The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-2600-Minutes for Meeting April 14,2010 Recorded 5/4/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 2010.2600 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Cd Y COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0510412010 10;14;27 AM I IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIII III II IIII 2 10-2e00 Do not remove this page from original document. County Clerk Deschutes- Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded at the request of to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book and Page or as Fee Number 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, APRIL 14, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky and George Read, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Tom Blust, Road Department; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Capt. Gary Decker; and approximately ten other citizens, including representatives of the media. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Action Plan for Land Conservation in South Deschutes County. Jerry Hubbard, David Ogden, both who live on Azusa Road and are involved in Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Unit 8 Special Road District, presented a concept of a conservation corridor in the area, and are asking the County and others to participate. There are 68 or more parcels classified as wetlands that could be put in the public trust. This would solve a number of problems in the area. (They referred to the area on oversized maps) They have no financial involvement but just want to make their area better. Mr. Ogden said that some of the wetlands have not yet been mapped. Everyone is aware of the nitrate issue. Most of the properties have water less than two feet under the surface of the ground. The lots were platted long before land use, but they are not appropriate for development. The County owns about ninety properties in that area. Commissioner Luke stated that some are owned due to foreclosure and are held in the public trust for various taxing districts. Laurie Craghead said that a land exchange is allowed as long as there is no public purpose - these are for the most part designated as park. This needs to be in the public interest, or there has to be an exchange of equal value. A nonprofit would have to oversee this process, and it is not a simple undertaking. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 1 of 8 Pages Mr. Ogden said that the Road District does not want to be the entity that handles this process, but they can at least try to get it going. He added that it appears that the developer wanted to at some point drain the land, but there are springs and seepage that would not allow for this. Mr. Hubbard stated that other agencies, such as the Forest Service, are cooperating. They hope that some property owners will donate their properties if they are not suitable for residential purposes. Mr. Ogden said that he has been working with Brad Chalfant, who knows how to work with land trusts. Mr. Hubbard asked for the County's help with identifying suitable properties and assisting with the process. Dave Kanner stated that he is not sure the County can swap these properties. Mr. Ogden said that the County owns some properties that are in high groundwater areas, and feels that the County could offer an exchange of a potential conservation easement property with another County property that is not in the wetlands, but is in the same area. Peter Gutowsky added that there is a current wetlands inventory, but it is incomplete. He added that functional wetlands help to keep nitrates out of the river. 2. Discussion of Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee Recommendations for Skyliners Road. Chair Luke opened the hearing that had been continued from this morning's business meeting. Erik Kropp introduced Cheryl Howard of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Capt. Gary Decker said that the law allows bicyclists to move into the roadway if there is not enough room on the side. However, there is a law that a slower vehicle needs to yield to other traffic. Side by side travel is allowed as well. Cheryl Howard and Jim Stowe said they met several times to discuss this issue. They really tried to find some outcomes and identify unforeseen results. If there is a long row of riders who are required to ride single file, it will be harder for vehicles to pass them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Pages Another big concern is that the concept of single-file riders might make a lot of people think that this should apply to all roads. There could be unforeseen, long-term consequences. With that in mind, they focused on the educational component. They want to make sure they do not set precedence for other roads in the County. They want to develop a public education campaign, and see that the natural culture of share the road is understood. Cycling events have liability insurance coverage. They also bring a lot of good things to the community. BPAC needs to get funds for printing educational pieces, and asked the County for assistance with this process. They have talked with every bike group in the area, as well as those bicycle-related businesses. They really need to create a better atmosphere. There is a lot of national and international interest in the area, and this is not going away. The entire committee has volunteered to help with this process. Commissioner Baney asked more about signage. She asked what they think about signage that addresses the actual dangers of the road. Ms. Howard said that they are supportive of this, so people know what to expect. Many people are not from the area and may be traveling the road for the first time. This might also give pause to cyclists as to what road they may want to ride on a given day. Commissioner Baney stated that the Board does want to see a speed study done, based on the condition of the road and its use. Commissioner Luke added that it is hard to get a speed limit lowered. Commissioner Unger thanked the group for its attention and he would like to see the direction this had previously been going dropped, and go more towards an educational perspective. Ms. Howard stated that there is a lot of interest in the community based on cycling events and the economic benefits that result. Commissioner Baney observed that with the help of the Sheriff's Office, signage and educational components, this situation could be helped. She does not support the single-file riding requirement but wants signage that warns people of potential dangers. Ms. Howard said that many of the residents were not aware of the law. No amount of education will reach all motorists and cyclists, but this should help. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Pages Commissioners Unger and Baney did not want to proceed further with the Ordinance, as this direction seems to be more logical and helpful. Commissioner Baney stated that it was hard to limit the number of events, but felt it was necessary based on the condition of the road. Discussion took place regarding what kinds of signs might be appropriate. Ms. Howard said that they also need to rely on advertising and a media campaign to raise awareness. Commissioner Baney asked how they can track the progress made. Ms. Howard stated that the Committee can put together a proposal and bring it back to discuss with the Commissioners. Commissioner Unger added that it is not just this road, but others that are often unsafe for cyclists. Commissioner Baney requested that the Board be kept informed regarding interaction with the residents and also the progress made on potential work on the reconstruction of the road. Mr. Kanner suggested that signage certainly be placed in appropriate locations to address the locations on the road that are considered blind curves. There could be cyclists there, but also deer or other obstacles. He added that many of the drivers in the summer might be tourists, and they will notice the signs when others who live in the area might ignore them over time. Commissioner Luke closed the public hearing at this time. 3. Discussion of Code Enforcement Policy and Options. Tom Anderson referred to his memo to the Board regarding the history of Code enforcement. It is designed to be progressive, to try to get violations corrected without involving the Sheriff's Office or other entities. For the most part, voluntary compliance is good. A notation appears on the title from the time the file on the violation is first opened. In terms of building Code violations specifically, a bill passed in the legislature last year that affects this. He and COBA (Central Oregon Builders Association) missed the fact that they have no choice; the bill removed the ability of the County to go to court. If a financial penalty is to be levied, there has to be a local administrative process. This process has not been identified or developed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if someone built without a permit, occupied it, put in a drain field, added power, and so on, what would happened. He asked if under the new law, whether the courts could require compliance. Mr. Anderson stated that his Department has the ability to get an injunction if it is serious, as long as it does not involve a financial penalty. Ms. Craghead said a citation can still be used if the building is not allowed in that zone. Mr. Anderson said they will proceed with setting up this process, as it is important to be able to enforce the building Code. Mark Pilliod stated that there are limitations on the amount of fines defined in State law, but the County has to spell out the process for assessing it. Mr. Kanner asked if the County could contract out to Justice Court to handle these administrative processes, since they are set up to handle this type of thing. Mr. Pilliod said that it cannot be a judicial proceeding. However, a lawyer can be contracted to handle this in the fashion of a Hearings Officer, as this would be is different. The attorney could not act in the capacity of a Justice of the Peace. Commissioner Luke asked if a decision can be appealed. Mr. Pilliod stated that it could go to the Circuit Court. Mr. Anderson added that they tried using Justice Court some years ago and it did not work all that well. The Circuit Court is recognized as the one that carries more weight. Mr. Kanner asked how this new law affects cases that are already in court. Mr. Pilliod said this is not the right time to reply to this question. Mr. Anderson stated that there are often multiple violations on a case, but this would only affect the building Code portion. A review of the Code enforcement process is on the work plan for this coming year. Commissioner Baney said that she does believe in voluntary compliance, but not for those who blatantly disregard the law. That sets a bad precedence for other potential cases, when it may become just a cost of doing business for the violators. The level of enforcement seems to vary within the policy. There is a difference between an unintentional violation and one that is blatant. Commissioner Luke said he has no sympathy with those who violate the law. It can put others at risk if it is a health and safety issue. Commissioner Baney stated that perhaps more attention can be placed on deliberate disregard; or have people fix something before they can get another permit of any kind. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 5 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger supports how the department is handling things but is sensitive to those violators who act in a blatant fashion. They create more problems for themselves in the long run. Mr. Anderson stated that for someone to say that Code enforcement is soft or ignores situations is not right. Sometimes the court proceedings can tie things up for a long time. Mr. Anderson said that there was an administrative decision to allow for a lot line adjustment on this property, and the County has ten days to call it up for review. Ms. Craghead said that there are specific reasons for calling up something on appeal. Commissioner Luke said that he already voiced concern about the amount of land allowed for the reserve drain field. Mr. Pilliod said that law enforcement and others cannot enter private property unless there is an obvious problem with health or safety. Evidence obtained that way may not be allowed in court. A search warrant is the safest way to do this unless there is clear evidence of a violation. Capt. Decker said that law enforcement can walk up to the front door unless there are signs or barriers prohibiting it. If he sees something that is an obvious violation, there could be probable cause. BANEY: Move that this file be called up for appeal before the Board. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Other Items. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter to Oregon Housing and Community Services Supporting Putnam Pointe Affordable Housing. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LINGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 6 of 8 Pages Nick Lelack gave a brief overview of the "Big Look" process that involves updating designations for resource lands. At a March work session in Salem involving several agencies, Richard Whitman of LDCD said that he would adopt Administrative Rules to clarify this once the counties have indicated they are interested in implementing the bill. They can only work with one or two counties per biennium. Jackson County was not in attendance, but Josephine County was. Dave Hunnicutt of Oregonians in Actions encouraged counties to implement the legislation, and asked Mr. Lelack about the conference. Mr. Hunnicutt stated that he understood Jackson County is also interested. The next step would be for Commissioners from both Jackson and Deschutes counties to meet with Richard Whitman on this process. Commissioner Unger asked why Jackson County is interested when they have separated themselves from the Association of Oregon Counties. Mr. Lelack said this is a separate track, looking at everything from wineries, timberland, and other issues. Commissioner Baney is on an AOC committee, and they will have to find a legislator to sponsor them. Commissioner Luke said that they do not want a court decision, but instead want to work towards common ground. Mr. Lelack stated that there is little interest in the current DLCD process of redefining agricultural lands. Commissioner Luke said that AOC is looking for some uniformity in how counties should handle their lands. This might be done by regions, but should not be done by individual counties. Commissioner Unger expressed concern about how Jackson County is handling this situation. The Commissioners will discuss this at a later date. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 14, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Pages DATED this 14th Day of April 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Ale 1- -Dennis R. Luke, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ata"I'l ul--~ Alan Unger, Vice Chair L3n~7-~? Tammy Baney, Co missioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 8 of 8 Pages Wednesday, April 14, 2010 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 WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010 1. Action Plan for Land Conservation in South Deschutes County - David Ogden 2. Discussion of Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee Recommendations for Skyliners Road - Erik Kropp 3. Discussion of Code Enforcement Policy and Options - Mark Pilliod; Tom Anderson 4. 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. 1f you 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. [t02 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orR ADDITION TO WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend CONSIDERATION of Signature of a Letter to Oregon Housing and Community Services supporting Putnam Pointe Affordable Housing - Dave Kanner O N v I~ II I o N t 4 a a ~ M ~ t ~ t M VIA ICI ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~.1 O` I II N \ c Oll V 711 I o- v b1c V-~ 1~ ! Q) V ~ ~ 1 a co Title: Creating an Action Plan for Parks and Land Conservation in South Deschutes County March 6, 20101 pm Contents: Page Executive Summary 2 Abstract 5 The Problem 5 Understanding the concept of the Corridor 5 Citizens and their priorities 6 Reeional Growth Deschutes County's Recreational Economic Impact 6 Tourism 7 Deschutes Scenic Waterway 9 Groundwater Issues 10 Wetlands Impact on Nitrates it Oregon Spotted Froe 11 Geographic Area of the Conservation Corridor 12 How the Corridor solves the problem 12 Conceptual Plan 13 Conclusion 14 Notes: Map of Central Oregon 15 Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use 15 2 Executive Summary Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to create interest in establishing a public use, open space and recreational corridor from U.S. Forest Service land at Anne's Butte through the Deschutes River Recreational Home (DRRH) Sites neighborhood connecting into U.S. Forest Service land at Spring River Road. The corridor would include wetlands, open spaces, wildlife corridors and habitat, protect water in the corridor that drains into the Upper Deschutes River via U.S. Forest Service land, provide quiet and active parks for the public and perhaps become part of the State of Oregon's Scenic Bike Path system. The Problem: Within the Deschutes River Recreational Home Sites (DRRH) neighborhood there are no public parks, bike and walking paths, and river access and boat launch/retrieval sites. The sub-division was platted prior to concerns for wetlands, and with disregard to their boundaries. As development occurred over the ensuing decades, property owners found themselves disenfranchised of their investment by Land Use Laws and environmental restrictions. Caught between septic feasibility, the National Wetland Inventory, and very real seasonal flooding, sizeable blocks of hitherto residentially platted lands were abandoned for taxes. The majority of the DRRH subdivision has been identified as a high groundwater area. Additionally, the use of standard septic sewage systems may be adding to a regional issue of high levels of nitrates, though this in turn has lead to the prospect of a regional sewer system. The lack of dedicated wetlands coupled with the number of buildable lots is of considerable concern. Understanding the concept of the Corridor: The concept of a conservation corridor is to set aside in a public trust or another venue over 70 lots to create permanent public open spaces, wetlands, parks and recreational areas. Groundwater Issues South Deschutes County has a concentration of high groundwater areas. These are areas where the groundwater lies less than 24 inches beneath the surface of the land. Because groundwater is so close to the surface, these areas are uniquely vulnerable to impacts from development and other human activities. These being potential contamination of the aquifer and or the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. Understanding the concept of the Corridor: The concept of a conservation corridor is to set aside in a public trust or another venue over 70 lots to create permanent public open spaces, wetlands, parks and recreational areas. Wetlands Impact on Nitrates Dr. Paul Adamus's report "Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol" stated looking for a para or two on how wetlands in the Sunriver area can have a positive impact on reducing nitrates in the groundwater???? Oregon Spotted Froe The Oregon spotted frog is considered a Candidate species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which means that there is sufficient information to support a proposal to list this species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS is currently completing a status assessment for the Oregon spotted frog. Development of Deschutes County "red lots" within the floodplain of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers may pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog in the future and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of the Oregon spotted frog. Geoeraphic Area of the Conservation Corridor The area is located to the south of Sunriver Resort off Spring River Road (which leads to Mt. Bachelor). Google map link: http•//maps google com/maps?Q=Oregon&f=s&ie=UTF8&hc[=&hnear=Oregon&11=43.858297.- 121.470809&spn=0.015689.0.038495&t=h&z=15> Map: Is attached There are 68 mainly one-half acre lots in the open space, wetland and or red tagged high ground water areas from Anne's Butte (USFS) property to Spring River Road. By obtaining these lots the public and the neighborhood will have created a permanent park and recreation area for the enjoyment of our citizens and stewardship of the land and wildlife. How the Corridor solves the problem: The conservation and parks and recreation corridor will solve the various problems facing SDC by: • Setting aside wetlands and preserves wildlife corridors and habitat • Capturing storm and seasonal melt water and redirecting it to the wetlands in the corridor. • Creates park and recreation areas for neighbors and visitors • Strengthens the local and SDC economy 4 • Provides shovel read construction jobs • Improves the quality of life for our citizens and secures it for future generations Conceptual Plan In order to obtain the county and privately owned lots in the conservation corridor the following is a draft concept plan: 1. County Owned Lots a. Request the County transfer ownership of lots (see attached list of lots) to a non-profit agency. 2. Privately Owned Lots a. Identify lot owners b. Mail a registered, return receipt letter to each lot owner offering several options on how they can place their property in the conservation corridor. The options are: i. Donate the property to the non-profit which may result in a tax deduction. ii. Trade a red tagged or identified Wetland lot for another buildable lot the County owns in the same area. iii. Accept a one-time, fixed price, non-negotiable offer to sell their property to the non-profit. All private property owners would be offered the same fixed purchase price. 3. Budget a. The budget to obtain the lots is estimated at $380,000 (subject to third party determination and arbitration). Conclusion: Reconnecting the public with the national forests and quality day use facilities will attract new and returning visitors to South Deschutes County hence improving the economic vitality of the region. Obtaining private wetland property will protect an outstanding and remarkable area for current and future citizens. Connecting the U.S. Forest Service's land west of DRRH near Anne's Butte with the Forest Service's land adjacent to the Upper Deschutes River and Spring River will preserve open spaces and wildlife habitat. The corridor will protect the water drainage into the Upper Deschutes River and provide recreational opportunities for residents and the visiting public. Creating a team of results-oriented partners including the U.S. Forest Service, the State of Oregon, Deschutes County, non-profits and private citizens will create a plan for establishing open spaces, parks 5 and conserved land the echo public priorities and create a lasting legacy for future generations. Title: Creating an Action Plan for Parks and Land Conservation in South Deschutes County Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to create interest in establishing a public use, open space and recreational corridor from U.S. Forest Service land at Anne's Butte through the Deschutes River Recreational Home (DRRH) Sites neighborhood connecting into U.S. Forest Service land at Spring River Road. The corridor would include wetlands, open spaces, wildlife corridors and habitat, protect water in the corridor that drains into the Upper Deschutes River via U.S. Forest Service land, provide quiet and active parks for the public and perhaps become part of the State of Oregon's Scenic Bike Path system. The Problem: Within the Deschutes River Recreational Home Sites (DRRH) neighborhood there are no public parks, bike and walking paths, and river access and boat launch/retrieval sites. The large subdivision was plotted without any parks and recreational areas for residents, guests and the public. The area is close to Sunriver Resort and a large residential area and is bordered by U.S. Forest Service land that offers limited access and day use facilities to the public (Besson day use site is over three miles off of Spring River Road). U. S. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack stated "it is time for a change in the way we view and manage America's forestlands with an eye towards the future ...It is essential that we reconnect Americans across the nation with natural resources and landscapes that sustain us". The Upper Deschutes River is a Wild and Scenic River and recreation is an Outstanding Remarkable Value because of the range of activities, the variety of interpretive opportunities, and the attraction of the river for vacationers from outside the region (Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and State Scenic Water Comprehensive Plan 7/1966). Creating a public use corridor from U.S. Forest Service land through the DRRH neighborhood would be a building block on the Forest Service's vision of supporting communities and reconnecting the public with the national forests. As development occurred over the ensuing decades, property owners found themselves disenfranchised of their investment by Land Use Laws and environmental restrictions. Caught between septic feasibility, the National Wetland inventory, and very real seasonal flooding, sizeable blocks of hitherto residentially platted lands were abandoned for taxes. The majority of the DRRH subdivision has been identified as a high groundwater area. Additionally, the use of standard septic sewage systems may be adding to a regional issue of high levels of nitrates, 6 though this in turn has lead to the prospect of a regional sewer system. The lack of dedicated wetlands coupled with the number of buildable lots is of considerable concern. The DRRH subdivision is located on a high groundwater area. The use of septic sewage systems may be adding to a regional issue of high levels of nitrates. The lack of dedicated wetlands and the number of buildable lots is of considerable concern. Understanding the concept of the Corridor: The concept of a conservation corridor is to set aside in a public trust or another venue over 70 lots to create permanent public open spaces, wetlands, parks and recreational areas. Citizens and their priorities In March 2009, Deschutes County polled South Deschutes County (SDC) citizens on community Values as part of the County's comprehensive plan update. The results of the electronic polling from Sunriver area citizens showed: • 53% lived/worked/owned property in SDC. • 50% owned property in high groundwater area(s). • 87% believed SDC would over the next ten years significantly or somewhat attract more residents. • 83% believed over the next ten years the SDC would significantly or draw somewhat more visitors. • 25% saw a little improvement and 34% saw a little decline in the quality of live in SCD compared to a decade ago. • 57% saw the economy/jobs and 43% saw wildfires as the two biggest problems facing SDC. In polling on Community Values, there were four areas rated as very important by Sunriver area citizens: 1. Involvement in decisions affecting SDC. 2. Reduce wildfire hazards 3. Protect the Deschutes River 4. Maintain/protect Drinkwater supplies The group rates as important conserving forest land for forest uses; protecting fish habitat; and preserve/protect water quality. The Deschutes Community Development departments Fact Sheet of 4/8/2009 listed: 84.3% of land use as forest 6.4% rural residential 4.9% open space and conservation 7 2.8% agriculture 1.6% City of La Pine Reeional Growth There are 102,226 acres or 37.1% of the area with a Wildlife Overlay. The estimated housing and population (excluding the City of La Pine) showed existing dwelling units of 11,008 and a growth potential of 5,315 and a population of 20,915 and growth of 10,099 by 2025. Deschutes County's Recreational Economic Impact The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in a 2008 study on the economic value of shish and wildlife recreation in Oregon reported an economic value of $78,502,000 in Deschutes County consisting of: $44.3 million in Wildlife viewing $25.7 million in fishing $8.5 million in hunting. Deschutes County ranked number four out of 36 counties in the economic value of recreation. Tourism Nestled next to the Deschutes River on 3,300 acres of pristine high desert, lush meadows and beautiful pine forests, the Sunriver area is the premier Northwest destination for vacationers, golfers, and outdoor enthusiasts of all ages. With the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Newberry Volcanic National Monument to the east, Sunriver boasts an exciting array of world class amenities such as golf, tennis, swimming, horseback riding, kayaking, canoeing, white water rafting, fly fishing, biking, hiking, bird watching, spa and fitness centers, music and art festivals, and a variety of restaurants from fine dining to casual (Sunriver Chamber of Commerce). 8 There are approximately 4,200 residences and lodging units in Sunriver and about 1,500 residents call Sunriver home on a full-time basis. During the peak summer season, Sunriver's population can swell to nearly 20,000 vacationers and visitors on any given weekend (Sunriver Chamber of Commerce). Nestled along the Cascade Mountains, the Deschutes National Forest is one of the most popular recreation forests in the Pacific Northwest. Truly a four season vacationland, the Forest attracts more than 8 million people every year to camp, fish, hike, hunt, ski, and enjoy a multitude of outdoor activities. The Forest also provides variety of commodities (USFS website). Visit Bend conducted a two-year survey on the kind of people who visited the Bend area in the summers of 2008 and 2009. The following are some of the highlights of the survey that related to the creation of a conservation corridor near Sunriver: • 61% are female and 39% male • 69% are between ages 35 and 64 • 35% are households with children living at home • 68% have incomes from$50,000 to $199,000 • 40% come from Oregon and 39.6% from Washington • 28% plan or visited the Cascades Lakes Scenic Byway • 28% Deschutes River trail • 26% Sunriver • 21% lava lands • 15% Mt. Bachelor Ski Area • 9% Newberry National monument 9 Lava Cast Forest in travel activities visitors did or planned to do: • 63% hiking and trail running • 36% biking • 18% camping • 12% rafting, kayaking and canoeing • 9% bird watching • 9% fishing The Deschutes Scenic Waterway which includes the segments of the Deschutes River from Little Lava Lake downstream to Crane Prairie Reservoir, from the gauging station immediately below Wickiup Dam downstream to General Patch Bridge, from Harper Bridge downstream to the Central Oregon Irrigation District's diversion structure (near river mile 171), from Robert Sawyer Park downstream to Tumalo State Park, from Deschutes Market Road Bridge downstream to Lake Billy Chinook Reservoir (excluding the Cline Falls hydroelectric facility near river mile 145), and from immediately below the existing Pelton reregulating dam downstream to the confluence of the Deschutes River with the Columbia River, excluding the City of Maupin as its boundaries are constituted on October 4, 1977. 10 The Upped Deschutes Wild and Scenic river management plan (7/1996 appendix C-44-45) listed a 1992 study showing 158,000 bicycle user trips occur along the stretch of the Upper Deschutes River in the Sunriver area. An estimated 1,790 angler days occurs in the river from La Pine State Park to the north boundary of Sunriver. Canoeing and other flat-water craft make up a large percentage of boating use. In 1992, the Sunriver marina canoe rentals accounted for over 18,665 visits. Analysis of 1990 data estimated 251,000 people per year utilizing the segment of the river from La Pine State Park to Sunriver. In the river segment from the north boundary of Sunriver to COID Diversion as many as 18,000 people a year travel much of this reach in canoes from the Sunriver Marina. Groundwater Issues South Deschutes County is slowly growing and the need to conserve open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors, protect water quality and improve the economy is increasingly important. South Deschutes County has a concentration of high groundwater areas. These are areas where the groundwater lies less than 24 inches beneath the surface of the land. Because groundwater is so close to the surface, these areas are uniquely vulnerable to impacts from development and other human activities. In South Deschutes County there are: • 5,422 acres of high groundwater areas • 1,700 high groundwater development lots 0 1,500 undeveloped lots 0 200 developed lots • 18,000 residents in SDC rely on groundwater as their primary drinking water source. • Natural resources in high groundwater's areas include: o 1,852 acres classified as wetlands o 1,608 acres flood plain 0 5,422 acres deer migration zone 0 290 acres elk range 11 Attachment number 1 shows the depth to groundwater areas. The Deschutes County rural development plan (Chapter 23.24.610) has a goal "to preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the county". By preserving the open spaces and high groundwater areas from the Forest Service's Anne's Butte area through DRRH to the Forest Service's land next to the Upper Deschutes and Spring Rivers, the public will have created a stewardship plan for one area of South Deschutes County. Wetlands Impact on Nitrates Dr. Paul Adamus's report "Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol" stated looking for a para or two on how wetlands in the Sunriver area can have a positive impact on reducing nitrates in the groundwater???? Oregon Spotted Frog The Oregon spotted frog is considered a Candidate species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which means that there is sufficient information to support a proposal to list this species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS is currently completing a status assessment for the Oregon spotted frog. The Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers and associated wetlands are key habitat for the frog. In particular, riverine oxbows that contain permanent standing water but are no longer connected to the river provide essential overwintering and breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frog. The rivers and associated floodplains are connectivity corridors that must be maintained to allow populations of frogs to interbreed. Small ponds and isolated wetlands with emergent or floating aquatic vegetation and perennial water also provide habitat for the frog, particularly those that are devoid of predatory fish and bull frogs. In the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, Oregon spotted frog is threatened by the loss of marsh habitat due to vegetation succession and lodgepole pine encroachment into wetlands; alteration of riverine and wetland hydrologic regimes; interactions with non-native fish and bull frogs; and degraded water quality. Livestock grazing in high density may also pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog. Development of Deschutes County "red lots" within the floodplain of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers may pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog in the future and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of the Oregon spotted frog. Filling of wetlands will directly affect the habitat on which the frog is dependent. Additionally, the recent findings of the US Geological Survey suggest that development of lots with a high water table will increase nutrient loading (i.e., 12 nitrate) in the rivers. Excess nitrate loading in the river, combined with a naturally occurring high level of phosphorous in the substrate, will greatly exacerbate eutrophication of the rivers and lead to excess algal growth and vegetative growth. Spotted frogs are dependent not only on the wetland habitat but the high quality of water within these wetlands (full report from Glen Ardt - ODFW Wildlife Habitat Biologist see note 1 below). Geographic Area of the Conservation Corridor The area is located to the south of Sunriver Resort off Spring River Road (which leads to Mt. Bachelor). Google map link: http://maps.google.com/maps?g=Oregon&f=s&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Oregon&11=43 858297 - 121.470809&spn=0.015689.0.038495&t=h&z=15> There are 68 mainly one-half acre lots in the open space, wetland and or red tagged high ground water areas from Anne's Butte (USFS) property to Spring River Road across from the USFS property which adjoins the Upper Deschutes and Spring Rivers. By obtaining these lots the public and the neighborhood will have created a permanent park and recreation area for the enjoyment of our citizens and stewardship of the land and wildlife. Specifically, the area under consideration consists of: • Deschutes County owns 6 lots totaling 3 acres o Deschutes County owns xx lots and xx acres of property that may be zoned as buildable lots. • Private owners have 62 lots totaling 32 acres o Private owners have xx lots totaling xx acres of property that may be zoned as buildable lots. o Private owners have xx lots totaling xx acres of property that may be zoned as wetland/red tagged lots. Attached is a map showing the property in the proposed public corridor and the U.S. Forest Service's national forest land bordering the DRRH community. How the Corridor solves the problem: The conservation and parks and recreation corridor will solve the various problems facing SDC by: • Setting aside wetlands and preserves wildlife corridors and habitat • Capturing storm and seasonal melt water and redirecting it to the wetlands in the corridor. • Creates park and recreation areas for neighbors and visitors • Strengthens the local and SDC economy 13 • Provides shovel read construction jobs • Improves the quality of life for our citizens and future generations At an elevation of 4300 feet, the climate in the region is one of cool nighttime temperatures with a short frost-free summer that averages less than 100 days annually and a winter period of five or six months where snow can reside on the ground at any time. The rivers receive significant input from cool spring fed waters. The groundwater is mostly derived from snowmelt in the high Cascades to the west, and is also relatively cool. The development of thousands of small lots in the South County is therefore superimposed upon highly permeable, rapidly draining solid and a high groundwater table with relatively cold-water temperatures. The overwhelming majority of lots are served by on-site sewage disposal system (septic systems), including standard drain fields, cap and fill systems, and more recently sand-filter systems. Nitrates, a by- product of septic systems and an indicator of human pathogens, are poorly retained in the fast draining soils and do not easily break down due to cool groundwater temperature. As a result, loading of nitrates occurs in the shallow groundwater aquifer that underlies this region. The presence of a high level of nitrates is of great concern because this same aquifer is the source of drinking water for the residents in the area. (Regional Problem Solving for SDC, Chapter 23.44 dated 4/20/2002) The creation of a conservation corridor and removal of over 70 lots from development can only improve the nitrate issue close to the Upper Deschutes River. Conceptual Plan In order to obtain the county and privately owned lots in the conservation corridor the following is a draft concept plan: 4. County Owned Lots a. Request the County transfer ownership of lots (see attached list of lots) to a non-profit agency. b. The non- profits accepts ownership of the lots. 5. Privately Owned Lots a. Identify lot owners b. Mail a registered, return receipt letter to each lot owner offering several options on how they can place their property in the conservation corridor. The options are: i. Donate the property to the non-profit which may result in a tax deduction. ii. Trade a red tagged lot for another buildable lot the County owns in the same area. 14 iii. Accept a one-time, fixed price, non-negotiable offer to sell their property to the non-profit. All private property owners would be offered the same fixed purchase price. iv. 6. Budget a. The budget to obtain the lots is estimated at: i. Private Lot purchase $5,000 per lot times 70 lots = $350,000. ii. County lots - title transfer services at $5,000. iii. Non-profit services at $5,000. iv. Signage and information kiosk's $5,000. V. Legal services $5,000. vi. Contingency $10,000 vii. Total Budget $380,000. Conclusion: Reconnecting the public with the national forests and quality day use facilities will attract new and returning visitors to South Deschutes County hence improving the economic vitality of the region. Obtaining private wetland property will protect an outstanding and remarkable area for current and future citizens. Connecting the U.S. Forest Service's land west of DRRH near Anne's Butte with the Forest Service's land adjacent to the Upper Deschutes River and Spring River will preserve open spaces and wildlife habitat. The corridor will protect the water drainage into the Upper Deschutes River and provide recreational opportunities for residents and the visiting public. A first class day use facility will create a new economic base for the South Deschutes County. Creating a team of results-oriented partners including the U.S. Forest Service, the State of Oregon, Deschutes County, non-profits and private citizens will create a plan for establishing open spaces, parks and conserved land the echo public priorities and create a lasting legacy for future generations. Prepared by: Jerry Hubbard David Ogden 15 IZs ~Aft Oregon Spotted Frog in the Upper Deschutes Basin Note 1 - Oregon Spotted Frog Conservation Recommendations to Limit Conflicting Use The Interagency Working Group recommends that Deschutes County add an Oregon spotted frog habitat area to the wildlife area combining zone map to include the floodplains along the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers south of Bend (approximately from River Mile (RM) 173 16 CXNTML OMMON AAA M" to headwaters of the Deschutes River and from the confluence with the Deschutes River to the Klamath County line (RM42.9) for the Little Deschutes River). • Oregon spotted frog habitat is essential and limited, and depending on the site, it could be irreplaceable. The mitigation goal for essential, limited, and irreplaceable habitat is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality through avoidance (Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) Habitat Category 1). The mitigation goal for essential and limited habitat if impacts are unavoidable is no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality and to provide a net benefit of habitat quantity or quality (ODFW Habitat Category 2). • The Working group recommends a No Net Loss of wetlands within the Oregon spotted frog habitat area. Therefore, wetland fill permits should be sent to the ODFW and FWS for review and comment to the county on their findings. The working group recommends that Deschutes County complete a Local Wetland Inventory to properly protect wetland and inherent functions and values. • Hydrologic connectivity should be maintained when wetlands will be filled. For example, culverts should be installed below roads, driveways, or other obstructions that may block hydrologic connectivity that allows for proper wetland function and dispersal of Oregon spotted frogs. • Limit structures within floodplains. that could impact floodplain functions • Maintain highest water quality standard in wetlands and rivers. The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is endemic to the Pacific Northwest and historically ranged from southwestern British Columbia to northeast California. There are less than 50 known sites inhabited by the species in southwestern British Columbia, western and south- central Washington, and western, central, and south-central Oregon; no populations are known to persist in California. Revisits of historic localities suggest the species is lost from 70-90% of its historic range (Cushman and Pearl 2007). 17 In Oregon, Oregon spotted frogs historically were found in Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Benton, Jackson, Lane, Wasco, Deschutes and Klamath counties. Currently, this species is only known to occur in Deschutes, Klamath, and Lane counties. In Deschutes County, Oregon spotted frogs occur within water bodies on the Deschutes National Forest, Prineville District Bureau of Land Management and private land. The Oregon spotted frog is considered a Candidate species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which means that there is sufficient information to support a proposal to list this species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS is currently completing a status assessment for the Oregon spotted frog. The Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers and associated wetlands are key habitat for the frog. In particular, riverine oxbows that contain permanent standing water but are no longer connected to the river provide essential overwintering and breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frog. The rivers and associated floodplains are connectivity corridors that must be maintained to allow populations of frogs to interbreed. Small ponds and isolated wetlands with emergent or floating aquatic vegetation and perennial water also provide habitat for the frog, particularly those that are devoid of predatory fish and bull frogs. In the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, Oregon spotted frog is threatened by the loss of marsh habitat due to vegetation succession and lodgepole pine encroachment into wetlands; alteration of riverine and wetland hydrologic regimes; interactions with non-native fish and bull frogs; and degraded water quality. Livestock grazing in high density may also pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog. Development of Deschutes County "red lots" within the floodplain of the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers may pose a threat to Oregon spotted frog in the future and could be considered conflicting uses relative to conservation of the Oregon spotted frog. Filling of wetlands will directly affect the habitat on which the frog is dependent. Additionally, the recent findings of the US Geological Survey suggest that development of lots with a high water table will increase nutrient loading (i.e., nitrate) in the rivers. Excess nitrate loading in the river, combined with a naturally occurring high level of phosphorous in the substrate, will greatly 18 exacerbate eutrophication of the rivers and lead to excess algal growth and vegetative growth. Spotted frogs are dependent not only on the wetland habitat but the high quality of water within these wetlands 19 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Special Road District #1 A- .00 -ft,4. PMPOMd b** PM W" "MM of exiwo Wk . , T.A-N pmod... Date: April 7, 2010 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator Re: PROPOSED SINGLE FILE ORDINANCE FOR SKLYINERS ROAD At its March 3, 2010 Business Meeting, the Board of County Commissioners considered the adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-013, an ordinance that would require cyclists using Skyliners Road to ride single file. The draft ordinance is attached for your reference. Members from the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) attended the meeting and the Board agreed to postpone action to provide BPAC an opportunity to provide input. Attached is a report from BPAC on the proposed single file ordinance. Representatives from BPAC will attend the April 14`h Work Session to discuss their report and recommendations. Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Report to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration at the April 14, 2010 Board Worksession Purpose The members of the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) wish to express our gratitude to the Board of County Commissioners for the opportunity to provide input regarding proposed Ordinance 2010-013, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10, adding Chapter 10.06 to the Deschutes County Code to Regulate Bicycle Travel on Skyliners Road and Declaring an Emergency." Further, we are eager to assist the Board in your efforts to seek creative and effective resolution to issues of safety and conflict along this important transportation corridor. The purpose of this report is to summarize findings regarding the proposed Ordinance; define the position and recommendations of the BPAC regarding the proposed Ordinance; and provide suggested alternative actions to address substantial issues of safety for motorists and non-motorists using the corridor, and to address issues of convenience and opportunities for quiet enjoyment for community members living in proximity to corridor. Process to Formulate a Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners BPAC hosted two worksessions to hear comments, ideas and concerns of affected interest groups. Worksessions were held on Thursday, March 18 and Monday, March 22, 2010. Attendees included homeowners, motorists, bicyclists, and representatives from law enforcement, bicycle advocacy groups and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Results of these meetings, including comments and suggestions made by attendees, were documented and shared with the BPAC membership. BPAC members reviewed comparable policies and creative resolution to comparable issues in other jurisdictions. Additionally, certain sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes, particularly ORS 811.065, Unsafe passing of a person operating a bicycle, and ORS 814.430, exception C, which permits leaving the right edge of the roadway "to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side." were considered for relevance to the circumstances of Skyliners Road and consequences of the proposed Ordinance. BPAC Recommendation Regarding the proposed Ordinance 2010-013 At a regular meeting on Thursday, April 1, 2010, following thoughtful deliberation by all present, the BPAC achieved consensus that it cannot endorse the proposed Ordinance 2010-013. It is the position of the Committee that, while enacting the ordinance may be in compliance with the laws and policies of the State of Oregon and which enable the establishment of local ordinances by County governments, such action is contrary to the spirit of those laws that govern bicycling on roadways and shared use of roadways by motorists and non-motorists. It is our determination that the proposed Ordinance may in fact exacerbate safety issues, in part by extending passing distances for motorists. Further, the Ordinance may serve to confuse roadway users in other travel corridors, and may become a catalyst for unfounded requests to implement similar policies on other County roads. Page 1 of 2 Proposed Alternative Actions to Address Safety Issues and Mitigate Citizen Concerns regarding Shared Use of the Roadway. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee recognizes its responsibility to support the Board of County Commissioners in its effort to mitigate conflicts resulting from shared use of the Skyliners Road. Essentially our goal is to enhance bicyclist and motorist safety on Skyliners Road by: • encouraging the use of alternative, suitable and potentially less hazardous routes in the community by recreational bicyclists; • educating motorists and bicyclists about applicable laws governing shared use of roadways; • creating a public education plan to inform the public about the situation on the road; • working to positively influence the design of the Skyliners Road improvements; • setting a precedent for other roads of similar type in the county; • and by creating an atmosphere of cooperation among all interested parties. To achieve this goal, we commit to directly implement or support the implementation of the following suggested alternatives: • Engage Cycling Ambassadors to model and share appropriate behaviors and etiquette. Due to issues of liability, it was suggested that this action will focus on events rather than everyday recreational cyclists and other roadway users. • Educate Law Enforcement officials. There is recognition of current inconsistencies in the application of laws associated with the issues that have emerged on Skyliners Road. This was affirmed by law enforcement representatives from the city of Bend and Deschutes County present at the April 1, 2010 BPAC meeting. • Design and Implement a multi-faceted Educational campaign. Targeted to all roadway users (locals and tourists), this would employ print, broadcast and internet media to deliver appropriate and effective messages regarding safety, etiquette, and shared-use principals. • Involve bicycling shops to promote alternative routes ahead of anticipated road construction and improvement. As one facet of the Educational campaign (above), local bicycle shops would be specifically targeted as a direct source of information to the cycling community. • Design and Install Entryway Kiosk/Construction sign. This would be modeled after those at trail heads, with a header that may read "Skyliners Road - Use Extreme Caution - Temporary Restrictions for Bicyclists." The kiosk would provide instructions for both road bikers and mountain bike trails, information about the construction, and other policies and considerations. It may also include notice about the hazards/safety, brochures about websites. etc. for other rides (same brochure to be used for the bikeshops, as above), and a small pullout so people can get off of the main roadway and read the information. • Provide Support and Advocacy for efforts to expeditiously and cost-effectively improve Skyliners Road for all roadway users in conjunction with USDA Forest Service and the city of Bend. Page 2 of 2 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 10, adding Chapter 10.06 to the Deschutes County Code to Regulate * ORDINANCE NO. 2010-013 Bicycle Travel on Skyliners Road and Declaring an Emergency. WHEREAS, Title 10 of the Deschutes County Code concerns vehicle and traffic regulations on and along roads subject to regulation by the County; and WHEREAS, Skyliners Road from approximately Mile Post 1.96 on the east at the Bend City Limits to and including approximately Mile Post 10.038 where the road reverts to U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction (herein "Skyliners Road") is subject to County regulation as the road authority pursuant to ORS 810.010; and WHEREAS, The current conditions of Skyliners Road are that it is a narrow two-lane road with several curves which provide limited visibility, poor pavement conditions and contains no bicycle lanes; and WHEREAS, due to its proximity near Bend, the relatively low motor vehicle usage and the nearby availability of ample parking at Summit High School, Skyliners Road has become a popular venue for recreational bicyclists, as well as for the organizers of competitive bicycling races and events; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to impose restrictions under ORS 810.030 which address potential conflicts and safety risks on Skyliners Road between operators of motor vehicles and people riding bicycles, which become more acute when bicyclists ride side by side; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 10 is amended by adding a new Chapter 10.06 to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2 EMERGENCY. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. * * * * * PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-013 (3/03/2010) Dated this of , 2010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner Date of 1St Reading: day of 52010. Date of 2°d Reading: day of , 2010. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Alan Unger Tammy Baney Effective date: day of 12010. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-013 (3/03/2010) COMMUNffy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DESCHUTES COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Tom Anderson, Community Development Director RE: Staff Report - Code Enforcement Program Discussion DATE: April 12, 2010 The Board of Commissioners has requested a policy discussion of the current code enforcement program administered by Community Development (CDD). It is the understanding of staff that the Board would like to consider more aggressive punitive actions in certain scenarios where a property owner has demonstrated a willful disregard for existing state and county code rules and requirements. This report will provide a brief background of the program, statistics on current operational workload and performance, and discussion options for modification of the program. BACKGROUND In the 1980's and first part of the 1990's, CDD's code enforcement program was comparatively aggressive. Staff carried badges and had the ability to issue citations. However, over time the program came under increasing pressure from parts of the community for what were perceived by some as strong arm tactics. There were demonstrations outside of the CDD building along those lines. The two Code Enforcement Officers eventually feared for their safety and left county employment. They were not replaced and for several years following this, the program was not adequately organized or completely effective, with duties shared between CDD and the Sheriff's Office. In response, a 'Code Enforcement Task Force' was formed to discuss how best to conduct code enforcement in the county. The result was the drafting of a 'Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual', which was discussed by the Board in 1995 through a number of public meetings and eventually adopted, with an effective date of January 1, 1996. Although certain elements of the document have evolved in practice over time, it still largely shapes how code enforcement is conducted today. The central themes of the document are: • Proactive code enforcement • Prioritization of cases • Response to citizen complaints • Voluntary compliance • Prosecution of offenders who do not comply • Punishment and fines • Recovery of costs • Rejection of anonymous complaints • Complaints from county employees CDD recognizes the age of the manual and has included in its work plan for several years the goal of performing a comprehensive update, which would recognize current practices and provide an opportunity for both the public and policy makers to discuss the effectiveness of the program and any desirable modifications to philosophy and practices. Staffing limitations however have so far prevented that from occurring. CURRENT PROGRAM A report on the 2009 performance of the code enforcement program was recently prepared which includes workload trends, case type volume, case resolution times and compliance rates. The report is attached. Highlights from the report: • After many years of steady increases, new reported violations decreased in 2008 then stabilized in 2009. • An increasing percentage of new cases are generated through proactive code enforcement. • Cases are fairly evenly divided between Building, Environmental Health (septic systems), Land Use and Solid Waste Code violations. • Case resolution times have been gradually improving (decreasing) over the past three years. • Although historically averaging about 75%, cases resolved through voluntary compliance have been increasing the past three years-78% in 2007, 82% in 2008, and 86% in 2009. DISCUSSION ITEMS Should the frequency of citation issuance disregard for code regulations? o Discussion: The desired outcome of disregard for the codes should be time/cost of CDD, Sheriff and Legal noted that issuance of a citation does court. be increased in cases of willful a decrease in instances of willful weighed against the increased Dept staff time. Also, it should be not guarantee conviction in circuit Should other punitive measures be undertaken to blatant code violations? o Multiple citations o Lobby legislature for increase in fine amount o Public posting of violations/citations o Use of Nuisance Code/Abatement o Other? decrease the frequency of • Should an update of the Procedures Manual be placed at a Higher Priority in the Work Plan? o Discussion: Short of delays in the processing of active cases, it is not expected that staff time will be available for this work until Fall, 2010. • Should the Building Official be given more direct guidelines for issuance of Stop Work Orders? 0 Other Direction? T- O O N L 4) f+ V L 0 W V 0 a m V C W C A V Q Q cn c!) O a Q Z a z w W W ~ V ~ Z DQ H J z a J O a v O ~ U Q Z ~ w Z N ~ J H 0 V> W y ~ Z O J y O cs Z Z a D = J J ~ Q m W LL X 0 Q zl~w Z W W W vZ oC0 ow zz W W W D O V W F- N 0 LL W H LLJ 2 W W H W > > un V ~ w u~ O z ~ H LL :i w ~aZ o ~ o W EML 0 W ~ CO) LL V W W ~ > Z V ~ H CL W Q m a zo W ~ Q ~ H = CL I I 1 V N ca E E U Q J W Q ~Q M O ~ ~ M ~ p 0~ 00 c~ ~ d- ~ d- W O O d- o ~ Cl a N W CD co 0) o 0 M O O M d' ti C~ O _ N N`: N M N r' co 5~- COO M 00 ~ r... co N CD C5 N M N N: M ~O CO O 0 0 cci N ~ 07 M N 't N cyi W G~ V Q a ~ 0~~ .k w v Cl Iq cu E E 0 U O O L ca MM c* U ~a a ` cfl co ti 4) N LO Z V CV) N N v CO) Q CU CU Z N o U CL co N C~ U) a) N U") N U ~ = M N N O N N N R E E 3 d H d N R V 0 0 N 0 ti of - o •E~•+ m ~ N N C ° NI •d+ y = o o IM cn M~ am 0 _ CU > > _ cc w CO) - O d N Ul) c 0 L L U O O o O (U M um) M d- Q I` GO 00 O lo 0 0 CO CU CO 0) qr~ Q 0 0 (0 ~ 0 0 0 co ca Q u) co N N N j, o o M cu Q CD CU M 4--0 CO 0 CU M N ~ V U N ti oo 0 0 0 N N' N C4 a~ U C fB Q E O U O V O 0 O ~ C O ` O O 07 00 U r V L c o 0 O . 00 CO r L O O O 00 N CO 0 O I` co co ti 00 0 - - O O} N N N ti DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL EFFECTIVE DATE - JANUARY 1, 1996 DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1 1. MISSION 2 II. PURPOSE 2 III. INTERPRETATION 2 IV. AMENDMENTS 2 V. CODE ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY 3 VI. PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT 4 VII. APPLICABILITY 5 VIII. INITIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 7 A. Citizen complaint 7 B. Observation by Code Enforcement Staff 8 C. Permit/Approval Condition Monitoring 8 D. Report by County staff 9 E. Request/Report by County Commissioner 9 F. Information from official County Records 9 IX. RECORDING COMPLAINT, OPENING FILE, TIMELINES .........................................9 X. NOTICE OF FILE OPENING 10 X1. INVESTIGATION 11 A. Preliminary Matters 11 B. Establishing Elements of Violation 11 C. Assignment of Responsibility 12 D. Field Investigation 13 E. Report of Field Investigation 14 XII. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ................................................................................15 A. Voluntary Compliance 15 B. Notice of Violation 16 C. Citation and Complaint .17 D. Injunctions 20 E. Stop Work Orders 21 F. Permit Revocation 21 G. Nuisance Abatement 22 H. Dangerous Building Abatement 22 1. Double-Fee Permits 22 J. Restricting Permit Issuance 23 K. Assisting other Agency Enforcement 25 L. Civil Penalties 25 M. County Cost Recovery 26 N. Liens 26 XIII. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP .............................................................................................................26 XIV. RESOLUTION OF CODE VIOLATION COMPLAINTS 27 XV. FILE MAINTENANCE 28 XVI. MEDIA CONTACT 29 XVII. APPENDICES 29 A. Complaint Form B. Undocumented Structure Policy C. Agreement to Abate D. Notice of violation (NOV) E. ORS 153.3 10 and ORS 203.065 (Fines) F. Indigence Form PREFACE Code Enforcement in Deschutes County is a high priority for the Board of County Commissioners. In August of 1994, the Board established the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Task Force to study county code enforcement, to recommend improvements to the program and to identify statutory or county code changes that may be required to increase the effectiveness of code enforcement. The task force included citizens, representatives of the construction and real estate industries, representatives of the state court system and law enforcement, county legal counsel, managers of the county's Community Development Department and the county's code enforcement staff. The task force met three times during 1994. In January of 1995, they presented a report to the Board containing their recommendations. The Board accepted those recommendations, and directed county staff to begin to implement them. Among the recommendations was the development of this code enforcement policy and procedures manual. The key task force recommendation was the implementation of a more "proactive", or county-initiated, code enforcement program. Such a program would begin simultaneously with adoption of the manual and would apply to code violations occurring on or after the effective date of the manual. This recommendation effectively creates a two-pronged approach to code enforcement that is, somewhat different policies and procedures for violations occurring before, and after, the effective date of the manual. The intent of this approach is both to increase code enforcement after giving the community ample notice of the county's new, "tougher" enforcement policy, as well as to set enforcement priorities and manage the county's code enforcement workload in a manner that is realistic, clear and credible to the community. The policies and procedures in this manual reflect this new approach. In the past, county code enforcement has been primarily reactive, generated by complaints. However, the complaint-driven system has not been effective by itself in stemming the tide of code violations in the county. With the adoption of this manual, staff of the Community Development Department, with the assistance of county legal counsel, law enforcement and the court system, and within available resources, will undertake proactive efforts to identify code violations and to obtain compliance, along with responding to citizen complaints. These proactive efforts will focus on the following areas: ❖ timely monitoring and enforcement by county staff of permit and approval conditions; ❖ revocation of permits for non-compliance; ❖ abatement of nuisances and dangerous buildings; ❖ stop work orders for non-permitted activity and double-fees on subsequent permits; ❖ restricting issuance of permits on property with uncorrected code violations; assisting in related code enforcement by other agencies; and ❖ civil procedures to obtain compliance and to recover the county's code enforcement costs. The Board believes the policies and procedures in this manual will enhance code enforcement and thereby the quality of life in the county. I. MISSION The mission of code enforcement in Deschutes County is to protect the health and safety of the county's residents and visitors, and the livability of the community, by assuring compliance with the county's land use, environmental and construction codes. The county will assure code compliance both by encouraging voluntary compliance and by punishing code violators who do not comply. II. PURPOSE The purpose of the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (hereafter "manual") is to provide written guidelines for: A. the prioritization of code enforcement cases; B. initiation and investigation of code violation complaints; C. enforcement of county codes through voluntary compliance; D. prosecution of code violators who do not comply; E. punishment of code violators and the assessment of fines and penalties; and F. recovery of the county's investigation and enforcement costs. These written guidelines are intended to assure consistency and predictability within the county's code enforcement program, and to educate the county's citizens and property owners about code enforcement and the consequences of violating the codes. III. INTERPRETATION This manual describes the standard policies and procedures for code enforcement, and should be interpreted so as to maximize both the efficiency of county code enforcement and compliance with county codes. This manual should be followed unless there is a compelling reason not to, as determined by the Director of the Community Development Department (hereafter "CDD") or the Board of County Commissioners (hereafter "Board"). The effective date of this manual is January 1, 1996. IV. AMENDMENTS This manual may be amended when deemed necessary by the CDD Director and the Board. Amendments may be proposed by county staff, board members and other interested persons. On February 12, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners modified the list of priorities in Chapter 6, Section A- Priority cases by reversing items #3 and #4. On September 30, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved modifications to code enforcement staffing, including the reclassification of the code enforcement secretary to Code Enforcement Technician and the addition of a Field Technician from the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office, in lieu of two full time Code Enforcement Officers. These amendments are reflected in the revised manual published in October, 1998. V. CODE ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY Policy. The county's policy is to enforce compliance with county codes in all cases of reported and discovered code violations. However, the county has limited code enforcement resources. Consequently, the county has established, through this manual, both a priority ranking for code enforcement and procedures designed to maximize available code enforcement resources. It is the county's policy that code enforcement should follow the priority ranking set forth in section VI of this manual. It also should be flexible enough to allow the level of enforcement that best fits the type and circumstances of the code violation(s), within clear and objective criteria set forth in this manual and consistent with the priorities. A. Enforcement Levels. The levels of enforcement available to the county are: I. obtaining voluntary compliance; 2. mediated settlement of code violation complaints; 3. notice of violation (hereafter "NOW); 4. citation and prosecution of infractions in district court; 5. petition for injunction in circuit court; 6. stop work order; 7. permit revocation; 8. nuisance abatement; 9. dangerous building abatement; 10. double-fee permits required for code compliance; 11. restricting issuance of permits on property with uncorrected code violations; 12. assisting in enforcement by other regulatory and licensing agencies; 13. civil penalties through county administrative hearings; and 14. county cost recovery. B. Sequence ofEn orcement. The levels of enforcement are not mutually exclusive, and may be used alone or in sequence or combination with other levels. However, in most code violation cases, the county will use the code enforcement levels in the sequence they appear in Paragraph C. Criteria for choosing Level of Enforcement. Some code violation cases may have aggravating circumstances requiring a different sequence for enforcement activity than that set forth in Paragraph A. The county may choose a different sequence if one or more of the following circumstances is present: 1. the code violation is severe (e.g., deviates greatly from the code); 2. the actions leading to the violation(s) were deliberate; 3. the violation poses a significant threat to the public health and safety, or to the environment; 4. the violation may cause economic harm to individuals or to the county as a whole; 5. the alleged code violator is receiving significant economic benefit from continuing the code violation; 6. the physical size or extent of the violation is significant; 7. the violation has existed uncorrected for a significant period; 8. there is a previous history of complaints and code enforcement on the subject property and/or with the alleged code violator; 9. there is community interest in the violation, and potential code enforcement and compliance on the property would be very visible; 10. there is good potential for combining enforcement action on the violation with other violations; 11. the relative benefit of code enforcement outweighs its cost; 12. there is good potential that the violation(s) can be established and successfully prosecuted; and 13. there is little likelihood of obtaining voluntary compliance. VI. PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT Policy' It is the county's policy to investigate and to attempt to resolve all code violations. However, because of limited code enforcement resources, there may be times when all code violations cannot be given the same level of attention, when some code violations may receive no attention at all, or when the county may be unable to carry out the new proactive code enforcement activities set forth in section VII of this manual. In circumstances where not all code violations can be investigated, the most serious violations, as determined under the priorities set forth in this section and the criteria for enforcement in Section V.C. of this manual, should be addressed before the less serious violations are addressed, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. However, complaints alleging both priority and non-priority violations should be processed together to maximize efficiency. A. Priority Cases. The Board has established the following priorities for Community Development Department code violations: 1. Violations that present an imminent threat to public health and safety; 2. Violations affecting rivers, streams and/or adjacent riparian areas; 3. Building code violations consisting of ongoing non-permitted construction or failure to obtain permits for construction started after the effective date of this manual. 4 4. Land use violations occurring after the effective date of this manual including failure to meet conditions of approval. 5. Building, Planning and Environmental Health permit violations occurring after the effective date of this manual including failure to obtain required permits or failure to meet conditions and requirements of permits. B. Non-Priority Cases E lieu. Complaints alleging code violations that do not fall within the priority ranking above should be processed in the order in which the complaints are received, and as code enforcement resources allow. Exception. At the discretion of code enforcement staff, complaints may be processed in any order that maximizes the efficiency of enforcement. Procedure. All complaints concerning a particular type of code violation (e.g., non-permitted manufactured homes in manufactured home parks), or all complaints of violations occurring in a particular geographic area, may be processed together, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. C. Solid Waste Code Enforcement for solid waste complaints and violations shall be administrated by the Sheriff's Office. VII. APPLICABILITY A. General Applicability. This manual applies to all code enforcement carried out by CDD, its employees and agents. Except as otherwise provided, the policies and procedures in this manual apply to all alleged code violations, whether or not they existed on the effective date of this manual. The policies and procedures in this manual supersede any conflicting county policies and procedures. B. Current Policies and Procedures. Prior to the effective date of this manual, the county's code enforcement has been based upon citizen complaints, and by independent observations of code enforcement staff and other CDD staff while in the field. These procedures are described in Sections VIII A and B of this manual. Policy. It is the county's policy to continue to use existing policies and procedures for code violations that existed on or prior to the effective date of this manual. Procedure. The code enforcement policies and procedures described in sections VIII A and B of this manual shall be used for: Code violation complaints, and code violations observed by code enforcement staff, that were pending as of the effective date of this manual; and 2. New code violation complaints and/or observations by code enforcement staff and other CDD staff relating to violations that occurred prior to the effective date of this manual. 5 C. New Policies and Procedures Applicable on Effective Date o Manual. Policy. It is the county's policy, as of the effective date of this manual (January 1, 1996) to increase code enforcement and compliance by creating a framework for proactive i.e. county-initiated enforcement of county codes. Procedure. On and after the effective date of this manual, and within available code enforcement resources, the county may undertake a number of county-initiated procedures for proactive code enforcement. These procedures may include: 1. investigations and prosecutions of code violations in particular geographic areas; 2. investigations and prosecutions of code violations of a particular type throughout the county; 3. encumbering property subject to land use conditions of approval by recording the conditions in the county clerk's real property records; 4. timely and regular follow-up by CDD staff for compliance with conditions and requirements for permits and approvals the decisions for which are made on or after the effective date of this manual; 5. reporting by county staff of code violations observed while conducting county business; 6. examination and comparison of county files for evidence of code violations; 7. revocation of permits and approvals for failure to comply with requirements or conditions; 8. restriction on issuance of development permits on property with uncorrected code violations; 9. cooperation with code enforcement by other regulatory and licensing agencies; and 10. cooperation with utility companies to terminate service, to the extent authorized by law, to non- permitted uses on property. D. Non-Applicability to Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions. Many subdivisions and planned communities are subject to private, recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions (hereafter "C C & R's"). For example, "C C & R's" may regulate matters like the height, size or appearance of structures, or the method of storing recreational vehicles. The conditions and restrictions included in "C C & R's" are generally enforceable through private legal action. In some cases, the conditions established in "C C & R's" are similar or identical to county code provisions governing the same structure or activity. Policy. The county's policy is not to enforce private "C C & R's". However, the county will enforce county code provisions that regulate the same activity as "C C & R's", pursuant to this manual. E. Non-Applicability to Private Legal Action. Citizens may undertake private legal action to enforce county codes, including civil litigation against the alleged code violator, as well as personally filing citations and prosecuting county code infractions in district court. The policies and procedures in this manual do not apply to private legal action to abate county code violations. Neither should they be interpreted to suggest that the county will participate in such private legal action. VIILINITIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Code Enforcement may be initiated by any of the following methods: A. Citizen Complaint. Any person may make a complaint to the county alleging one or more code violations. Form. A citizen's complaint shall be made on a county complaint form (see Appendix A). The complainant may complete the form, or it may be completed by county staff based upon a telephone call, letter or other contact from the complainant. If the complaint is received in letterform the letter shall be attached to a complaint form completed by county staff. To be investigated, a citizen complaint must contain all information required on the complaint form. 2. Anonymous Complaints. Policy. The county's policy is not to accent anonymous code violation complaints. The county believes that anonymous complaints are not as reliable as those made by complainants who are willing to identify themselves. In addition, in many cases, the complainant's identification and testimony in court may be necessary for successful prosecution of code violators and code enforcement. Exception. The county recognizes there may be cases justifying an exception to this policy. These are cases where the nature of an anonymous complaint reliably suggests the existence of code violations presenting an imminent threat to public health and safety or to the environment, which threat easily may be verified by county staff. In such cases, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, county staff shall accept the anonymous complaint and investigate it. 3. Con identiality. Policy. The county's policy is to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and computer records, including the identity of the complainant, to the extent legally possible. The county believes it is important to maintain this confidentiality to assure effective investigation and prosecution of code violations. In addition, the county recognizes that some complainants do not want their names disclosed to the alleged code violator for fear of retaliation. However, in some cases it may be necessary for successful prosecution and enforcement for the complainant to be identified and to testify in court. In addition, the county's code enforcement files are subject to state statutes governing public records and discovery. Exceptions. In cases where the county chooses to cooperate with, or defer to, federal or state agencies for code enforcement, the contents of the file may be disclosed, as necessary, to the other agency. Procedure. In order to maintain the confidentiality of code enforcement complaint files and the identity of the complainants, while assuring effective prosecution and enforcement and compliance with state law, the following procedures apply. a. Code enforcement files will be maintained as confidential files throughout investigation, infraction prosecution and/or other types of code enforcement. b. The contents of code enforcement files will not be disclosed to anyone other than county staff who have a reason to know and who are involved in the investigation, or to similar staff of an agency with which the county is cooperating or to which deferred code enforcement pursuant to Section XII.M. The contents of the file will not be disclosed to any other until: 1) the investigation is complete and a citation discovery request is made; or 2) the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law. C. County and/or federal or state agency staff to whom the contents of the file are disclosed under subparagraph b of this paragraph shall maintain the confidentiality of the file and the identity of the complainant pursuant to this manual. B. Observation by Code Enforcement Staff.' Code enforcement staff often observe additional potential code violations while conducting complaint investigations. However, the number of potential code violations that exist in the county and that may be observed at any given time may be too large for the county's code enforcement staff to investigate and resolve. Policv. The county's policy is that code enforcement staff shall document on an investigation worksheet any potential code violations the staff observes on property that is the subject of their current investigation. They may also document code violations observed on any property immediately adjacent to the subject property, which violations are observable from the subject property. C. Permit/Approval Condition Monitoring by CDD Staff. The county routinely issues land use, environmental and construction permits with a variety of requirements and conditions, and timelines for meeting them. For example, a land use approval may require landscaping the site by a certain date, and building permits expire if construction progress and inspections are not made within periods set by state law. Code violations occur when these permit and approval conditions are not timely met. Policv' The county's policy is that, as of the effective date of this manual, CDD staff shall conduct timely and regular monitoring of conditions of approval and similar permit requirements for all permits and approvals for which the decision is issued on or after the effective date of this manual. Procedure. 1. All persons issued permits or approvals on or after the effective date of this manual shall be given written notice of the consequences of failure to comply with requirements and conditions, including potential code enforcement. 2. If any permits and approvals are found not to be in compliance with conditions of approval or other permit requirements, staff in the appropriate CDD division assigned to the permit or approval monitoring shall undertake appropriate action to obtain compliance. 3. If the assigned CDD staff are unable to obtain compliance within a reasonable time established for that purpose, they shall report the violation to code enforcement and shall notify code enforcement staff of any enforcement action already taken. 4. Upon receipt of staff notification of non-compliance the case shall be forwarded to Sheriff's Office for citation pursuant to Section XII.C. of this manual. D. Report by County Staff. In many cases, county staff may be in a unique position to observe potential code violations. For example, a property appraiser in the Assessor's office may be the only person able to observe new construction for which there is no permit. Policy. The county's policy is that all county staff should report to code enforcement possible code violations they observe while conducting county business. Procedure. County staff may report to conducting county business, effective date of this manual. 2. County staff should report conducting county business, effective date of this manual. code enforcement potential code violations they observe while where the violations are believed to have occurred prior to the o code enforcement potential code violations they observe while where the violations are known to have occurred on or after the 3. Reports by county staff under this subsection shall be made on a complaint form. E. Request/Report by County Commissioner. A member of the Board may report a potential code violation, or may request that code enforcement staff investigate a citizen report of a potential code violation. The commissioner may complete a complaint form or submit a written memorandum concerning the alleged violation to be attached to a complaint form. F. Formation from Offzcial County Records. Potential code violations may be discovered by examining the county's own official records. For example, cross-referencing between the Assessors records and CDD's records may reveal construction or land use activity without necessary permits or approvals. CDD staff can also discover code violations by comparing CDD's own land use, environmental health and construction permit records with each other. Policy. It is the county's policy that beginning on the effective date of this manual, CDD staff shall regularly compare all pertinent county records to identify potential code violations. Exception. Exceptions to this policy will be made as provided in the county's separate policy on undocumented structures. (See Appendix B.) Procedure. Code violations discovered through comparison of information in county files, and that are known to have occurred on or after the effective date of this manual, shall be reported to code enforcement on a complaint form. IX. RECORDING COMPLAINT, OPENING FILE AND TIMELINES A. Recording. Complaint. All complaints from whatever source received by code enforcement shall be recorded in CDD's computer system. Recording the complaint shall consist of assigning the complaint a case number and entering into the computer the following minimum information: 1. the case number; 2. the tax map number for the subject property; 3. the subject property serial number; and 4. which code enforcement staff is assigned to the case. B. Opening File. After a complaint is assigned a number and recorded, a file shall be opened for the complaint. The file is the official record of the complaint and its investigation and resolution. The file shall contain the following minimum initial information: 1. the complaint form; 2. a tax map; 3. an investigation worksheet; 4. Assessor's information on the subject property; and 5. a cover sheet. C. Projected Timeline. Policy. It is the county's policy to encourage the timely resolution of code violation complaints by establishing and making public reasonable timelines for code enforcement and closely monitoring the county's performance in meeting those timelines. Procedure. When a file is opened, and before an investigation of the complaint is commenced, code enforcement staff shall establish a projected timeline for investigating the complaint and issuing a Notice of Violation. This timeline should be based on consideration of the following criteria: 1. the type of alleged violation; 2. priority ranking of the violation(s) under Section VI of this manual; 3. current code enforcement caseload; 4. current workload in other CDD divisions that may assist in or be assigned to the investigation; and 5. timeline established in this manual and elsewhere for processing code violation complaints. X. NOTICE OF FILE OPENING When code enforcement opens a file, it may provide notice in writing or by computer to any CDD division, other county department, or federal or state agency that may have an interest in the alleged code violation. XI. INVESTIGATION A. Preliminary Matters. At the beginning of each investigation, the following shall be established: 1. Jurisdiction. The property upon which the alleged code violation has occurred must be land over which the county has code enforcement jurisdiction. 2. Zoning. The zoning of the subject property shall be determined. 10 Permit Status. The status of any land use, environmental health and construction permits on the subject property shall be determined. 4. Property Ownership All persons with a recorded legal interest in the subject property should be identified. These persons should include the owners, contract purchasers, lessees and lien-holders or other security interest holders. Other Potentially Responsible Persons. In addition to the persons listed in subparagraph 4 of this paragraph, any other persons potentially responsible for the alleged code violation(s) should be identified. These persons could include tenants, construction and landscape contractors and excavators. 6. Identification of Applicable Code Provisions. The code enforcement staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and county legal counsel as necessary, shall identify the pertinent provisions of the county codes that may have been violated according to the complaint. 7. Prior Complaint History. The code enforcement staff shall examine CDD records to determine the existence and status of any prior or existing code violation complaints on the subject property or concerning the alleged violator. B. Establishing the Elements ofa Violation. Before a Notice Of Violation (NOV) is sent, it must be determined whether the complaint, if true, establishes a code violation. If it does not, the case should be resolved by file closure as provided in section XIV of this manual. The code enforcement staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and county legal counsel as necessary, and after any necessary field investigation, shall determine if the following elements have been established. Responsible Person. The person or persons who are reasonably believed to have committed the code violation, or who are or may be legally responsible for the alleged code violation, have been identified. 2. Alleged Violation Occurred or is Occurring A complaint may allege a code violation that occurred in the past (e.g., construction without a permit) or that occurs only intermittently (e.g., surfacing sewage from a drainfield, or periodic non-permitted commercial activity in a residential zone). The code enforcement staff shall determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged violation did or does occur. Such grounds may be established either by personal observation by the code enforcement staff, or by reliable evidence from a complainant. If the code enforcement staff determines that reasonable grounds do not exist, no enforcement action should be taken until the complainant or the code enforcement staff has had a reasonable opportunity to develop such grounds. If no reasonable grounds are developed within a reasonable period, the case should be resolved by file closure as provided in section XIV of this manual. C. Assignment o Investigation and Enforcement RMonsibilit. 11 Policy. It is the county's policy that responsibility for field investigation and code enforcement should be assigned to the CDD staff most able to conduct the investigation and undertake appropriate enforcement action. For example, alleged violations of environmental health codes may best be investigated and resolved by county sanitarian with their special expertise. However, all code enforcement activity should be coordinated with code enforcement staff, and all NOV's and Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCA) will be drafted by code enforcement staff. Citations shall be drafted and issued by the Sheriff's Office. Procedure. Assignment. Assignment of code enforcement responsibility shall be made by the CDD Director, on a case-by-case basis or pursuant to standing policies in this manual or elsewhere. The following criteria shall be used for assignment of responsibility: a. the nature of the code violation(s) alleged in the complaint; b. the knowledge and expertise needed to investigate the alleged violation; C. the history of prior code enforcement on the subject property or with the alleged violator; d. the status of permits and approvals on the subject property; and f.the workload of the relevant CDD division staff and the projected timeline for investigation and resolution of the complaint. Coordination. Whenever responsibility for code enforcement activity is assigned to CDD staff other than code enforcement staff, such staff shall consult with code enforcement staff and keep them advised of their activities. When CDD staff other than code enforcement staff in assigned to investigate a code violation complaint for which a code enforcement file has been created, such staff shall enter a report of any action undertaken to investigate or to obtain compliance into the CDD computer and the code enforcement screen. 12 D. Field Investigation. 1. Purpose. The purposes of code enforcement field investigation are: a. to verify the existence and severity of code violations; b. to document code violations by means of written notes, photographs, witness interviews, etc.; C. to obtain supporting evidence, such as the names and statements of potential witnesses; and d. if possible, to discuss with the property owner, occupant or other responsible person: 1) the nature of the code violation(s); 2) methods for complying with the code(s); 3) timelines for code compliance; 4) code enforcement procedures; and 5) potential consequences for failure to comply. 2. Coordination. Whenever responsibility for field investigation is assigned to CDD staff other than code enforcement staff, the coordination and notification described in Paragraph C(2) of this section shall occur. 3. Preparations and Precautions. Police. It is the county's policy that code enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff, as well as members of the public, should not be exposed to unreasonable risks of violent confrontation or injury during the course of field investigations. Code enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff shall take whatever actions are reasonable and necessary to minimize the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to themselves or others in conducting their field investigations. Procedure. a. Law Enforcement Assistance. When appropriate, the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff should contact the sheriffs office to determine if there have been previous criminal complaints or investigations concerning the subject property or alleged code violator, and whether, in the opinion of the sheriffs office, a field investigation would present any threat to the safety of the code enforcement staff, other staff, the alleged code violator or other persons present during a field investigation. The code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff person may request law enforcement assistance in conducting the field investigation, and may postpone such investigation until law enforcement assistance is available. b. Announced/Unannounced Field Visits. At the discretion of the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff, a field visit to the vicinity of the subject property may be conducted with or without prior notice to the property owner, occupant or alleged code 13 violator. The determination of whether or not to give prior notice shall be made on the basis of the following criteria: 1) the nature of the alleged violation; 2) whether or not prior notice will make detection and documentation of the alleged violation more difficult; and 3) whether or not prior notice will unnecessarily increase the known risk of violent confrontation or injury to the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff. C. Entering Upon Property or Premises. Policy. It is the county's policy that code enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff shall not enter upon private property or premises to conduct a field investigation without authority to enter. Procedure. Code Enforcement Staff may enter unposted property to seek permission to investigate on the premises. Unless permission is granted, the investigation shall be conducted from public roads or property where permission to enter has been granted. If the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff does not have permission or other authority to enter upon property or premises, and entry upon the property or premises is necessary to conduct the investigation, the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall consult with county legal counsel about obtaining a search warrant. E. Report of Field Investigation. Upon completion of the field investigation, the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall prepare an investigation worksheet to be placed in the code enforcement file. The report shall include the following information: 1. name of investigator; 2. date, time and place of field visit; 3. code violation(s) observed; 4. if no code violation(s) observed, an explanation; 5. witnesses, if any, interviewed; 6. evidence, if any, obtained (e.g., photographs); 7. discussion, if any, of violation with owner, occupant or other responsible person; 8. action necessary to correct violation; and 9. recommended enforcement action. 14 XII. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. Voluntary Compliance Without Penalty. Policy. It is the county's policy to encourage voluntary code compliance by providing code violators and other responsible persons with the opportunity during code enforcement to comply with the codes with little or no penalty. The county believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parties and of a more satisfactory and lasting nature than involuntary compliance. Exce tp ion. Notwithstanding this policy, the county believes that allowing code violators the opportunity to voluntarily comply any time during code enforcement, or outside reasonable time limits for such compliance, may actually result in abuse of this opportunity in order to delay compliance. Therefore, it is the county's policy to limit the time frame during which code violators may come into voluntary compliance with little or no penalty. Procedure. The following procedure shall apply whenever a code violator brings his or her property into compliance during code enforcement activity: Timing of Compliance a. After complaint/before field investigation b. After field investigation/before NOV c. After NOV/before citation d. After citation/before arraignment Disposition File closed, no cost recovery No NOV, file closed, no cost recovery No citation, file closed, no cost recovery CDD Recommends dismissal of citation, no cost recovery, double fees where applicable e. After arraignment/before trial CDD recommends prosecution, con- viction or guilty plea bail forfeiture, cost recovery, double fees where applic- able f. At time of trial CDD recommends prosecution, con- viction or guilty plea, maximum fine, cost recovery, double fees where applic- able, civil penalties where applicable. 2. Limited Opportunities. Voluntary compliance without penalty or cost recovery will not be allowed where the alleged violation is a repeat offense either on the subject property or by the code violator, or where the original violation was not corrected following prior code enforcement action. Limited Time Frames. Opportunities for voluntary compliance, where provided, shall be of limited duration. The time frame for voluntary compliance shall be established in timelines set forth in this manual or elsewhere. 15 Time Extended by Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Following the issuance of a NOV, if the alleged violator admits the violation(s) and requests extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator shall sign an " Voluntary Compliance Agreement." The agreement shall provide that, in exchange for the extended time for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator agrees to abate the violation(s) by a specified time, and to waive hearing and consent to judgment against him/her if voluntary compliance is not obtained during the extended time allowed by the county and a citation is filed in court. B. Notice of Violation. 1. When Sent. When the code enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff determines there are reasonable grounds to believe a violation did or does occur, based upon the information in the complaint and any field investigation, an NOV shall be sent on a standard form (see Appendix D) or in a letter or notice sent by the appropriate CDD division staff. 2. To Whom Sent. A NOV shall be sent to the subject property owner(s). A separate NOV shall be sent to each additional person who is or may be responsible for the alleged violation. 3. How Sent. NOV's shall be sent by certified mail to the best available address for the property owner(s) and other responsible person(s). 4. Follow-M. The date in the NOV for corrective action shall be entered in the CDD computer on the code enforcement screen. After that date, if the code enforcement staff determines that the required corrections have not been made and a Voluntary Compliance Agreement has not been signed, the staff shall promptly forward the case to the Sheriff's Office for citation of the alleged violation. 5. Compliance. If the code enforcement staff determines that the required corrections have been made, the date and method of compliance shall be noted in the code enforcement file and the case shall be resolved by file closure pursuant to section XIV of this manual. 6. Corrective Action. In some cases, corrective action may consist of both applying for and obtaining necessary permits or approvals. In such cases, the permit or approval application alone will not be sufficient to assure compliance. The alleged violator must follow through with the application process to obtain the necessary permit or approval. Policy. It is the county's policy that in cases where code compliance requires both applying for and receiving a permit or approval, code enforcement shall continue until all necessary permits or approvals are granted or until they are denied and code compliance is obtained through other means. Procedure. 16 a. Where the required corrective action consists of both applying for and obtaining permits or approvals, code enforcement staff, in consultation with other appropriate CDD staff, shall determine a reasonable time frame for applying for and obtaining the necessary permits or approvals. If at any time during the process for obtaining necessary permits or approvals the alleged violator fails to meet the reasonable timelines established under this paragraph, and such failure does not result from the actions of others, the code enforcement staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section. C. If the alleged code violator is not granted the necessary permits or approvals, the code enforcement staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this section. C. Citation and Complaint. Voluntary Compliance. Where voluntary compliance can not be obtained by CDD within a reasonable time frame, the case shall be forwarded to the Sheriffs Office for citation and complaint. 2. Field Investigation Required. No citation and complaint shall be prepared unless and until a field investigation has verified the existence of a code violation. Form. All citations shall be on a "Uniform Citation and Complaint," (see Appendix E), and shall contain the information required under ORS 153.150. 4. Service. All summons for citations and complaints shall be served by personal service on the person named in the complaint. a. By Whom. service may be made by a law enforcement staff. b. Within Deschutes County. Service on persons located within Deschutes County may be made by a deputy sheriff or other sworn police staff. C. Elsewhere In Oregon. Service on a person residing in another Oregon county may be made by sheriffs deputies or other sworn police staff in that county. Code Enforcement staff shall submit summons and complaint to the appropriate county sheriff for service. d. Outside Oregon. Service on persons residing in other states may be made by the appropriate county sheriff or by another sworn police staff. Code Enforcement staff shall contact the appropriate out-of-state sheriffs office to request service and return of service. e. Return o Service. Code enforcement staff shall assure that a return of service for each summons and complaint has been received before the citation is filed in court. f. Failure to Obtain Service. If personal service cannot be obtained after three (3) attempts, the summons and complaint shall be returned to code enforcement for a determination of 17 whether and when further service attempts are appropriate, or whether another method of enforcement should be pursued. 4. Setting Arrai nm~ent. The date for arraignment in the citation and complaint shall be the first available district court date that allows the person cited a reasonable time to respond to the complaint. In setting the date, the Officer serving the summons and complaint shall consider the district court schedule for code enforcement cases as well as the time needed to obtain service. Filing Citation and Complaint. When the citation and complaint has been served and Sheriff's Office has received the return of service, the citation and complaint, abstract of court record and return of service shall be filed in the district court. 6. Publication of Citation, Abatement and Injunction Policy. It is the county's policy to increase both public awareness of county code enforcement and incentives for code compliance by publishing on a regular basis the filing of citations, abatement and injunctions. Procedure. On a monthly basis, Sheriff s Office shall provide to a newspaper of general circulation in the county a summary of the code enforcement citations, abatement and injunctions filed in the district court during the previous month, and shall request that such summary be published. The summary shall include the names and addresses of the persons cited, brief descriptions of the alleged violation(s), and the maximum fine(s). 7. Arraignment. a. Purposes. The purposes of arraignment are to: 1) allow the defendant to enter a plea to the citation and complaint; 2) resolve any jurisdictional issues; 3) set a trial date if the plea is not guilty; and 4) if the plea is guilty, allow the defendant and the Sheriffs Office Deputy the opportunity to provide information to the court regarding sentencing. b. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County legal counsel shall not represent the county at arraignment unless the defendant has legal counsel at arraignment. 8. Bail. Bail amounts for county code infractions shall be set in a bail schedule adopted by the presiding judge for Deschutes County. 9. Failure to Appear at Arraignment. If the defendant fails to appear at arraignment, the Sheriffs Office Deputy may ask the court to issue a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest. However, the Sheriff s Office Deputy shall not request issuance of a bench warrant to be served outside Oregon. 18 10. De ault. If the defendant fails to appear at arraignment, the code enforcement staff may request that the district court enter a default judgment in favor of the county and impose a fine against the defendant. 11. Trial. If the defendant pleads not guilty to the allegations in the citation and complaint, the code enforcement staff shall request that the district court set the matter for trial at the earliest available date. a. Burden o Proof The county has the burden of proving at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations in the citation and complaint. b. RgMonsibik o Code Enforcement Staff. At trial, the responsibility of the code enforcement staff is to prosecute the case by presenting evidence, calling witnesses and offering any relevant documents and other exhibits in support of the citation. c. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County legal counsel shall not represent the county at trial unless the defendant is represented by legal counsel at trial. 12. Fines. a. Schedule. The schedule of maximum fines for county code infractions is set forth in ORS 153.310 and ORS 203.065 (see Appendix F). b. Amount. If the defendant is convicted, the code enforcement staff shall request that the district court impose a fine in an amount consistent with the policy and procedures set forth in Section XII.A.1 of this manual. 13. Suspension o Fines. The district court has authority to suspend the imposition of all or a portion of a fine. In some cases, the court may wish to suspend imposition of a fine or a part thereof on condition that the defendant comply with county codes within a specified time period. Policy. It is the county's policy to increase the effectiveness of code enforcement activity and the incentives for code compliance by discouraging any suspension of fines in county code infraction cases. Procedure. If a defendant is convicted, Sheriff's Office Deputy and/or county legal counsel shall advise the district court of the county's policy against fine suspension, and shall ask the district court not to suspend imposition of fines. 19 14. Working O Fines. Policy. It is the county's policy that, in appropriate cases and consistent with Oregon law and county corrections resources, defendants should have the opportunity to perform community service in order to work off fines imposed by the district court for county code infraction convictions. In particular, it is the county's policy to encourage defendants in appropriate cases to participate in community service programs directed at nuisance abatement and similar code enforcement. Procedure. The county will work with the district court and the county's community corrections staff to explore the implementation of community service programs directed at code violation abatement. 15. Collection and Distribution o Fines. Fines imposed by the district court for county code infractions are collected by the State Court Administrator and are remitted in part to the county. Policy. It is the county's policy that all fines imposed for county code infractions and remitted to the county should be used to pay the costs of county code enforcement. Procedure. All fines imposed by the district court for county code infractions and remitted to the county shall be deposited in the county General Fund and transferred to the CDD Revenue Fund for budgeting and expenditure in the code enforcement program. D. functions. Policy. It is the county's policy to seek injunctions from the circuit court in cases where other methods of code enforcement may be inadequate or have been unsuccessful. Procedure. When Sought. Code enforcement staff may contact county legal counsel to obtain injunctions in any case in which: a. code violation(s) present an imminent threat to the public health and safety or to the environment; or b. code violations have not been corrected within a reasonable time after a defendant's third citation for the same infraction(s) in district court.. 2. By Whom. All requests for injunctions shall be made by county legal counsel, with the assistance of Sheriff s Office staff and other assigned CDD staff as necessary. 3. How Enforced. After issuance of an injunction, if the defendant fails to comply within the time period specified in the injunction, the Sheriffs Office or Community Development Department staff shall request that county legal counsel initiate civil contempt proceedings against the defendant. 20 E. Stop Work Orders Policy. It is the county's policy to increase code compliance by using stop work orders to the maximum extent allowed by law. In particular, stop work orders shall be used to assure compliance with permits and approvals the decisions for which are issued on or after the effective date of this manual. Procedure. 1. Issuance of Stop Work Order. The appropriate CDD staff shall promptly issue a stop work order in the following cases: a. whenever follow-up of permits and approvals under Section VII of this manual reveals construction, installation and/or land use activity not permitted under the permit or approval; and b. whenever the code enforcement staff or other CDD staff discover or receive a verified complaint of non-permitted construction, installation or land use which is known to have occurred on or after the effective date of this manual. CDD staff issuing the stop work order shall promptly notify code enforcement staff on a complaint form, and the information shall be entered in the CDD computer on the code enforcement and building screens. 2. Violation of Stop Work Order. If construction, installation or land use activity continues after the issuance of a stop work order, such activity shall be reported to code enforcement on a complaint form. The Sheriff's Office Deputy shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to XII.D. of this manual. (Note: Additional county code authority, and possibly statutory authority, is needed to authorize stop work orders, and citations for violating stop work orders, for land use and environmental health violations) F. Permit Revocation. Certain county codes authorize the revocation of permits or approvals for failure to comply with their requirements or conditions. Policy. It is the county's policy to maximize code compliance by revoking permits and approvals to the extent authorized by law in appropriate cases arising from permits or approvals the decisions for which are issued on or after the effective date of this manual. In particular, it is the county's policy to use permit revocation in cases in which corrective action may not be effective in bringing the subject property into code compliance due to the nature of the violation and the deliberateness of the code violator's actions to avoid compliance. Procedure. Report to Code Enforcement Std If permit or approval follow-up under Section VIII.C of this manual reveals that the conditions or requirements of a permit or approval have not been met, CDD staff shall inform code enforcement of such violation on a complaint form, and the information shall be entered in the CDD computer on the code enforcement screen. 21 Revocation Procedure. CDD staff in the appropriate CDD division shall determine whether to undertake permit revocation proceedings as authorized under the applicable county code provisions. The following factors shall be considered: a. whether the criteria for permit revocation set forth in the applicable county code provisions exist; b. the severity and deliberateness of the deviation from the permit or approval requirements or conditions; and c. whether compliance can be achieved more effectively through other code enforcement methods. G. Nuisance Abatement. Chapter 13.36 of the Deschutes County Code (hereafter "Code") authorizes the abatement of county code violations that are defined as "public nuisances." Policy. It is the county's policy that, as of the effective date of this manual, county code violations constituting public nuisances shall be abated pursuant to chapter 13.36 of the code and within available resources. Procedure. When a code enforcement staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of a code violation that may constitute a "public nuisance," the information shall be submitted on a complaint form and entered in the CDD computer on the code enforcement screen. Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall promptly consult county legal counsel to initiate nuisance abatement pursuant to chapter 13.36 of the code. H. Dangerous Building Abatement. Chapter 15.04 of the code authorizes the abatement of buildings containing violations rendering them "dangerous buildings" as defined in the code. Policy. It is the county's policy that violations that may render a structure a "dangerous building" shall be abated pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Code and within available resources. Procedure. When a code enforcement staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of code violations in a structure that may render the structure a "dangerous building", the information shall be submitted on a complaint form and entered in the CDD computer on the code enforcement and building permit screens. The Deschutes County Building Official (hereafter "building official") shall be notified and shall promptly consult with county legal counsel to initiate abatement proceedings under chapter 15.04 of the code. 1. Double-fee Permits. Certain provisions of the code allow the county to charge double the normal fee for permits issued for construction or installation originally performed without required permits. Policy. It is the county's policy to maximize the incentives to comply with county codes by double-fees, to the extent authorized with law, for permits sought for non-permitted construction or installation that occurs on or after the effective date of this manual. Procedure. Whenever a code enforcement staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint of non-permitted construction or installation, the information shall be submitted on a complaint form and 22 entered in the CDD computer on the code enforcement and building permit screens. When construction or installation permits are sought for the non-permitted work, the following procedures shall apply: If the non-permitted work occurred before the effective date of this manual, the county may double- fee the permit(s). The decision to double-fee shall be made by the building official or designee, in accordance with criteria established in the applicable provisions of the code. 2. If the non-permitted work occurred on or after the effective date of this manual, the county shall double-fee the permit(s). J. Restrictiniz Issuance of Development Permits. In some cases, persons apply for land use, construction and/or environmental health permits to develop property upon which there already exist uncorrected county code violations. In addition, in some cases, persons apply for permits for "accessory" structures, such as garages and other outbuildings, that are later converted to non-permitted "primary" uses, such as a residences. In such cases, the only effective way to correct or prevent code violations may be to restrict the application for and/or issuance of such development permits. (Note: Additional county code and/or statutory authority may be needed to allow refusal to accept permit or approval applications or to refuse to issue permits or approvals due to pending code violations.) It is the county's policy, to the extent authorized by law, not to issue permits or approvals, nor to renew or extend permits and approvals, for development on any property on which there already exist uncorrected code violations. The restriction should continue until such violations are corrected. It is also the county's policy not to issue permits or approvals, nor to renew or extend permits or approvals, for "accessory" structures, such as garages and outbuildings, on vacant property, on property on which there does not already exist a permitted primary residential or commercial use, and on property for which a permit or approval for a "primary" use is not sought simultaneously with the "accessory" use permit or approval. The restriction should continue until the primary permitted use is established or a permit for it is sought. Exceptions. Land use, construction and/or environmental health permits, or renewals or extensions of such permits, sought in order to correct existing county code violations on the subject property shall be issued if all criteria for issuance are met. 2. These provisions shall not apply to the issuance of agricultural building exemptions as set out in ORS 455.315. Exemption from the state structural code for qualifying agriculture buildings shall be issued if all criteria for the exemption are met. Accessory uses permitted under Title 18.116.040. Procedure. 23 1. Determination of Existing Violations. Whenever land use, construction and/or environmental health permits are applied for, or renewals or extensions of such permits are sought, CDD staff shall determine if there are existing code violations and the status of those violations. 2. Determination of 'Accessory" Status. Whenever land use, construction and/or environmental health permits are applied for, or a renewal or extension of such permits are sought, for a garage, outbuilding or other similar "accessory" structure, CDD staff shall determine if there exists on the subject property a permitted "primary" use to which the structure would be "accessory," or whether a permit or approval is also being sought for the "primary" use. Applications for Permits/Approvals. a. Existing Code Violations. If review of CDD's records and/or consultation with code enforcement staff reveals the existence of unresolved code violations on the subject property, CDD Staff shall not accept applications for the requested permit(s) or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof, nor shall staff issue permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof. Instead, staff shall promptly consult with code enforcement to determine whether the permit or approval, or the renewal or extension thereof, is being sought in order to correct the existing code violation(s). If the requested permit or approval, or renewal or extension thereof, is determined to be required for code compliance, the application shall be accepted, or the permit or approval shall be issued if all necessary conditions have been met. CDD staff shall refer persons not allowed to apply for permits or approvals, or to whom issuance of permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof has been denied under this subparagraph, to a code enforcement staff to discuss required corrective action. b. "Accessory" Structures. If review of CDD's records reveals that no "primary" use exists on the subject property to which the structure applied for would be "accessory", or if no permits or approvals for the "primary" use are simultaneously applied for on the subject property, CDD staff shall not accept applications nor issue permits or approvals, or renewals or extensions thereof, for the requested "accessory" structure. CDD staff shall refer persons not allowed to apply for permits or approvals, or to whom issuance of permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof, has been denied under this subparagraph to a planner to discuss the establishment of the necessary primary use. 4. Duration of Permit/Approval Restrictions. No land use, construction and/or environmental health permits or approvals, or renewals or extensions thereof, may be applied for or issued, except as provided above, until all necessary corrective action has been taken with respect to existing code violations under subparagraph 3(a), or until the necessary "primary" use has been established or applied for on the subject property under subparagraph 3(b) of this paragraph. 5. Coordination. Whenever the provisions of this paragraph apply, code enforcement and other CDD staff shall closely coordinate their permitting and enforcement activities to assure compliance with this paragraph. K. Assisting Enforcement by Other Regulatory/Licensing Agencies. In some cases, county code violations also may constitute violations of federal and/or state statutes or administrative rule. For example, surface mining without county land use approval may also violate state statutes and administrative rules governing 24 mining, and performing building construction without necessary permits may also constitute violations of state statutes and administrative rules governing the conduct of licensed contractors. Policy. It is the county's policy to maximize code enforcement and the incentives for compliance by promptly advising the appropriate federal and/or state agency of county code violations reported or discovered that may also violate the statutes or administrative rules of that agency. It is also the county's policy to cooperate with federal or state agencies, to the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, to obtain voluntary compliance or to punish violations. The county may defer investigation and prosecution to the appropriate federal or state agency in cases in which, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, the federal or state agency enforcement procedure will result in more effective correction of the violation(s). Procedure. Reporting. Whenever a code enforcement staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a verified complaint regarding a county code violation that may also constitute a violation of federal or state statute or administrative rule, he or she shall advise the appropriate federal or state agency. Cooperation. To the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, code enforcement staff and other CDD staff shall cooperate with the federal or state agency to obtain voluntary compliance or to prosecute and punish violations. That cooperation may include sharing information, conducting joint investigations, appearing as witnesses and/or providing evidence in enforcement proceedings, and coordinating the timing of investigations and/or enforcement proceedings to maximize their effectiveness. 3. Deferral to Other Agency. The county may defer some or all code enforcement to a federal or state agency, and forego county code enforcement, where the CDD Director or designee determines that the federal or state enforcement activity will be more effective than county code enforcement. In making the determination, the following factors shall be considered: a. the nature of the violation and necessary corrective action; b. the comparative severity of the penalties available to the federal or state agency and to the county; and c. the comparative time frames required for enforcement by the federal or state agency and by the county. L. Civil Penalties. Monetary penalties for county code infractions may be assessed through a county administrative hearing procedure, separate from the citing and prosecution of county code infractions in district court. Policy. It is the county's policy to maximize code enforcement and to increase the incentives for compliance by creating a county administrative hearing procedure for assessing and collecting civil penalties against county code violators. The county believes the assessment and collection of civil penalties in such an 25 administrative hearing procedure may be the most effective way to obtain code compliance in cases in which the code violator is receiving economic gain from continuing code violation(s). Procedure. The county will explore, as an additional method of code enforcement, the development of authority and procedures for county administrative hearings for the adjudication, assessment and collection of civil penalties against county code violators. M. County Cost Recovery. The county incurs costs investigating code violations and enforcing codes. They include the cost of personnel and equipment, legal advice and representation, service of summons, and administrative expenses. Policy. It is the policy of the county to maximize code enforcement and to increase the incentives for code compliance by recovering its reasonable code enforcement costs from code violators. Procedure. The county will explore the development of the authority and procedures for a code enforcement cost recovery program. N. Liens. In many cases, the most effective way for the county to recover its code enforcement costs, as well as to collect any civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, is to file a legal claim for those costs or penalties against the property subject to code enforcement, or against other property owned by the code violator. Policy. It is the county's policy to assure recovery of its costs, as well as the collection of civil penalties assessed through administrative hearings, by filing claims for those costs and penalties in the form of liens on property subject to code enforcement, or upon other property owned by code violators. Procedure. The county will explore developing the authority and procedures for the filing of liens against real property for the collection of code enforcement costs and civil penalties assessed through county administrative hearings. XIII. FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Some county code violations involve property owners or other responsible persons who lack the financial ability to obtain permits and approvals, or to perform or contract for the construction or other work necessary to correct code violations, or pay court ordered fines for code violation. Policy. It is the county's policy to investigate and take enforcement action against all code violations, regardless of the financial resources of the property owner or other responsible person. However, the county recognizes that the effectiveness of code enforcement may be significantly reduced where the code violator is indigent. Therefore, it is the county's policy to assist indigent code violators, to the extent authorized by law and within available county and community resources, to correct code violations. That assistance may include the reduction or waiver of county permit and approval fees, as well as facilitating financial or construction assistance through other community resources, or community service in lieu of fines. Procedure. In cases where the defendant in a code infraction case appears not to have the financial resources to correct the code violations or pay fines, the person may apply to qualify for financial or other assistance within available resources and under the following procedures: 26 A. Criteria for Indigence. To qualify for assistance under this section, the property owner or other responsible person must meet the criteria for indigence established by the state Court Administrator for indigent criminal defense. B. When Determined. Indigence shall be determined if the defendant pleads guilty to or is convicted of an infraction, and claims indigence in the district court. C. How Determined. A defendant claiming indigence shall complete an indigence form (see Appendix G). The form shall be evaluated by code enforcement staff to determine if the defendant meets the criteria for indigence. The defendant shall be notified in writing of the county's indigence determination and available county or community assistance. D. Fee ReductionlWaiver. A defendant who is determined to be indigent under this section may apply for a reduction or waiver of CDD development fees for permits or approvals necessary to correct the code violation(s). The decision to reduce or waive development fees will be made by the Board, considering the following factors: 1. the degree of the defendants indigence; 2. the cost of the development permit(s) or approval(s) required; 3. funds available for fee reductions/waivers in CDD's budget or in any other available funds; 4. and other assistance available in the community. E. Community Service in Lieu of Court Ordered Fines. After a conviction or plea on a code violation and upon a finding of indigence the court may order community service in lieu of a fine. A period of time shall be established in which the community service shall be completed. F. Special Code Enforcement Indigence Fund. The county will explore the development of a special fund, in CDD's budget or elsewhere in the county's budget, for the purpose of subsidizing fee reductions or waivers under this section. G. Other Assistance. The county will also explore the development of a program to assist indigent defendants with other code compliance costs, such as the cost of labor and materials necessary to correct code violations. This program should involve other interested persons and community organizations, such as Central Oregon Builders Association, Central Oregon Bird of Realtors, Central Oregon Community Action Agency Network, Deschutes Housing Solutions, Habitat for Humanity, etc. XIV. RESOLUTION OF CODE COMPLAINTS 27 Policy. It is the county's policy to attempt to reach final, satisfactory resolution of all code violation complaints. However, the county recognizes that not all complaints may be resolved successfully, due to factors outside the county's control. These factors can include the indigence of the code violator, the lack of county or other resources to assist the violator, statutory limitations on potential fines or other penalties for code violations, and the large number of complaints to be resolved. Therefore, it is the county's policy to focus its code enforcement resources on the code violations that meet the priorities set forth in Section VI of this manual, and to resolve those violations within a reasonable period set for code enforcement activity in this manual or elsewhere. Where the county determines that a code violation may not be successfully resolved within the established reasonable timelines, it is the county's policy to either close the file, or to explore alternative methods of enforcement. Procedure. A. File Closure. A code violation complaint will be resolved by file closure in the following cases: 1. when no code violation is found after investigation; 2. when there is voluntary compliance; 3. when the property owner and/or other responsible person has been convicted of an infraction and has corrected the violation(s); 4. when an injunction has been issued and the property owner or other responsible person has corrected the violation(s); 5. when investigation and prosecution of the violation(s) have been completed by a federal or state agency to which the county deferred code enforcement; or 6. when it is determined in writing by the CDD Director or designee that the code violation(s) are not likely to be successfully resolved within a reasonable timeline, due to factors outside county control. B. Notice ofResolution. The county may send written notice to the complainant when the complaint is resolved, describing the resolution. C. Alternate Methods of Resolution. The county may explore alternate methods to resolve code violations including mediation. XV. FILE MAINTENANCE County code enforcement files, including CDD computer records, are the official records of county code enforcement activity. As such, the files and computer records shall be maintained pursuant to the rules of the secretary of State for maintenance of official records. VI. MEDIA CONTACT 28 Policy. It is the county's policy to make information available to representatives of the news media to the extent legally authorized. Procedure. A. Disclosure of File and Computer Information. The contents of county code enforcement files and computer records, and statements of county staff concerning code enforcement cases, shall be made available to representatives of the news media upon request made to the CDD Director, and subject to the provisions of section VIII.A.(3) of this manual and the pertinent statutory provisions governing public record disclosure XVII. APPENDICES A. Complaint Form B. Undocumented structure Policy C. Agreement to Abate D. Notice of violation (NOV) Form E. Uniform citation and complaint F. ORS 153.310 and ORS 203.065 (Maximum Fines) G. Indigence Form 29