Loading...
2011-30-Minutes for Meeting January 12,2011 Recorded 1/31/2011DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL IIIIIII III~IIIIIIIIIIII II III 2011-30 RECORDS CLERK CJ 2011.30 011311201108:27:25 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page 6 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 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Peter Russell and George Read, Community Development; Teresa Rozic of Property and Facilities; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Presentation - Central Oregon Area Management Plan. Doug Parker and John Russell of the Department of State Lands gave a presentation on their Department's plan for handling land assets in Deschutes County. Public meetings were previously held in Crook and Deschutes Counties. Two sections of land were given to the DSL many years ago, and were sold to provide funding for schools. They own about 2,500 acres in Deschutes County and about 7,500 acres in the study area (Central Oregon), and 750,000 acres statewide. Some land is urban, some is industrial or commercial, and some is rural residential or open space. Last year $50 million from the sale of State lands was distributed in Oregon. Funding is allocated to the schools on a per capita basis, based on citizens ages 4 to 20. The goal at this time is to develop a management plan for some of these properties. Some have already been developed and approved. Often trading takes place with other entities. The draft plan should be completed by the end of March, after which time there will be additional public hearings. After adoption, the Department will be tasked to implement the plan. At this time, the group referenced maps showing various properties. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 1 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger asked what ICR land is. Mr. Parker said that is industrial, commercial or residential, which is different from resource land. Commissioner Unger stated that some might be best used as a revenue source, but others might have a beneficial use for wildlife. Mr. Parker said that a variety of court cases determined that they are not to manage these for their natural resource values, but are to achieve their highest value and use, within the parameters of State land use laws. If there is a known sensitive site or cultural resource, they have to consider this in the plan. They have met with other state agencies, and ODF&W has made some strong comments about some of the sites. They will avail the sale of the properties to these agencies at fair market value. Mr. Russell said they would sell off land and reinvest in the hope to get a better return on the land. Over the long-term, they hope to be able to generate a higher value. Commissioner Unger stated that there is no point on sitting on land that has little potential to increase in value. Mr. Russell noted tat they are looking at energy resources as well. They own the mineral rights on the land, but there is no good study that says what the value of the minerals might be. They are taking a passive approach to this issue at this time. Chair Baney asked how they approach the problem of having land that needs infrastructure or other improvements in place before reaching its potential. Mr. Parker said that they study the market and can make those adjustments if it makes sense. Mr. Russell stated that they don't pay property taxes and pay all cash, so there is no interest expense. They can afford to sit on parcels since the cost of management is not that great, especially if it makes sense to hold the properties for a while due to market conditions. Commissioner Unger is encouraged by the fact that they are looking at investing in property. Mr. Parker asked that they maintain and grow the cooperation of the County as they move forward. Commissioner Unger stated that the I9th Street issue is being discussed at the joint City of Redmond and Board of Commissioners' meeting tomorrow, and it might be appropriate for Mr. Parker or Mr. Russell to attend. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Pages 2. Planning Division's Update on FY 2010-11 Long-Range Work Program. Nick Lelack said that the staff report lists three changes. Actions taken late last year made this mid-year update appropriate. (The staff report is attached for reference) At the bottom of page 2, LRP, where it states that all legislative amendments go through a public hearing is not accurate. They are required to review but the hearing may not happen except before the Board. It can be very expensive to provide notice if it is not necessary or if it is just a housekeeping item. Page 3, table 1, lists ongoing projects. He needs direction on one of them, the regional economic opportunity analysis, offering an additional source of funding up to $30,000. Commissioner Unger asked how these are handled beyond the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Lelack said that strategies are developed and items can be included as the Board feels is appropriate. They want to go through the prioritization process with the Board. The comprehensive plan update has been before the Planning Commission. Peter Russell said that two items are in the legislative hopper with the Planning Commission. Others can be reprioritized as necessary, but this involves balancing the workload. Commissioner Unger likes the regional economic opportunity item since there is work being done on this in Salem. He asked who is going to help with all of the work. Mr. Russell said that they are partnering with other agencies and the cities, but mostly the County has the lion's share of the work. Chair Baney said it is helpful to be consistent. Mr. Lelack stated that some issues take a long time because the issues are complicated. Commissioner Unger said that seeing a part of an FTE makes him think that they are almost home with the item. Regarding Title I, they would like to see this done this year. There are other issues that are grant-dependent and have deadlines. Economic development issues often have to look at a regional perspective and other entities may have to be involved. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 3 of 8 Pages The destination resort eligibility map should be ready by the next fiscal year. The wetlands inventory should be complete soon and can be adopted into the comprehensive plan update, but could spill into the next year if they try to pursue wetlands grants and perhaps, if appropriate, open up privately owned land for development. The small wind, solar and energy program should be done this year. Mr. Lelack asked if there is anything that the Board would not want them to continue at this time, or things that need to be added or the timeframe adjusted. Commissioner Unger said the TSP update and the comprehensive plan need to be done and some of these issues are a part of that. The second table would be for prioritizing as capacity and resources allow. Long-range planning and current planning may overlap on some of these issues. Mr. Anderson said they want to know the Board's priorities so that work can be scheduled accordingly. Mr. Lelack stated that the "Big Look" is being examined at the legislative level and it may be six months or more before they develop a plan there. Community plans will be stand-alone parts of the comprehensive plan. The South County Community Plan was to begin with a work program. Some in the area want this to be addressed sooner. Doing the plan itself will be more labor intensive and requires more FTE's. Commissioner Unger stated that there are also DEQ and water quality issues to be considered. Mr. Anderson said that there are elements of land use involved, but are perhaps not primary issues. There will be outcomes that result in a crossover. This is part of the CDD work plan, but not in the planning process. Commissioner DeBone said he'd like to get the comprehensive plan moving along, and get public input through a hearing on what is important to the local citizens. Commissioner Unger stated that there is less funding available so it would be hard to add more FTE's. Chair Baney said that there might be a problem getting agreement on a bulleted list. The community has to be able to make a decision on many issues and not take months to plan what to plan. Mr. Russell stated that he could present a way to approach this issue. It has to come from the citizens. It has been done before but has to start at a very local level. Commissioner Unger asked about looking at multi-year planning efforts so capacity can be more easily gauged. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 4 of 8 Pages Applying for Certified Local Government grants usually happens in the summer months. The historical consultant may be able to help with this. A Goal 5 inventory update was discussed and the desire is to do it right. It has not been done for a long time, and is a significant undertaking, so probably will be addressed in the next fiscal year. A scope of work would be a beginning. Most previous updates were done in the early to mid-1990's. There could be significant costs involved because there will need to be biologists and other experts involved. It could be a long-term project. Commercial use of farmland is a big issue, relating to how to clarify activities and events to be permitted on farmland. This is a policy issue for the Board and not a staff decision. It was hoped that what others are doing around the State would provide some clarity, such as through the AOC task force. CDD needs to know if this is a priority, and whether to start at the beginning. Chair Baney would like to see the options. The County has waited for AOC and the legislature to do something, but it is taking a long time, so the County should investigate going forward to offer clarity and some kind of resolution. Commissioner Unger said it is a property rights issue and there will be citizens pushing from all directions. Mr. Russell stated that they could bring back a plan to the Board on how they could move forward. This could be done on February 2, per Mr. Kanner. Regarding a solar Ordinance, this could result in a fair amount of work or be simple. This would not be known until they get into it. Mr. Anderson said that they don't hear much about this issue, but it usually is fairly high profile when it does come up. A current planner may be able to handle it. Mr. Lelack said it is a public process involving public hearings and sometimes it is not known ahead of time how much public interest there will be. In regard to historical preservation, communities are beginning to separate from the County process. Amendments could be drafted, which would go to the entities and through a public process. The cities would be responsible for some of the costs, but there could be grant funds available. There would have to be some planner involvement in this process to coordinate the various entities. The Historic Landmarks Commission could be asked how they might want to be involved in this process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 5 of 8 Pages Commissioner Unger asked if everything on Table 1, now underway, could still move forward. Mr. Lelack said they could. Table 2 shows projects that are pending or not yet started. Chair Baney said that the Certified Local Government grant item might wait, as well as the Goal 5 update. She asked if it is possible to package some of them. Commissioner DeBone noted that some items might generate a lot of public interest and it isn't known how complicated they might be. He asked if there is a way to gauge this in the community, especially in regard to commercial, solar, wildfire and code violations. Mr. Russell said that it appears that the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis is a priority. On February 2, they could present a plan to do this if the Board wants to go forward. Long-range staff needs to be able to state what each item might require. Limitation and capacity issues can be brought up so adjustments can be made. Commercial, solar, wildfire and code violations might be a lower priority. Commissioner Unger stated that these are important but can be addressed as time permits. Commercial events on farmland and south County issues are a priority. The others could be medium priority, with details provided on what they might entail. Chair Baney said the REOA work is critical, but asked if the south County community plan is only being scoped and has not begun. Commissioner Unger thinks that the Deschutes River Woods and Deschutes Junction community plans are important, too. These might come about after the comprehensive plan update is complete. Chair Baney stated that these affect what is in the comprehensive plan. She sees these as different. The south County community plan needs to be done before the comprehensive plan is finalized. Commissioner Unger feels that this is important for the other communities as well. Chair Baney said that this requires an investment on the part of the County. She'd like to see some kind of investment set up in advance for the next time a comprehensive plan update is needed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 6 of 8 Pages Mr. Anderson quoted the top priorities as the REOA, south County and events on farmland. The comprehensive plan is a priority. Some work might be farmed out to a consultant. Commissioner DeBone said he'd like to see the events issue addressed before the south County issue. Mr. Anderson said they could come back on February 2 with an approach on how they can do these things given the limitations of time and staffing. It may include part of the south County plan. 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Two Commissioners will be out of the office between February 28 and March 9, so the meetings that would be held during that time are to be canceled. 4. Other Items. Mr. Kanner said a discussion regarding video conferencing is scheduled for February 4. He is waiting for sketches. At the work session of January 26, Bill Watkins of California Lutheran wants to talk about the economic forecast scheduled for January 27. He would like to offer free advice for budgeting purposes, and encouraged the cities to have representatives there if they are interested. January 27 is the date for the economic forecast meeting. The County gave $2,000 to the Deschutes Economic Alliance for the Thousand Day Roadmap program. This group had asked about additional grant funds previously to support the forecast presentation. There are a lot of the same players but different moving parts, all wanting funds. And they get funds from other sources. Dave Inbody said that California Lutheran has not submitted a request for economic development funding. Chair Baney will let those who asked know. Erik Kropp, Chair Baney and Commissioner DeBone will attend the forecast meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Pages Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. DATED this zfll~ ~"i Day of Deschutes County Board of Commissioi ATTEST: Recording Secretary 2011 for the Tammy Bane-y, Chair 15AVOV - Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair aGM-uvl~ Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 12, 2011 Page 8 of 8 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011 1. Presentation - Central Oregon Area Management Plan - Doug Parker, Division of State Lands 2. Planning Division Update on FY 2010-11 Long-Range Work Program - Nick Lelack 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; 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. If 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. N co N N J ~ @1 N v cc a CK I 60 \fi NA Q DL e ~t Z v CENTRAL OREGON AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN Fact Sheet 34 different properties in three counties: 7,420 acres total Deschutes: 11 sites; 2,540 acres Crook: 19 sites; 4,646 acres Jefferson: 4 sites; 234 acres All properties are Common School Fund (CSF) assets dedicated to supporting K-12 public schools statewide. CSF lands, granted to Oregon at statehood, originally consisted of two square miles (sections 16 and 36) per township. Most of these lands have been sold overtime. DSL currently manages approximately 750,000 acres of CSF lands statewide. The guidance and authority for the Central Oregon Area Management Plan (COAMP) come from the agency's 2006-2016 Asset Management Plan (implementation priority # 8). Guidance includes: be organized by location, resource type or revenue generation; inventory as needed; be comprehensive; use established DSL land classifications; establish specific land management strategies and implementation measures; maximize long-term CSF revenue; coordinate with other agencies; and include lessees, adjacent property owners and others in the process. DSL also manages an abundance of subsurface mineral ownerships throughout the COAMP region. Due to limited available information about subsurface mineral opportunities in the region and because of no other pressing management concerns, it has been determined to maintain the current status of subsurface mineral estates. DSL staff has met with county and state agency staff to share information and maximize coordination and efficiency. The COAMP will coordinate with local government as well as state and federal agency plans where feasible. CSF land assets are managed to maximize financial returns and enhance the value of the CSF real estate portfolio. Management considerations may also include natural, open space, wildlife and conservation/preservation factors and issues, provided they do not conflict with the legal and fiduciary obligations to maximize the value of CSF assets to support K-12 public education. CSF properties within the COAMP region that already have an adopted development plan or management strategy are acknowledged as such with no further refinement needed. Properties that are currently leased will retain that status without interruption during the COAMP planning process. DSL protocols and policies direct staff to include, notify and consider the input from lessees, neighbors and other interested parties during the plan preparation and adoption process. The COAMP planning process began in May 2010 with database searches, site inventories, agency coordination meetings and map preparation. Public meetings and outreach efforts will continue through December 2010. A draft plan will be available for public review and presentation in April 2011, and public presentations and hearings will take place in April/May 2011. The draft plan will be revised and modified as warranted (based upon hearing input) with the final COAMP plan being presented to the State Land Board at their public meeting in June 2011. COAMP information will be posted on the DSL Web site in November 2010, and include plan documents, working papers, inventory sheets, background reports, meeting and hearing schedules, and draft and final plans posted for public review, download and comment: hftp://www.oregonstatelands.us/DSL/LW/coamp.shtml. An implementation program will be a part of the COAMP. It is important to recognize that this plan will be implemented over a period of many years - nothing immediate is anticipated to result from the plan's adoption. Various CSF sites may not be proposed for or experience any change whatsoever as a result of the COAMP preparation and adoption. COAMP Public Meetings Tuesday, November 16: 6:30 p.m., Redmond Fire Hall - Training Room, 341 NW Dogwood (use Elm Ave. entry) Wednesday, November 17, 6:30 p.m., Prineville City Hall - Council Chambers, 387 NE 3rd St. It is anticipated that both public meetings will last about 1 Y2 hours, and include a brief presentation, question and answer session, information sheets and comment cards. Official testimony will be received at future public hearings, not at these informal meetings. Questions? Doug Parker, Asset Planner Oregon Department of State Lands 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 100, Salem, OR 97310 (503) 986-5246; coamp@dsl.state.or.us eek Zll~ Central Oregon Area Management Plan Cr Department of State Lands State of Oregon T4 ~ ~"a . River • s e~ - .r J 26 c 97 , .a S eks e . b.. Dam adras JE ERS©N COUMT-Y- s- s~M oaf . + „ Lake fiiitusfds % ~ ~ tie f a ac r s - ` Lake bil;thinaok,_ 26 M 2.: ' e Willow a - 97 Creek _ Haystack Creek r c „v ~ w 24. Fremont Will i N i.1aheg r L r.~ Canyon aBut e ' 97 CROO -COUNTY,eK ' 20 26 s n 8. Prineville eservol , reek 16 Notth 6. Fryrear~ 27. Cline ' Airport r . Cor"h's ?'i. Peters Road Buttes l6can 12 Dav s Roa la Bu - Road Tract urr 1 28. Red Band. 9. Hwy 20 o Parcel "U SouthRedmo owell Buttes 1 ~ml a West Juniper 14, tu, r 1; r.~tir~f k Road e5 . er o Tract North.. 7t Canyon aj c ' Tract "11,Powell'' orse 3 0. Tumalo Bnttes ' eAve 15. CayuseF2oad'. - H n oi Reserv DESCH C UNTY South East zras 1 Pnrrevfte Reservoir e 1. Alf Ifa 7, r ' - 20 L 32. Todd M ket • 21. Alkali C ee- t,= _ _ Road R 20 P el l; e . i s Creek t Con ~a a _ 22:L e Bear _ - s Ro egon Cree Tracts Road North,1M - Tract 23. 8c ,u * avag Butte _ 97(1 °4 Lava wa, cr~ 20 ~.cl Vl, Al yG © Qa Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 Plan Boundary N 0 4 8 This product is for informational purposes and ma n t h n r r d f r r b suitabl b DSL P t E Miles W~ y ave p , o o ee epa e o e e for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. _ roper y V ' s Users of this information should review or consult Oregon Lambert Conformal Conic Projection the primary data and information sources to Datum NAD83 International Feet ascertain the usability of the information. N N U ~ i N N ~ co a ^ N I..L ~ Q 1 O U N 1 ~ C cu N C^' W +r E O J (1) x cy) N co N cu L ~ Q O U 0) a) L O E 4-0 m C: z L IL a Q z d' z Q' z z J (D z J (D Z J 0 z J (D z J 0 z W J 0 z af ~ O LL Co LL. 0 LL. 0 LL of U - (D Z w U - w U - w U - w U - w U - w U - w U - w, U - N N CD ~ 0) r ) l) m a) 0) r- M a) 0) c cc ) a) U h u N i O O L L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OD M co r- O O 00 00 U) O 00 N LO CO N 00 O O) r O ~ O, 0 c) " co r O (D O "T O ~ O O 'IT O OD M 00 r 00 O qt O 00 r r r r r r > U co C > U m C > U m C > U m C 0 w CCf N Co m a) > U f0 C > U ca C > U (TS C U cc > U ca C O O O O O O O O O O r N O O O M t O O O r O M O ;T O CO O CO O f- O ti O r O r O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O r O (N O CO O CO O r O r O O I r N N r r r r N N ~ CO CD N ~f M LO LO LO U') LO LO LO N O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J O J X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X CO X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m X m f- O Cfl CO Cfl co 't 00 O CA O LO I- f- 00 O 0 r- O O O r O O M r r r r r N r r r M O O O O N r r N N N N N M O W 00 W O W W f~ w f~ w f~ W 00 W M W 00 W O W W r W r W r W O W r W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 (fl fl- fl- 00 00 w 00 M 00 ~ 'IT U) LO LO Ln LO U') LO U) U) O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Cl) U) 2 O N 2 2 2 (1) 7 = 7 7 D 0 Y 0 Y O Y O U U U) U U) U to U rn U U U U U 0 0 0 2 0 U a) U U fCf L ~ L ? O C Y a) U V > > C > m 2 ` = Y a) U Y Q Z N U N co CD w J 07 Y a) U a~i co N J C Q C U a) O LL C co y C a) Q a co a) LL. ) co a) C U co ~ c m O Q' co co N N N N N N N X O LO N O r X LO E W CO Z) U) W co a Q C O 0) CD O CCf C E rn N cn to Q J O .R N N R U H ' 4 m N L : a t O U N i r C E C J QD x ca N co 2 cu ~ r C U O L O CD E C: Z U L a a a Of U Q D 0 z Q' to w 0 LL D U z D D 0 0 z z D 0 z UL Z w w 0 0 Of 0 w w U U ~ U Q' U W U Q' U J U z D 0 :D 0 J J O =3 U m -O L - O m N ) CO con C: O U a) to E 2 U - ° - co (6 LQ .7 c N N -0 "O C C N 7 7 w N3•• C6 c ( C N 7 vO- - N N ` fl 0 O 0 C •N L O 4) to a L m L "O L to a L m ` L a) m a O L C ~ C L C O C cu U L - y Cn N U) N a) L L cLa cLa Z) ` "O "O L L t O O . O O . O O O O . O O O O . . O O . O O . O O O O O O O O O O . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N 00 T O O LO O O O N O LO . Ln . LO co C) . . C> C) co 0) 00 It 00 M ~ 00 N 'IT It LO (D T T co T It co t- M N N CD M (D T M 0 O O N T N O T N cn cn m (n cu ° U c m > v co c m > v m c a~ > m c a~ > v m c a~ > v m c a~ > v m c a~ > v m c a~ m > > v v m cu c C a~ > v m c a~ a~ > > v m m c c O N m O CD m N ° -O 0 m a) 2 v co C 2 cc c _ v m C 2 2 v v m m c C O ° 0 o O O CD O o o c D T o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 M 0 O 0 O 0 0 T T 0 N 0 O 0 0 T T 0 CO 0 O O 0 CD 0 I- 0 q- 0 CO 0 T 0 Lf) 0 "T 0 0 O O O O N N In M M LO N N N 0 T T N CO J T T N N T N N N N N N 0 J X cu 5 J X m 0 J X m 0 J X m 0 0 J J X X m m F- F- 0 J X m 0 J X m 0 0 J J X X m m F- F- 0 J X m 0 C J X m m O\ o J X m F- 0 J X m F- 0 J X m F- 0 J X m F- 0 J X m F- 0 J X m 6 J X m 0 0 J J X X m m 0 6 J J X X m m O T O M O T CD O 1l- m T T CD T N O It O O T 'IT T N LO M O O N O N V M CD M 0 T O M O M CD T T N N f- N N w w W W w w w W W w w W W W W W W W W W W W W W O T It 0 Ln CD 1- Ln M L!) LO Ln CD W 0 0 1- L` 1,- L!) U*) CD CD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T V/ O VJ T VJ N ' v/ N V/ VJ M M vJ M V/ ~ V/ VJ 0 LO V! 0 ' ' vJ V/ U) (0 VJ L1) VJ LO VJ LO rr VJ LO ' ^ VJ LO ' ^ VJ LO / ^ (0 LO , ^ ' ^ (n (n co co ' ^ ' ^ V/ V/ co CD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T C C C C O O O O L ` ` Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y a) a) t a) a) O O U O O U O O U O o U O O U O O U O O U O O U O O U O O U O O U O O U O O U O O U 3 O cu ` m Y ) N O m O J L Y a) V O > > C N L c7 Y C a) Q 7 co C ° m o L2 L W C L d U U) (A m c U t5 ~ Z m c Co O _ N c O Y Q a 6 O m L cu CO U L a) C O c ° c U a) M C O 0 Li Cn -0 00 -C Z LLJ LL N -0 O 7 ) N > j Li cn .O O 7 n ca L (n co O O a o F- O >1 a T N M 'IT LO co h co 0) O N M 'IT CD fl- 00 T Ln T T T T T T T T T X O N O T X cu C LU U) 0 F- U) LL m a Q C O O) a) 0 C U E C3) Q) cn Q J 0 t A N N ev U N i (ri C_ N ~ a) mQ N L Q a t 0 U N co N c a) E 0 J (1) x a) R c CO) 5co c ` 0 O 0) O L 0 m E c Z U L IL IL Ca C D CO N U U U U U C U i a m U) cn U) 0 co U a) 0 C b a5 m N s p (Q = C C m L 0 a) O O O O O O O O a0 O w O O O O m N N m LO m m ° O O O O ° ° ° ° ° O v O o ~ n o o m ♦ co O T N T N T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J J J J J J H H H I- F- F- F- H 0 cq LO C) 00 0) co CD W W W W W W W W VJ V/ VJ VJ VJ vJ v/ vJ T T T T T T T T w c (b U) 3 =3 U U U U U U cn (n w N N N 0 0 0 0 D D a~ L 0 Y ca U U) 0 =3 N F co Q' E > > 2 F- Q ~ J J N ri cn m m m 0 X O L6 N O T X L 0 E W cn D U) W co a Q C 0 rn m 0 C a~ U E N cn Q J 0 Common School Fund Distributions 2001-2010 High Desert ESD Districts* Harney Co. Jefferson Co. 2001: $1,541,407 $ 93,740' $255,024 2002: $ 659,400 $ 31,400 $100,480 2003**: $1,269,588 $ 75,507 $207,001 2004: $ 556,398 $ 29,358 $ 85,610 2005: $1,708,694 $ 83,718 $252,350 2006: $2,009,901 $ 99,550 $316,480 2007: $2,305,974 $ 99,797 $390,302 2008: $2,707,262 $110,020 $443,530 2009: $1,954,322 $ 74,494 $259,347 2010: $2,480,289 $ 95,148 $316,092 TOTALS: $17,193,235 $792,732 $2,626,216 *High Desert districts include Bend-La Pine, Sisters, Crook and Redmond. **Includes a one-time statewide distribution of $17.7 million mandated by the Oregon Legislature. Common School Fund distributions are sent twice a year to all 197 Oregon K-12 public school districts. Distributions are based on the number of county residents ages 4 - 20. The Department of State Lands sends the money to the Department of Education for disbursal into the districts' general fund accounts. Statewide distributions in 2010 totaled $50.4 million. The Common School Fund is now valued at just less than $1 billion; its value fluctuates based on stock market conditions. OF ~ 5 Oregon Schools Benefit from Common School Fun $40 million sent to state's 197 K-12 school districts in 2009 Since Oregon became a state in 1859, a little-known fund - the Common School Fund - has provided hundreds of millions of dollars for Oregon public schools. In a district such as Corvallis, their share in 2009 ($632,350) would support nearly eight full-time teaching positions. In Bend, 13. And in Medford, 11. While Common School Fund distributions are considered local revenue in the state funding formula, the dollars are not insignificant. State Land Board oversees Common School Fund The act of Congress admitting Oregon to the Union in 1859 granted sections 16 and 36 of every township for the use of schools. Nearly 3.4 million acres - roughly the size of Connecticut - came under state ownership. Our "land-rich, cash-poor" state quickly sold many school lands, as state officials felt private ownership of these lands would yield more for schools through property taxes and other economic benefits. As a result, only 780,000 acres - about a quarter of Oregon's original acreage - remains in state ownership. The Oregon Constitution dedicates the mineral, timber and other resource rights of school lands to the Common School Fund, and names the State Land Board as trustee of the fund. The board is composed of the Governor (chair), Secretary of State and State Treasurer. "Protecting and enhancing the Common School Fund is arguably the most important thing we do as a state agency," says Louise Solliday, director of the Department of State Lands (DSL), the administrative arm of the Land Board. Inputs into the fund include revenues from leasing state- owned rangelands and waterways, and harvesting timber on Common School forestlands. In addition, all unclaimed property (money) the state receives is held in the Common School Fund until the rightful owner is located. Common School Fund distributions are sent to school districts twice a year. By law, fund distributions cannot benefit current students at the About 78 percent of the annual revenue from state school lands comes from forestlands. In 2009, the Elliott State Forest near Coos Bay generated $9 million. The State Land Board owns 91 percent of the 93,000-acre forest. Goal is to grow the fund significantly over time As the Common School Fund grows, so do distributions to Oregon school districts. Since 2000, distributions have ranged from a low of $13 million in 2004 to a high of $55.4 million in 2008. Distributions in the 2009-11 biennium are expected to total about $95.5 million. The Department of State Lands is strategically managing the fund's real estate assets to increase revenues to schools. Disposing of non-producing lands, investing in high-quality lands, and ensuring that state land leases reflect market values are among the agency's strategies says Solliday. "Every dollar helps Oregon schools - it's just that simple," says Solliday. "My goal is for every education advocate across the state to understand the Common School Fund and the Department of State Lands' role in supporting Oregon's schoolchildren from generation to generation." ,Nq The State Treasurer and Oregon Investment Council invest the Common School Fund. In recent years, fund values have ranged from $600 million to more than $1 billion, depending on market conditions. The current value of the fund is approximately $930 million. 2009 Common School Fund Distributions A sampling of districts and their distributions Bend $1,077,202 (13 full-time teachers) Corvallis $632,350 (7.6 full-time teachers) Hood River $246,460 (3 full-time teachers) Lincoln County $379,592 (4.5 full-time teachers) Medford $913,494 (11 full-time teachers) 1 Ontario $184,474 (2 full-time teachers) n 0-1~ 014 Portland $3,716,760 (44.6 full-time teachers) ..i 11 1.1 if U _V l!.~ a i,f c For more Information and copies of the Common School Fund brochure contact: Julie Curtis: 503-986-5298; iulie.curtis@state.or.us Department of State Lands 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 986-5200 www.oregonstatelands.us December 2009 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 4, 2011 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Nick Lelack, Planning Director MTG: January 12, 2011 Work Session RE: Planning Division / Long Range Planning Section Update This work session provides a status report on the Planning Division's Long Range Planning (LRP) Section FY 2010-2011 work program. During the work session, staff will engage the Board of County Commissioners (Board) in an exercise to identify their priorities and direction for the LRP Section over the next six months. Due to staffing limitations, reduced hours, and ongoing responsibilities, it is not be possible to undertake all the projects identified in the FY 2010-11 LRP work plan as well as the new tasks identified below in Table 2. Three recent actions occurring last quarter prompted this status report: 1. In September, the Board directed staff to schedule a work session to discuss the Planning Division's FY 2010-11 Work Plan, specifically the priority action item to: "Initiate legislative amendments to address commercial use of farm land." 2. In October, the Board directed staff to schedule a work session to: "Discuss a possible second phase of a destination resort study. ,2 3. In December, the Planning Commission approved the following motion by Vice Chair Ed Criss: "The [Planning] Commissioners have heard public testimony that South County residents would like a community plan to address local issues with local input. The Commission requests that the Board direct the Planning Division, with an extensive citizen input process, to initiate this project early in 2011 (February or March). This will take time and resources that could be directed toward other projects. As a potential health problem has been recognized by the DEQ, we believe that this issue is a #1 priority in our area and the County. " 1 This direction followed the Board's denial of a fee waiver request for a privately initiated text amendment to address event venues in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. 2 This action followed the completion of the Community Planning Workshop's presentation of the study's first phase. Quality Services Pelbrmed with Pride Direction from the Board is therefore necessary to identify which projects should be initiated over the next six months, and those that will need to be deferred to the FY 2011-12 work plan. In an effort to spearhead the discussion, this memorandum does the following: • Updates the LRP Section's FY 2010-2011 ongoing projects (Table 1); • Identifies projects that are on the adopted FY 2010-11 Work Plan but not yet begun for various reasons (Table 2); • Summarizes the LRP Section's ongoing statutory and regional coordination responsibilities (Table 3); • Lists LRP Section planning staff responsibilities (Table 4) and, • Summarizes the LRP Section's completed projects for FY 2010-2011 (Table 5). I. Overview of LRP Section The LRP Section conducts public involvement to consider land use policy, updates the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations and coordinates with cities and agencies on various planning projects. A Planning Director oversees the LRP (and Current) Section(s). The LRP Section consists of a Principal Planner, Senior Planner, Senior Transportation Planner, and an Administrative Secretary. The LRP Section, like the rest of the Community Development Department, is on a reduced work week of 36 hours, recognized as 0.9 Full Time Equivalent (FTE). II. Board Prioritization Exercise Using the tables below, staff will first discuss Table 1, confirming with the Board which existing programs warrant continuing and then, if there is capacity and available resources, which projects in Table 2 can be initiated. III. LRP Section's Ongoing Projects Table 1 provides an overview of the LRP Section's current projects, including the FTEs required for managing them. For each project, staff seeks Board affirmation to continue. The results of this specific exercise will enable the Board to ascertain whether there is staff capacity and available resources to undertake new projects listed in Table 2. All of the projects in Table 1 noted with an asterisk encompass a legislative amendment that is presently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Deschutes County Code requires all legislative amendments to first go through a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Once they have made a recommendation, the Board then holds a public hearing. Legislative amendments, once adopted by the Board, can be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. It is important to note that those projects that do not have an asterisk will, at some point in the future, require a legislative amendment. -2- N N V O a c U) v d •O CL 0 C_ O C1 0 IL i d R F' c m E 0 V ca O m 0c o 00 da O c=o O '>aE Y c6 c Qom O O O j c r v~~ cL fCCC'N 9 cLo ca rn c C °O-on °N~~ (D . c`o dw d E N=' L Yo C 5 o 0 0 co c y 0) Co ~s E v o (D CD m H *0M 0) OC p C C V d d m N v O O U C O p 0 a) O O m r.•~~ 0m c U C :3 U aL~ V cn U a) O CD L O (fl Y p o r. p O_ N L 0 0) N m "a .C p,.. cn O n. 0 N 0 co N m O O O U a N M L p 0 c, 3 m a L c d 0 O L r L O L ch N cr- a) co C CD co Cc 4) N p) C C 0 N O C O R N m Q E 04 cn w-0 uNi (D - L CA L L -E0 Nca a ca pO O cc N OO 3 a > L oEEO ~ca a) a) L -0 7 N O N c a) N d 01 ~C O N L L Y i_. CL U) N L O X o c w E t '0 C 0 7 W O W O 0- N 7 a) E> c L O O 7 (D E c L O N G a) L ca F- -r- 0-~ p L p 0 F---c 3 ca N « V 3 ~0 ca F-UZ~ F-U0~ N 'a 4) H U') -7- L R 'C ea '3 as U w w ~ LL C000 0 C ~ a c E Q OVH aN LL E y a c O O O O N W C :a LL m` N ~ rn U O~ U C ~ ~ 0w O o W CL G LL O Y m i~ L ca -0 a) 0 C) N L N L N 'O a? 3 0 CL L ~ a) _0 ca L ~ M ~ N 0 E`~° •cv~ . aca 4)0C L a-~ 0 . ~M (D Ofl x a-- 0 4)0a) 0:'m te a - F c ca m N= O 0 ~ O 3 ) 0 a -0 3: -0 (.5 CD m C ca C O a ) c -2 ~ C , > Co N ~ Cc (n 4) 2 it CD A mc a V 0 0 0' 7 W a0 o y a 0 M c 0 0 0 o C) - a) 0 0 5 =3 0 a i s p 0 0 O N 0-- 0 E~QUs a ca O O c° 0-0 0 V c aN C 0 u) a~ X v) p c 0 m N.C av w c N~ U) O- 7 N 7 a) av.- O c c c 0 7 c fn c» 0° D ca c-t c O N- V. yd o.5 D O > ca F- a)L : to <n Ov CL cp O C O vOi V N 4) O > am • C a) ca . 0 O p N 4= U O co 0 (D (a a) y N O C: N O O 0 O a` C a L (a 0 fn 7 E c) N C L N O ca 0 N o a) O >1 OL CL ° N m a) C 0 7> p :2 O 00. :3 U a) c c 0 a O V O E ° 0 0 0 0_ 0 ca N 0 CL a cn E CL (D N U O " C F- U n -0 0) 0 M U D v Lu E ca E L O - O F- 0 N~ 0 > rte.... C O M t0 V C U) Q. 0 20 0 C 5~ dQN cE~cn ~o~E G. t O O x c m 13 + t V an. CL cC ° 0 as mm mE oac V~ LU ._Q w D v N N V O CL c m 'o L IL C_ O c 0 CL J I r d F- 4 0 . c 0 E O v .a 0 0 m -0 Mn 0 0 m .0 0) c m - cc d ~ O c - C C Q c C W C 2m- N L ~y;,~ = oa 3 m m c c n ° ~oo O 'a c E : c JW 0 O C c a (D a) v o E (0 N 0 C a) CT N a) O O C O> 0 c N U w, c C co M 0 ;F O O m V L E .S a c O 70 7 p Co 5 U C p, a) c N c cCC > ca ° C 3 . Cc Q) CL c O N~ ~ a) 0 C Q N c CL ? y O A y 0 o 0) ~Y v, ~-C o ~Q o > m N L C ° m v U) N > - m 0 m to U, a) m a) m C , " 0O 0) J L C 3 Q M 0 - Q J Q J 4) to D 3 ~ E 0 C O+ N c t6 O a) ca 0 0 c a F cfnfn X rnO O -w0 020 U L O v oC F-Ut0 0,2 aM d aNi w v CO 0 c w w m 3 w ~ F- w F- w E 0 P LL 5 LU O ° N rn o o O 0 0 _ (D ^ T y ^ T ^ T y ^ am a~v a~oy a~oo a a)o° a C7 cv C7 c c a) m O O Y N> - " ° N o ~0 J p C ~p 0 o ms T O 0 Vi o m a a N me c o c a ~s > F- .C 3 3 m ~ ; X w m- C' ) ~ N E - o o aa0o U) r C N m2 m4-oca y 7 a) U C or " °ENof acO 3 C C cow c cps o w c a) O C'O O c0 > y Mn C Oo_ ui~ 04--0 (D a) c 3() c 0 F- o1:3 O to 'O a)-~VN"~O J > to C cn c Q' (n OfGCD coL>, 0 E T 'O E C a) O) a CL a)V~ > ' . O o0 a ) )a)v) m C= C a) m '3 N cu ~(n 0 "(D N •L w ~Co -C N (D ° v N a)~ N o ~H c~ a cn - Q)Coc Exe c E aci o ~.c E 3 c a ~0) m D ~c'ot`oa C~ F'C-0-j CE L1 a) ` 0 C) a) Uc$ac~°3smc~ 2 E + N L OcasNOL .rcrnT E o.N a> o0 o u U U E ° mo3 m oy~ m L N a) 3 030_ 5 co-"oc.0-°c (M 7 • a) L°L o~ 0- 0 y n" U U) 7 3 O) co CL a N' 7> m E N O 'R N ` oE~3~cu O ccnSo0mE'§rcuc to w e ocn3c).`a)Qa)m p (D °)c - -0 .r 0 a) cn a) y a) C O U O~ w z - U N C :3 C: _ a) C co o N- O 0 o 0 " - C s> ,a)NOO F-cn c c ~ mN C ;ga)rn~ 0a n °O ~co0 LO E0" i E uv m amp y O a) a' 3 c ~ " L cm c~ a~ tCm d ~ ~a oaE ~ Cam.. c E i1d amc9 • c CL a 2 3 0o cQ'c x m * ~c 3 o as c w~ 0 m dc~ > o E h d m E 0 < `)w 4 0 > ~ to N d 7 d z c a1 m d 0 z V) V as 'o IL r O r 0 N LL c V d IL J cl) tni ca oN ~ ° c c n Ja)O-~ ~ OO to o Q- E -C ' ca ca c E N O E 5 Cc EU C U) Q O E t5 a) a) a) U cu a) O Q L 0 0 O c L N c - . Z'NN a'i E ai 0 L L ~ O a) to a) U C U O 0-0 a) a) _ ca (D ~ E O U ~ 0 c 0) m Q >'O ~ C (D FD 'FD ~ N•~ N~ a) t0 Nm U U co C FM C C a) O :3 a) o 'O p L E to U to Q m Q o a) rn~~a° Q a) EaQ c a) O U ca Q .O N C N V .«r N O c 0 N 01,E a) y N V 7 O c m rn- = rno 0 a) E > o c O CL U - O 'D U ° 'O U N N a) = C = a) J + (p N > ` 3 Y C a) ooa M O L wQ 0 o a) :3 a) O r ~ U •C N % -O O m C a~ -C CU m Q-o- C ca fa C" a) u 0 O Q ° E E a - a) ` " O E a) O L o ` a) E 0 Q- 'o o c U t0) N 0 -0 -0 N 0)- Z 3 ca c(D O a) a).E >~m.- > cu Cm CU °NC) 0 0 Y c ~CL a) U)a) N CD a) L U c = (D fn ~ cn (D CU a) C) tt- c a O ~ . -0 N (a .0 to a) a) 'O OLL N~~ E"- EL ooh -0 o w N C E ton) cm 0 c-pO7 ' "-'ca) p V CO Q U _O ca U a) c H fn m ca Q = O r N d d d z ad C 3 LA 4) m O z V m 'o a Cl r O N } U. N _d R H 'L7 c ca ~ C L 5 2.2 r d o E . . ` L 5 CL ~E a o E 3 H -a v c 'a 3 0 _M d J r N M c a) E N a) U) v a) ° L 0 a0 to L C o O ° N d ~ LL C a) a) a) a) .r C C LL LL Lo N c C=. E LO O V N d R cn o 0 -C c CD N U ca ~ W a) Q N O * rn C L L 0 C Q c CU O 3:3 [2 a) to rn y c c c O C c a) _ L- CZ U a)~ O U~ (3- aa)0 aU a) 0 - ~ O CL 4) a)=~ o c°pO c 0 *0 U ova 1 a) a) = t1 • CD O (a a 'p C C > + t2 O 3 0 } o N L CL N v- j 0 Rf U O ` ~ Cc) = co E J E - co > = L - U co a3 O c ca -o a) O 5 ° c p G7 ca L-0 c O Rf O N N L- (a Ea Y a) a) a)a a) n CD to to a -~,e O - > 3:13- 0 •N O > N m o p . V U (D L 0 L C comma c O (a a) Q c L 0 3 c N CL = C o 0 O L C a) E o a N a Q O (D a` UWa) 0 U o0) 0 U _co CL Q az V C ~ O ' o ca 0E O d E a c c t°w tE d ~ V'c c a~~ c C`>L a LA c c E L L ~°0t9 c N0 c'a a0 c a V a E CL d Q J Ln Q) 7 N Z C d m N } 0 Z v d .O a r O O N } LL N d lL1 F- M c R ~ ~ N N a~+ + ' = r O •O o • - O d •`o E C 'S- cL CL •c E -W £ ~U t~ 3 0 LA Z J N M L) a) N N E 0 O p O O U) W s C U) 'a C: w w my W d ' LL 0 m U') N C C 7 O LL U") C Co LL LO C N 3 cu N N m O m C a Ci E ~a) co « o~ U N O • n ca U C cc a) ~ ~ W Z a) ; O C) CD Z E w- N ° 4- Q O N O) 0 y "a O j C M co v~Cz-5E C c a ~3" C O U r CU to 0 ca O O O 0 O O a . Q C n~0 > 0) a` i a) :3 C C 0 u-) V 'Q ~c cL) - O U t4 CU L (n a 0) C.) CU C: U) 0) W CD =3 c C~ O Q.N~O N C) cu :3 E O - N C D1 a) ° a) - a) a) Q 3 0 0 U c 0> 5 E C N m •L cn 0 0 0) 0 O N O O C y -0 N u0i N E a) O C 7 Q •N 7 'X a) U N cn E C: U c0 C O 0) 0() 0 a) co00 M mNt E ~o O O c 0 L cn U U w a) ' U 0 0 d O MD ° 0m a)(n -0 p E c m 0~ Oc 0 U') i U a) 0 m X cua L N O > C E a) U o N c 0 0 -C O Cc p) 4M- O 3 ai ~3 co " ' o o o a~ U ) U ) 3 L C 0 0-0 -i6 O 4) - -o ° " ca a) . > O 0 o O Q a E (D (D S a 0 ) 0° ) (n ° p a ~ U ca v CL w 0 °Q0 U) d~ c m o m zm >E-c cE 4. 0 1- p d 0 c c E • :p c cm * 0 ` C FL te 2 ` LL1 'L7 L d O c C a0 . - O' CL C N Q• E Q is r+ a U)0 c Q 0 co tl! d 7 3 d Z od C m m } O Z V d 0 CL r r O_ O N } LL N N R H V c i N w d A 2:1 •L C • m O 0 L O o £ aaa •L. i+ Ea 3 m 00 J .r N M U) L O W W W m L LO LO LO V O r O O w E 41 U) W Mn C: c: C: = I,~ O o U 3 L ° NON cn a o m .0 C c p ca 'O N c E N C c C c CO p> a) N c (A p 0 O= -p O E0w.0 OO+'cc c0 E O N > J V ca o vcac O N c c O E N C- E O O N N U U t N c v ,6 a O ` OIL UW O N y 'L O Q (n E c L N O _ L w O 0 - p p a L C Q V m -;-I- US c a~L2 c U U co c N ~.3N-0 N~ua0 c 0 a c a E =1 cn 'D C O L "p O O c a O Q O cu u o E E O c E L U N to c - aD n> U C 'a c N O L -p 3c (D -5 > CD :3 L O t° CL .L a)C cCU o oc o cu Jof 0Q; E~ O p L .r n -0 N N Q V m N c 'v -i > O t .r > O L N c N r- L (B O L p D O p U j p L E 0 p E acv c 2 m r CL to a E =ca N a _0 c C N p - o o O O U U c M CU L C N U p p c0 O N p c` O o f; "0 E N E m 0 c c E f~ c U 0 m v _ N E_ c O U) C c c O m O v> v N_ C N o NN O p Co -0 U c 4 - m O y N 0 ~ E 3 CD 0 0 co c Q- U O U c N C c 0 CO O -Ep E U) 4- a p my O.- Q) aoo- c E L LA N p 0O E p a) 0 N N O O- 7 N a^ C C U) K ~ m N Gl V C V V m C O a N o•_" y £ oa ` 0 0 0E' a c v v 0 a mV o m~ w ~Q >E R d JVa ~#e ~a a a o v V. LRP Section / Coordination Responsibilities In addition to the projects identified in Tables 1 and 2 above, LRP staff has localized and regional coordination duties, as shown in Table 3 below.3 Table 3 - Statutory / Regional Coordination Duties Planning Project Description Lead Staff Coordinate with local, state and federal agencies through the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to Regional Trail develop a regional trail plan. Upon completion of a trail plan, Peter Plan amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include the Russell routes. Also work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to develop an online trail guide Current Planning Provide comments and expertise to current planning staff on land and Development use applications, and calculate System Development Charges Peter Review (SDCs) as part of land use application review process or upon Russell request. Participate in ODOT funded refinement planning projects for ODOT Refinement Highway 97 and Highway 20. These projects may include planning Peter Planning Projects for the Quarry Road interchanges and the Wickiup Junction Russell interchange or bypass Coordinate Road Issues with Coordinate road issues with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Peter Federal and the United States Forest Service (USFS) for urban interface Russell Government plans Assist with Safe Assist the City of Bend with Safe Routes to School (SR2S) efforts peter Routes to Schools in the Bend-La Pine School District, and County schools as Russell needed • Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) TAC • Highway 97/20 Project Technical Advisory Committee • La Pine Comprehensive Plan Technical Advisory Committee • Bend Airport Master Plan Update Technical Advisory Transportation Committee Wickiup Junction/97 Technical Advisory Committee Peter Committees • South Redmond Collaborative Group Russell • US 20 in Tumalo Project Technical Advisory Committee • Central Oregon Rail Plan study group • Commute Options Working Group • Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 3 Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 195.025 requires each county, through its governing body to be responsible for coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within the county, including planning activities of the county, cities, special districts and state agencies, to assure an integrated comprehensive plan for the entire area of the county -8- Table 3 - Statutory / Regional Coordination Duties Planning Project Description Lead Staff Monitoring Participate in and monitor Oregon Legislature, committees and Nick Lelack, Legislative work groups to amend state planning law, and keep the Board, Session Planning Commission, staff and the public informed and engaged Peter on such activities Gutowsky Nick Lelack, Coordinate with the City to complete Urban Growth Boundary City of Bend Amendment. Peter Growth Gutowsky, Management Upon state acknowledgment of a UGB amendment, reinitiate an Urban Reserve Area (URA) work program for the City of Bend Peter Russell Bend Airport Coordinate with the City to update the Airport Master Plan Anthony Master Plan Raguine Fulfill obligations associated with recently enacted state law Bend La Pine requiring school facilities planning for large school districts. The Peter School District law requires large school districts, cities, and counties to plan for Gutowsky the future and to coordinate with one another to assist school districts in obtaining land Coordinate on BLM land transfer for rodeo grounds. Tom La Pine Parks Anderson, District Coordinate on land use and environmental health issues associated with parks facilities at Roslund Campground Nick Lelack City of Sisters Coordinate with the City to initiate an Urban Reserve Area (URA) Nick Lelack, Urban Reserve work program. Peter Area Gutowsky Historical Provide staff to the Historic Landmarks Commission for any county Nick Lelack, Landmarks Commission related applications or policy issues Peter Gutowsky Portland State University Annual Coordinate with Assessor and Administration Offices Peter Population Submit questionnaire to Portland State University in Fall 2010 Gutowsky Questionnaire Association of Oregon County Monthly meetings Nick Lelack Planning Directors State Legislative Monthly meetings Nick Lelack Work Groups Deschutes River Mitigation and Quarterly meetings Peter Enhancement Gutowsky Committee Project Wildfire Monthly meetings Peter Gutowsky -9- Table 3 - Statutory / Regional Coordination Duties Planning Project Description Lead Staff Statewide Coordinate with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on Planning Goal 11 their efforts to lead the groundwater protection program for the Peter (Public Facilities) Upper Deschutes basin, including discussions regarding Statewide Gutowsky Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities) Coordinate with the County Forester, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon State Parks and Recreation Wildland Urban Department, and environmental non-government organizations to Peter Interface discuss wildland urban interface issues near wetland and riparian Gutowsky areas. Many areas of the unincorporated county have community wildfire protection plans or state legislation (Senate Bill 360) that give homeowners a framework for minimizing their wildfire risk in wildland urban interface areas County owned Continue coordinating with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Land Adjacent to Council, Deschutes Basin Land Trust Deschutes River Peter Deschutes 8 Little Conservancy and County Property Management on management Gutowsky Deschutes Rivers options for County owned land adjacent to Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers in the South County Wetland Grant Continue to pursue opportunities for wetland grant funding for Peter Opportunities restoring enhancing wetlands Gutowsky -10- VI. LRP Section / Planning Staff Responsibilities As noted above, the LRP Section is administering ongoing projects and performing coordination duties (Tables 1 and 3). Table 4 summarizes the responsibilities of the Principal Planer, Senior Transportation Planner, and Senior Long Range Planner. Table 4 - LRP Section Planning Staff Responsibilities Planner Responsibilities FTE Peter Gutowsky, Projects Principal Planner Destination Resort Map Amendments 0.25 South County Local Wetland Inventory 0.20 Small Wind Energy Text Amendment 0.15 Comprehensive Plan Update 0.15 Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis 0.05 Grant Opportunities (e.g. Tumalo Area Local Wetland Inventory) 0.05 Sub-total 0.80 FTE Coordination Duties Monitor Legislative Session City of Bend Growth Management Project Wildfire City of Sisters Urban Reserve Area Historical Landmarks Commission Portland State University Population Questionnaire Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee Bend La Pine School District Wetland Grant Opportunities Statewide Planning Goal 11 Wildland Urban Interface County-owned Land Adjacent to Rivers Other Duties as Assigned Sub-total 0.20 FTE -11- Table 4 - LRP Section Planning Staff Responsibilities Planner Responsibilities FTE Total 1.00 FTE Projects Transportation Plan Update 0.30 Deschutes Junction 0.15 Sub-total 0.45 FTE Coordination Duties Current Planning and Development Review ODOT Refinement Planning Regional Trail Plan Coordination with Federal Government on Transportation Issues Safe Routes to Schools Peter Russell, Senior City of Bend Growth Management Transportation Planner Participation on 10 Transportation Committees • Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) TAC • Highway 97/20 Project Technical Advisory Committee • La Pine Comprehensive Plan Technical Advisory Committee • Bend Airport Master Plan Update Technical Advisory Committee • Wickiup Junction/97 Technical Advisory Committee • South Redmond Collaborative Group • US 20 in Tumalo Project Technical Advisory Committee • Central Oregon Rail Plan study group • Commute Options Working Group • Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Sub-total .45 FTE Total .90 FTE Planner Projects / Coordination Duties FTE Projects Terri Payne, Senior Planner Comprehensive Plan Update .90 FTE Total .90 FTE -12- VII. LRP Section / Completed Projects Table 5 summarizes LRP Section's work plan projects completed this fiscal year. Table 5 - Completed Projects Planning Project Description Comments This Plan for Terrebonne updated and replaced a chapter The Board adopted Terrebonne in the County's Comprehensive Plan to address issues Ordinance 2010-012 Community Plan specifically in the Terrebonne Unincorporated Community pertaining to the Terrebonne over the next 20 years (2010-2030). Community Plan. This Plan for Terrebonne updated and replaced a chapter The Board adopted Tumalo in the County's Comprehensive Plan to address issues Ordinance 2010-027 pertaining to the Community Plan specifically in the Terrebonne Unincorporated Community Tumalo Community over the next 20 years (2010-2030). Plan. Historical Preservation and The Board, adopted text amendments to update the Historical County's Historical Preservation and Historical The Board adopted Landmarks Landmarks Commission, and . to create consistent amendments to DCC Commission historic preservation ordinances in a user-friendly format 2.28. Amendments similar to the City of Bend's The purpose of the amendment was to update the The Board adopted Update County's code to recognize the difference in performance Ordinance 2010-014 pertaining to road Transportation standards used by Deschutes County and the State of performance Performance Oregon. The amendment formally codified past standards It now Standards practices. . became effective on October 12. The Board adopted text amendments to 1) comply with Guest Ranch and 2009 House Bill 3099 for uses in the EFU zone; 2) adopt EFU Zone changes made in the 2010 Senate Bill 1036 for allowing The Board adopted Amendments Guest Ranches in the EFU zone; and 3) add a definition Ordinance 2010-022. of current employment of land for farm use and cultured Christmas trees Assist County Health Assist County Health Department in the transportation A Health Impact Department for component of the department's Health Impact Analysis Assessment was folded into the Tumalo Health Impact for Tumalo Community Plan. Analysis Other Related Other text amendments adopted this fiscal year include Adopted by various Text Amendments parking standards, cell towers, and event venues. ordinances. -13-