutes County. We will have over 520 Temporary Restaurants in 2008. This is
compared with 280 in 2004.
Below we have detailed a few changes that will take place starting in 2009. These
changes are meant to provide better public health protection, make us more efficient, and
allow for us to follow state-mandated requirements.
1) We recently were informed by the staff at the Oregon Department of Human Services-
Food, Pool, and Lodging Section that we are supposed to be inspecting temporary
restaurants every week at weekly events, such as Farmer's Markets, Munch-n-Movies,
etc., unless there are at least 6 temporary restaurants.
Currently, at these weekly events, we have been giving a 30-day temporary restaurant
license to temporary restaurant operators and inspecting them only once in that 30 day
period. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 624.086 (6) states, "Temporary restaurants
operating on an intermittent basis, in a group of six or more, at the same specific location
two or more times within a 30-day period shall be issued one license for each 30-day
period."
Starting in 2009, we must inspect each temporary restaurant every time it is at a weekly
event, unless there are 6 or more temporary restaurants. This also means that the
temporary restaurant must pay for a temporary restaurant license each week. If there are
6-or more temporary restaurants at these weekly events, then the license can be issued for
30 days.
The only event in Deschutes County with at least 6 temporary restaurants that operate on
an intermittent (weekly) basis is Munch-n-Music. For all of the other Farmer's Markets
and the Bend Saturday Market promoters, etc., please inform the temporary restaurants
that they will have to pay the temporary restaurant fee (currently $80-200, depending on
when applied for) every week unless there are at least 6 temporary restaurants. We will
also send this letter to the temporary restaurants that have been operating weekly in '08.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Currently, in Deschutes County during the Summer months, there is a Farmers Market
every day of the week, except Thursday. Some days there are 2 farmer's markets in
different communities. Our staff will be working diligently in an attempt to inspect
every temporary restaurant that requires inspection, by law. ORS 624.091 (1) states, "At
least once during the operation of a temporary restaurant, the Director of Human Services
shall inspect the facilities and operation."
One point of clarification is defining what a temporary restaurant is. ORS 624.010 states
a "Temporary restaurant" means any establishment operating temporarily in connection
with any fair, carnival, circus or similar public gathering or entertainment, food product
promotion or any other event where food is prepared or served for consumption by the
public.
"Temporary restaurant" does not include:
(a) An establishment where food is prepared and served by a fraternal, social or
religious organization only to its own members and guests.
(b) An approved school lunchroom where food is prepared and served for school and
community activities, where the preparation and service are under the direction of the
school lunchroom supervisor.
(c) A food product promotion where only samples of a food or foods are offered to
demonstrate the characteristics of the food product. For the purposes of this paragraph, a
sample shall not include a meal, an individual hot dish or a whole sandwich.
(d) A private residence, or part thereof, including the grounds, areas and facilities
held out for the use of the occupants generally, for which a temporary sales license is
issued under ORS 471.190 for a period not exceeding one day.
NOTE: The following foods are exempt from foodservice licensure requirements:
(1) Candy, candied apples, cookies and non-potentially hazardous confections;
(2) Commercially prepackaged ice cream and frozen desserts;
(3) Commercially pickled products, commercially processed jerky, nuts, nutmeats, popcorn, and
prepackaged foods such as potato chips, pretzels, and crackers;
(4) Unopened bottled and canned non-potentially hazardous beverages to include alcoholic
beverages;
(5) Coffee and tea, with non-potentially hazardous ingredients;
(6) Hot beverages prepared by the customer from individually packaged powdered mixes and
water; and
(7) Other food items as determined by the Department of Human Services, such as a produce
stand that only offers whole, uncut fresh fruits and vegetables.
2) Given the sheer volume of temporary restaurants we have now compared with in years
past, it has become clear that we need the temporary restaurant applications earlier than 2
days prior to the event. We will require the temporary restaurant license application at
lgiast 10 DAYS i vance of the event, starting July 1, 2009. Our staff is now working
s a year inspecting hundreds of temporary restaurants and we need the
temporary restaurant license applications earlier to efficiently schedule the temporary
restaurant inspections to blend with all of our other required inspections of full service ,
restaurants, swimming pools and spas, water systems, septic systems, daycares, mobile
unit restaurants, school lunch programs, pre-openings of restaurants, complaints, hotels
and motels.
3) For temporary restaurant applicants that don't own a full-service restaurant, and can't
prepare and store all the food at the event, the temporary restaurant application asks for
the name of the off-site Licensed Facility used for food prep, food storage, and utensil
washing. We are seeing situations where the facility being named is not actually being
used. Sometimes, applicants will make food at their homes or some other non-licensed
facility. This is not allowed.
We will be more vigilant in following up and inspecting off-site facilities to verify they
are being used as necessary. Foods that are found to be made at an unapproved facility
shall be thrown away and a Temporary Restaurant license may be suspended or revoked.
For your convenience, we are working towards an on-line Temporary Restaurant License
application and you will pay with a credit card using E-commerce. This should be
available starting in July, 2009 and will save a trip to the county office!
Finally, please make sure that operating a temporary restaurant is an approved land use
activity by checking with City or County Planning departments. Without proper land use
approval, we cannot issue a temporary Restaurant License.
Please call me at 541-388-6566 if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Eric Mone, REHS
Deschutes County Environmental Health
Supervisor, Foodservice Facilities
541-388-6566
CC: City of Bend, Planning Dept., Deschutes County Planning Dept.
CLARIFICATION OF TEMPORARY LICENSE PROCEDURE
State rules- The requirement of licensing and inspection of a Temporary Restaurant
every week in an intermittent series of events (i.e., Farmer's Markets) is a State rule.
Deschutes County Environmental Health in the past has only been inspecting Temp
Restaurants once every 30 days and only charging one fee. Last year we had meetings
with the DHS people about this issue. By contract with the DHS, we are charged to
enforce the state rules, so beginning in 2009 those rules will be followed.
There is an exception to this rule called the Saturday Market Provision: if there are 6 or
more Temporary Restaurants, then a 30-day license can be issued and only one inspection
needs to take place. There is no public health reason for this exemption. Rather, it is a
rule that was implemented years ago for the Saturday Markets that run almost year-round
in Portland.
For Temporary Restaurant operators, protesting or changing those rules should be done
by contacting the state through the DHS or your state legislator.
Deschutes County fees - The ability to set the fees and when the fees have to be paid is
in the County province as long as it is justified and approved by both the Board of
County Commissioners and the DHS.
The proposal for the reduced fee for applications received 10-day prior to the event will
be in our fee package given to the Board in May for an effective date of July 1. There
will be chances for public comment and if you want to receive a copy of the final
proposal please call Sandy Ringer at 541-388-6621.
The food inspection program is entirely fee supported. The building, the cars, the
computers, all the County services provided to CDD, the administration and finally the
inspectors all must be paid for with these fees. We do not make money beyond those
costs. Our fees for Temporary license are less than many Counties throughout the state.
We will set up a meeting with stakeholders so that we can have a forum where their ideas
can be heard. We have to follow the state statutes but will look for input from event
promoters and food operators as they may have valuable ideas on fee schedules (i.e.,
sliding fee scale).
r s~ ~
CK
E
Oa
~
H
U
>
~ O
N
N
O N
~ y„y V1
o 4°
~ O
~ U O
bA C)
O ~
O 0
U
t".
O
~ O
~ o
o Q
Gr"
O o ~
czj
N
.-r
O 03
N ~
.
cl
O
t
H
O
v
rn
O
a
nn
~
Qn
O a N
a-, J
O
K O
cn
O ~ ya
O O
M ~
viS-'•~
~w
c3
cri
O
bA ~ ^O
~ N
O J ti
~rA
~ N U
~ ~ on
O O O
U
O ~ O N
O N
C p
O QS
cd
~O U U ~ G"r
00 O
cn - O
N :r
V) u) U U) ct C14
N 04
0 4°_i O4°
O
N
V)
P4
0
00
O
O
N
N
04
HB2429 Sponsored by Representative Michael Schaufler (D)
The Bill:
Sponsored by Rep. Schaufler (D), a self professed labor union advocate, the bill:
"Modifies qualifications for property tax exemptions for business firms eligible to
participate in enterprise zone program. Requires firms engaged in private
construction projects with value $5 million or more to comply with prevailing wage
law. Applies to firms entering first year of enterprise zone property tax exemption
for qualified property on or after January 1, 2010."
Implications
The bill would essentially kick private construction projects exceeding this arbitrary limit that use the
enterprise zone incentive into a similar cost structure by which our public entities must abide. For
these projects, the enterprise zone will no longer be an incentive, but rather a disincentive.
Requiring companies that receive on average $30,000 to $45,000 in property tax savings over the
standard (and by fax most common) three-year exemption period per $1 million invested could
effectively cancel out the incentive designed to help Oregon better compete for new, long term,
well-paying jobs. Labor unions have been trying to get a similar provision for many sessions, but
they have not had the votes to get such a requirement passed. However, during the last legislative
session, a bill was passed that if any company received a cash incentive more than $750,000 from the
State of Oregon, that company would have to pay prevailing wages for any construction projects. I
don't know of any awards that have exceeded this level since the law changed.
Because of the timing of effect were the bill to pass, it would effectively be retroactive since there
are projects now in construction that will be complete before the end of the year and start the
exemption process in January 2010. Because the vast majority of the companies currently
constructing new facilities have not been paying prevailing wages, those over the threshold would
then be ineligible to receive property tax exemptions for any of the years they would otherwise have
been eligible. For larger projects, which usually result in a larger number of jobs both in construction
and for permanent employment, this bill would make the incentive worthless.
In our own region, we have several companies that would not have located here if this bill were
already law. T-Mobile and Atrec, which combined employ nearly $1,000 people and combined
capital investment exceeded $24 million in the Redmond Enterprise Zone, would not have located
there. EDCO now has three major projects in play (final stages of site selection) that combined
would provide nearly new 1,200 jobs and $750 million in new investment over time. We would
expect all to "pull the plug" on their interest in Oregon with passage of this bill. Expected average
wages for these jobs ranges from $45,000 - $60,000.
As any economic development professional in Oregon about the three best tools in the state to help
win the very competitive battle for jobs, and the enterprise zone will be on every list. This bill is
legislative push the full employment union labor at the expensive of everyone else.
Recommendations
Strongly oppose HB2429 in writing and preferably at the next hearing in person.
'Bill
I
House Bill 2429 is a way of say-
ing to business wanting to lo-
Cate or expand. in Oregon: We
don't want you.
The bill is about enterprise zones:'
Those zones are set up in Oregon by
local governments to attract business.
House Bill 2429 shoos business away.
In return for expanding or locat-
ing in. an enterprise: zone, an eligible
'business can get a'property tax ex;
emption for at least. three. years .and
up to five. There are more than 50
enterprise zones in Oregon, including
four in Central Oregon.
House Bill 2429.would put a new
requirement on enterprise zones. It
requires that construction projects
worth $5 million and getting tax cuts
in enterprise zones would have to fol-
i low Oregon's prevailing wage law.
That means, in a nutshell, that they
would have to pay more to build or
expand.
Under Oregon's prevailing wage
i law, the state sets a minimum pay
o business
says no t
scale forworkers on government proj-
ects. It requires contractors to pay the
`Iprevailing wage" for. the region.: The
.-state's Bureau of Labor and Indus-
tries *does wage surveys and sets the
scale. If the majority of workers are
not paid- at the same rate, workers are
paid the arrerage rate.
That sounds kind of fair. But why
should the government and not the
should ,e?
marketdetermine what the "ges
The prevailing wage also inflates
costs. Oregonians pay more for
schools and other government build-
ings because of it. This bill would
bring that inflation to enterprise
zones.
House Bill 2429 is" not stimulus;
it's a drain.
. These days, you'd expect the
Legislature to be looking for ways
to make Oregon more attractive to
business. Now: is not the time to dis-
courage businesses from locating or
expanding in Oregon.
IN Thursday, February 12, 2009.• THE BULLETIN
February ,2009
Dear Senator/Representative
Salem, OR
I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB2429, a bill that seeks to require .
companies qualifying for Oregon Enterprise Zone temporary property tax exemptions to
pay prevailing wages for construction projects exceeding $5 million in value. While projects
below this arbitrary threshold, it would effectively eliminate the program as an incentive for
projects over this limit.
Prevailing wages in our area, as is the case across the state, are considerably above typical
market rates. Requiring companies to pay these wages for all trades in larger construction
projects that will facilitate creation of permanent, well-paying jobs will negate the tax
benefits, which are only realized over time. That this legislation is getting traction in Salem
during what will likely prove to be one of the longest recessions in the past century is
unconscionable. That such a bill would be retroactive for some projects currently underway
is punitive and impossible to fully enforce.
We have in our region several projects that selected Oregon over other states for major
capital investments because of the Enterprise Zone. If HB2429 were law the past five years,
Central Oregon would have tens of millions of dollars not on its tax rolls and more than
$1,000 jobs. While this may not seem to be a large number to some in large metropolitan
areas, the real property investment and employment impacts are significant to our region.
Economic Development for Central Oregon, the regional economic development
organization currently has a number of large projects in the final stages of the site selection
and recruitment process. If this bill passes, EDCO has indicated that these projects would
drop our communities from consideration. These projects could total more than $750
million in new capital investment and nearly 1,200 jobs paying an average of $45,000-
$60,000.
Prevailing wage as a requirement for an enterprise zone benefit is counterproductive and will
cost Oregon jobs when we can least afford it. Please oppose HB2429.
Thank you for your consideration on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Honey! Have You Seen My Tool Belt?
How many times have you gone out to do a project and cannot find the tools necessary to complete the job?
We may have the tool; it just isn't large enough to get the job done. Today, economic development
organizations in Oregon are facing a similar possibility of having inadequate tools to compete for large
projects.
One of our most effective tools is Oregon's Enterprise Zone Program, which provides qualifying traded-
sector companies with tax abatements on certain new real property investments. It is a tool available both
for new companies looking to expand or relocate to the area and for those already operating here. For a
qualifying company, it provides a cost savings during the first years of a new investment (new plant,
renovation and/or production equipment) when that asset is least productive for the company. For a local
sponsor (cities and counties), it is an enticement to attract new investment and jobs that would otherwise go
elsewhere. While there is a short term cost (typically three years of property tax exempted) there is a
significant medium and long term net gain for the community.
First approved by the Legislature back in 1985, the program has undergone numerous changes over the
years, however it has remained essentially the same useful incentive. But the tool is at serious risk of
losing its effectiveness to attract larger projects. HB2429, sponsored by Rep. Michael Schaufler (D) is
under consideration by the Oregon House that would significantly hinder future large construction projects
using the Enterprise Zone benefits. The bill:
"Modifies qualifications for property tax exemptions for business firms eligible to
participate in enterprise zone program. Requires firms engaged in private construction
projects with value $5 million or more to comply with prevailing wage law. Applies to
firms entering first year of enterprise zone property tax exemption for qualified
property on or after January 1, 2010."
Let's take a simple example of how this bill would render the enterprise zone as a useless tool. Say
Company X is considering Redmond for a new manufacturing plant that will cost $6 million. Let's assume
the labor component of that construction project is $2 million. A prevailing wage requirement could easily
increase that labor cost by 35%, or $700,000. The project now costs $6.7 million. The property tax saving
benefit for Company X from the Redmond Enterprise Zone for three years would be approximately
$148,000. Use of the enterprise zone then creates a net cost of $552,000, making this "incentive" now a
disincentive.
Had HB2429 already been a law, companies like T-Mobile and Altrec would almost certainly not be in
Redmond, and Precision Castparts Corp. (PCC), which has operations nationwide, may have not chose to
invest in its Schlosser plant in Redmond, now our largest manufacturing employer. These three companies
alone represent nearly 1,100 well paying jobs in Redmond.
EDCO and REDI have expressed their opposition of this bill as well as Mayor George Endicott. We have
provided an opportunity for our respective Board's of Directors to submit opposition letters and they have
responded quickly. If you are interested in reading this bill in its entirety or sharing your opinion of this
legislation with me or our State elected officials, please feel free to contact and the REDI office at (541)
923-5223.
Without effective tools in our belt like the Enterprise Zone Program, our steadfast efforts to grow and
diversify our employment base may be like trying to pound nails with a screwdriver.