Loading...
2011-2962-Minutes for Meeting June 29,2011 Recorded 7/25/2011RECOR NANCYDESCHUBLANKENSHIPTES COUNTY UNTY CLERKDS vu 2011_2962 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11 1 Vf I 111 111111111111111I11 07/25/201110:14:00 AM 2 1 2 J1 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page - r--. L 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, JUNE 299 2011 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Will Groves, George Read and Terri Payne, Community Development; and six other citizens. No representatives of the media were in attendance. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Discussion: History and Current Status of Lower Bridge Mine Site. Tom Anderson gave a brief overview of the history of the site and the complaints from neighboring property owners, and responses in general. Chair Baney stated this is a unique situation with various zoning and use conflicts. Commissioner Unger said it is a legacy mine and no one is absolutely sure what can and cannot be done, based on the history of some portions of the property. Mr. Anderson noted that it is not a simple situation and the solutions to be considered are complex. Will Groves gave a PowerPoint presentation showing maps, aerial photographs, and other informational points on the subject property. Mr. Anderson then spoke about Code enforcement complaints, most of which come from residents who live adjacent to the property on a bluff that overlooks the area. There can be dust clouds that the residents feel are a health hazard. Other complaints revolve around the requirements of rezoning not being accomplished. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Pages The group wants to rezone a small portion, and with the funds generated from that project can then address the larger pieces of the property. The biggest issue seems to be the neighbors; not all of them, but some. Mr. Anderson stated that over time some of the land was reclaimed and brought up to what was needed. More recently, there was a complaint on the 18-acree site, which was subject to a set of conditions as a part of the previous decision. They had not met the standard established nit he 1985 decision. Todd Cleveland met with the owners and reviewed the property. They are planning to meet with the owners of the property further. The conditions could be modified since then and the standards may be different in order to be measurable. However, these do not address the concerns of some of the active, vocal neighbors, though. Commissioner Unger asked what the `big picture' is for the property. The Board asked Tia Lewis and Greg Daniels to discuss this issue but to keep on point. Ms. Lewis realizes this is a big challenge and wants the Board to know that the project has not been abandoned. The `big picture' is about the same. With the east side property rezoned, they can start planning for residential development there. Some requirements are an NFA letter and a clean bill of health on the 160 acres. In order to do this, some efforts to resolve issues on the other property will have to occur due to airborne particulates. They will not be required to clean the large portion to a residential standard, but the other area to be developed will have to be. They plan to try to revegetate the larger portion since the biggest problem is the dust. There is likely not a lot of hazardous material there and soil stabilization efforts are the best course of action. Greg Daniels said that staff spoke to all of the pertinent facts. He is the developer of the property and has a development agreement with the ownership group. It is not a perfect arrangement since both parties have differing opinions. Both have the same goals. He considers them friends but have different interests. The ownership group is a little less flexible but wants solutions as well.. One compelling problem has been the poor economy. The compliance issues are the owners' problems but of course affect what the Daniels Group wants to do. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Pages Chair Baney stated that one of the questions that came up was the possible use of biomass material on the site. She has no idea of the costs involve but that might create a lot of good will. Commissioner Unger said if it has no other value, this might be a good effort. Mr. Daniels stated that they do think about creative measures. Chair Baney asked them to contact County Forester Joe Stutter. Mr. Daniels said that as long as the economics work, they would proceed with the west side site. They are not afraid of investigating new ways to address the issues there. He feels the owners would be on board with this as well. The DEQ and DHS have been invited to view the property. DOGAMI has been a good ally, who gave an award for the cleanup efforts there in the past. Mr. Anderson asked to be kept informed of these meetings so they can be able to articulate better when complaints come in. Ms. Lewis said that there has been a lot of outreach to the community. The goal is to bring them on board, although there are some in the community who may never be happy no matter what they do. Chair Baney stated that when the site is disturbed, calls are generated, so whenever a process is begun, she asked that the Board be kept informed. Mr. Daniels said that the owners are independent and sometimes do not realize the impacts of what they do. 2. Review of Comprehensive Plan Input. Terri Payne asked if the Board has any questions or concerns prior to the first reading on July 6 and the second reading a couple of weeks later. There are a few changes just made and they will find a way to incorporate those in the final document. There will be some changes within the 90 days before the Ordinances are effective. The Comprehensive Plan is an evolving document. Mr. Lelack said that Central Oregon Landwatch has asked for changes and was disappointed that some of them were not incorporated. No one else has been in contact regarding the proposed document. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Pages 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger said he attended the Oregon Workforce Investment Group meeting last week, probably some kind of initiative to mold workforce into the grander scheme. He has not heard if anyone ever gets a job so is not sure of the results. He met with individuals to talk about flexible funding for ODOT, and some recommendations are being developed to present to the Transportation Commission. Commissioner DeBone is swearing in the next Water and Sewer Board in La Pine this week. It is finally coming back together thanks to the help of Rick Allen. 4. Other Items. Nick Lelack stated that a Hearings Officer approved the area's first winery through a Senate Bill, which expires the end of 2012. It opened the door for events at wineries as long as there is direct access. It was not clear whether this legislature or the next would address the 1055 bill. Late last week, the 25th set of amendments on HB 2230 was passed regarding events at wineries. Therefore, there is a Bill that activates portions of SB 1055 over time. The Central Oregon Winegrowers Association is very interested in this turn of events. The Planning Commission has discussed these bills already. It caps the events to 25 days or fewer in a calendar year. The big issue is the provisions that the local government can control local health and safety. Commissioner Unger said that Commissioner Powell seems to support SB 960, which limits events on farmland. It passed as well. Mr. Lelack is working on a memo to outline the bills and the thoughts of the Planning Commissioners. One key for the public hearing is to be sure standards work. Chair Baney said that this would have to be approached evenly. Mr. Anderson said if they do not include private parks. Mr. Kanner added that this only applies if it is a winery. The rest of the uses have not yet been addressed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger noted that they cannot just forget about the ones who want to hold events, so they still need to consider private parks. Chair Baney said that some of them might not fit into any box where what they want to do fits. Not all will be winners. Mr. Lelack will be bringing this issue before the Commissioners in another couple of weeks. The Board talked about candidates for the transportation committee. Some are not available, but others are willing to consider this work. Chair Baney asked Andy High (Central Oregon Builders' Association) and Bill Robie (Central Oregon Association of Realtors), who were at the work session, to provide input. She said there needs to be a realistic, open look, considering the budget, concerns and other aspects. She is concerned about some of the members on the group who might be benefited by work in this field. Andy High said that there is a perception even if it is not fact. Most on the City's committee are retired and would not benefit from any potential projects. It would be good to find out information on costs, etc. from them. Bill Robie said that it might be good to have someone with background or experience on this issue. You do not want someone to have a perceived vested interest or a conflict later on. Mr. High said that perhaps they could be helpful on an advisory basis. Some of this type of work has become cutthroat due to the economy and competition for the projects. Mr. Robie said the Road SDC Committee might be similar to the Parks Committee, wanting higher spending levels. Expertise is helpful. Commissioner Unger stated that representation from different groups is important, but perhaps those who are actively in the industry can recommend someone to be involved, someone who has a good perspective but is not a concern in regard to a conflict of interest. Mr. High said that some of them might be worried about challenges from the others. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger said that perhaps have individuals from economic development and the cities would be good. The room tax and tourist industry is a part of this as well, since the tourists benefit from this type of work. Chair Baney asked if anyone from Central Oregon Landwatch should be involved. Mr. High replied that the destination resort piece is a concern to them. Commissioner Unger likes the idea of working together to bring about understanding and come up with solutions. Chair Baney asked about Pam Hardie. Mr. High noted that there are some new board members there as well. Chair Baney suggested Jerry Andres. Steve Hultberg was on the transportation SDC committee. Commissioner Unger asked about Rick Allen, who has a city and outside perspective. Chair Baney wants to consider Clay Higuchi, who is on top of budget issues. She suggested Rick Allen and someone from COVA. Commissioner Unger stated that it is a State issue, what about AOC and John Oshel or Tom Blust; someone who has a historic perspective. Chair Baney is not sure about inviting someone from Salem due to logistics. Commissioner Unger wants to find out ways to improve the roads but not deconstruct them. He asked about Jerry Andres of Eagle Crest. Commissioner DeBone asked about someone in the car industry like Jack Holt. Commissioner Unger stated Mr. Holt is active with the Bend Chamber of Commerce and has a lot of knowledge. Sunriver needs to be involved as well, since they were very much against a room tax. Chair Baney said that the biggest opposition to the room tax came from the Fair and Expo group. They had decided that the money should go to them. Commissioner Unger stated that the law does allow for this. Chair Baney asked about Conrad Ruel, who lives in south County. Commissioner Unger noted there are more roads that have been unimproved in that area than anywhere else. Commissioner DeBone stated that some people complain about the roads that are not County maintained anyway. Chair Baney asked how the mission will be defined. She thought a lot of the information could come from George Kolb or Tom Blust. She wants to be able to stand firm and say they are not overspending on equipment that is not needed, or that can be shared with other jurisdictions. She wants to open the books and have people say what they think makes sense and what does not. It is a learning process for all. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 6 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger said there is less funding for roads and some dollars cannot be used for that. New funding sources are necessary to keep what is there. Chair Baney feels that the first step is to make sure they need to spend what they say is needed. Mr. Kanner said he can show the committee the five-year project list, but some faith has to be given to the Road Department as to what needs to be done. The people named are not road experts and will have to take a lot on faith that the project list is correct. Chair Baney said it is not just about how to get more money, but whether they are effective with the funds they do have. She wants a fresh look at the improvements and purchases, such as the seven dump trucks purchased in one year. The capital expenditures are a concern to some. Commissioner Unger thinks an overview of the process could be worthwhile. However, there were good reasons to buy the same trucks at the same time, so that repairs and parts are consistent and to get a better price for each. Commissioner DeBone wants to have a work session with the Board and others to discuss these projects as well. He believes the funding gap is there but mostly because of a reduction in revenue. Mr. Robie stated that the SDC committee looked at the CIP and there was some discussion on some aspects of the costs. There was no reordering of the CIP. They did not question the list much, but examined the methodology. He has no desire to second-guess the road people on what projects are necessary. The bigger question and ultimate goal of the group is to find revenue sources to provide for what has been lost. The cost of everything has gone up while revenue declined. Mr. Kanner said if there is concern about the road department operating efficiently, someone could be hired to analyze this. The committee is not the group to handle it. A study like that would probably cost at least $25,000. Andy High said that the committee members would probably determine that they are quite efficient. They may look at changing standards and specs, like putting in roads that are not as wide or eliminating bike lanes, from 60 to 50 feet wide. He asked if this is the debate the Board wants, or should current specs stand. Otherwise they need to address the funding aspect. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Pages Mr. Kanner said that the average is a PCI of 80. If that goes down, it will save money at first, but may not last as long. Chair Baney is not convinced that there is not a more efficient way to run some things, but she does not know what the options are. Commissioner Unger said they could look at different standards for different things, but thinks the standards used are good. Whatever they come up with may take years to education the public about. Roads impact everyone, so it is an important topic. The work of the committee has to be meaningful. The Commissioners felt the following individuals would be valuable on this committee: Rick Allen - City of La Pine Clay Higuchi - accountant Jack Holt - automotive industry Andy High - COBA Bill Robie - COAR An economic development person Pam Hardie or Ben Gordon of Thousand Friends Jerry Andres of Eagle Crest Someone from an excavation company, preferably one that would not have a perceived conflict of interest Conrad Ruel for Sunriver/South County Alana Audette to make a recommendation for tourism John Oshel of AOC A Commissioner will sit in on the meetings but not be on the committee. There should be a work session as a first meeting to discuss goals and process. Chair Baney said that the representatives of Project Mobile Connect missed the deadline to request funds. They are asking for $13,000 for events and services. Commissioner Unger wants to support their work, but is not sure where this is headed in the future. They need to understand how things work. Commissioner DeBone asked about just providing funding and moving on. Mr. Kanner said a deadline is a deadline, and they missed it. He asked, what about the groups that met the deadline and did not get any funding. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger said that Project Connect and the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness will end at some point. Chair Baney said that this would set the foundation and she hopes it will become sustainable. It probably would have been funded had it been on the list. She feels that this is a beneficial program. She is okay with funding it now and being done with it, but next year more explanation would be needed. Commissioner Unger said that these programs cost money but also save money. The need is high. There was a consensus to fund it this year. Mr. Kanner said they need a new application for documentation purposes and can use it for a grant agreement. They have to do what they say they will. It will need Board approval at that point. Discussion occurred regarding Mr. Kanner's evaluation and how the Board wants to handle the process. Chair Baney is not happy with the employee evaluation form. She feels it is too dry and does not allow for a good overall perspective. She does not feel that the Commissioners have been very engaged in the evaluation process in the past. Commissioners Daly and Luke did not put a lot of thought into it. Commissioner Unger stated that is hard to get constructive ideas so people can be better at what they do. Mr. Kanner is not a fan of 360 evaluations. It involves querying people about something that they do not have a lot of information about or are not involved with on a daily basis. Chair Baney said this could be put into context. Mr. Kanner said he used to get feedback from the department heads but the responses have declined over the years. Chair Baney said that it is hard to know what is good and what is not going well. She thinks that perhaps talking with the department heads might be warranted since they work with him often. Mr. Kanner feels this would be fair if done on an informal basis. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Pages Commissioner DeBone stated that he has no problem explaining they are working on an evaluation and asking for feedback. Mr. Kanner said that they would probably be open to giving constructive feedback. The form he developed and used from the time he started at the County has been helpful. It lists the Board's expectations, but he wants to know if this Board has a different set of expectations. Chair Baney wants to look over the evaluation form, talk about it at the next work session on July 6, and then go about speaking with department directors. The information can be compiled and a final document developed listing positives and potential negatives. Commissioner Unger would like to see the position description. Mr. Kanner said it is defined only in Code but he can send it to them. He will also provide a copy of last year's evaluation form for reference. Commissioner Unger noted that it is hard to get complete and honest feedback from people, but wants to look at what should happen in the future. The meeting ended at 4:10 p. m. DATED this /1: 3A, Day of 2011 for the _ S)~ Deschutes County Board of Commissione s Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: a)44., Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Page 10 of 10 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.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011 1. Discussion: History and Current Status of Lower Bridge Mine Site - Tom Anderson & Planning Staff 2. Review of Comprehensive Plan Input - Terri Payne & Planning Division Staff 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. C N ' i I C) N E _ a r ~ N I ~ C6' - 3 7 N 7 rD H 47 V1 L ro ~ "~~JJ "T E S r - - Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 1 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 httP://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 2011 TO: FROM SUBJECT: Background: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, Director Will Groves, Senior Planner Discussion of Lower Bridge Former Mining Site The Board has requested a work session to reacquaint themselves and/or learn of the land use and code enforcement history associated with the 550 acre former mining site on Lower Bridge Way west of Terrebonne. Staff has prepared a PowerPoint presentation which we will share with the Board at the work session on June 29th Discussion Points: The site in question is a legacy mining operation that has been in use for nearly 100 years. The predominate resources extracted from the site include both diatomaceous earth and aggregate. It has also been used as a storage site for hazardous materials. Mining activity has recently ended, and the ownership group, in partnership with a developer, has begun a process to rezone the property from Surface Mining and Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Residential. The steps necessary to accomplish the rezoning are very complex, and involved separating the property into different geographic areas of consideration. Over time, the land surrounding the site has also experienced residential development, and these residents have expressed ongoing concerns to the County about the site through code enforcement complaints and other communications. Issues of concern have included fugitive dust, health concerns, and visual blight, among others. Although the County has investigated these concerns and initiated code enforcement proceedings in some cases, not all concerns fall within it's jurisdiction. Land use issues and code enforcement are connected in that the 2009 rezone decision issued by the County addresses many of the concerns voiced by surrounding property owners. It is hoped that the presentation on the 29th will assist the Board in decision making as both the land use and code enforcement processes move forward. Requested Board Action: Discuss land use and code enforcement issues associated with the site and provide any additional direction to staff as warranted. • (1) 4mi v a) boO O N 7C3 O N N O N O U E 0 ~ O 0 C4 -b LO 0'- 15 N D N 00 ~ N 0 L3 C~ } D, _O U ~t o O~ E N Oc O u cri N _O O Q ~ co moo? 'EOM O >1 Q N co ~ .O C`- > O N N Q ~O Op o)-a (6 .c C:= E N O 110 O O E O _O c OU U 0 N 0 0 N cn 4mj UO) 0 z T O~ 01.1 LO .~EQ0~ 07O O O a) U.N-} ~00a) 0 Qom} E- ~ OEE'PE 0000 0 U 0 Q a) " O a) N U O D N E 00 U} ~a) 2 ~ 4y # k+ ~ r A, r- 0 a) - O N O o0 -a~ ~ U O 000 =3~ c 0 o l E O 00~ N ~ Q _O ~ ~O a) aU a)oo O ~C)S, a) a~ a~ 0~ U • 0 O N 0 00 0 0 N i Q N 0 W I- N O ~oLU a~ i 4 N o V) V) C) 0 Q O E O= N U C~ N N 0 ^ Ln 61-- } rv U O O N N OD O"- N C n= N O C_p O O O N .U N N -FD co O _ C) C: t i a C) N ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ O O O O U - U N w O O O Q > LL N O O Q O = Q O Q n m 14- N ~ N z Q N O C) N QU Q C Q to ON O-0 N O .N Q • s 0 O N (L) P4 0 00 0 0 N N E • cn >1 \ L W M V 3 C-C O O o N 2 ~ J W O L C) O O p U t i L N 3~ O ~ U L N ~ Q..Q L n~ W 1 O Z O N 0 C O = O - 70 N O U ~ •U N N C: _Q -0 C N O N O Q- U C 7 N (D O L.L Z~ . N Q \ 0) C) L >1 LLJ Q Ln Q) c 0 0 C C N O D - C) C F. ) 0 v Q ) E N > O N 3 Q O Q O O N Q 0- n N O QO 0 C: V) N N ~ ~ O ^ a E ~ O U O O U N > Q Q U N O O _ p U N N Q) O E 4- o Q ~ ~ O ap O N ~ ~ C U ~ U CMV Q Q O > O p 7C) 7C) p Qo ON 306 6a)D N° O N -C 0 0 a O E CD v U U 3 N 7C) O O N O CT U 3 -C a) p U O } 4) OU ~ O U O .O •2) 5 n - V c LL- 7C) C O O j 'V) 4-- .5 vi - O O 1) E c O-0 O U O N _O 4- u O 5 -C Q N Q) O ,<n L Q U Q'- U-C O m p 00 U O Q 70 O j> Q • ~ U m~ I>~ O O O N p- N O U U O N- 3 3= O N C: N N O p N O > O 5 N d- O.- U N O E Q) O O N U O D U 0 O O O O O O V) U • 0 n u a~ u O w W a~ 0 U tno` W L U O 00 O N Q V) N N ° O ~ 00 00 V) 00 0` O N O p 17 r- •3 O o o E O O U L U_ _O O O 4- O Q U O V) 70 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O" N O-0 -0 U O U O N? .O U u C) Q moo E>> O N O O o, 0 0 0 O co Q 3 L,UNoOV) -0Vr--O~0~o0 r- U .