Loading...
2013-59-Minutes for Meeting January 30,2013 Recorded 2/20/2013DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ X013-~9 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/20/2013 06;21;20 AM 111111111111111111111111111 Z 13-35 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Court Administrator Jeff Hall; Ken Hales, Steve Kurzer, Travis Graves, Eddie Ybarra, Meghan DeMars and Charles Puch, Juvenile Community Justice; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Judges Wells Ashby and Stephen Forte; District Attorney Patrick Flaherty; and Jason Kropf of the District Attorney's Office. Also in attendance were for a portion of the meeting were David Givans, Administration; Hillary Saraceno, Children & Families' Commission; Sheriff Larry Blanton, Jim Ross, Michael Espinoza and Darryl Nakahira, Sheriff's Oce; Chris Doty, Road Department; Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; media representatives Sheila Miller and Dylan Darling of the Bulletin; and several other citizens. 1. Juvenile Community Justice Work Center Update. Tom Anderson distributed a staff report detailing the history of this issue. It began with concerns about capacity issues in the adult jail. The cost was $10.9 million to expand the jail, but after initially supporting this, the underutilization of the Juvenile Detention Center became a concern. The Board elected to commission a consultant to look at current and long-term needs for Juvenile detention, along with some alternatives for detention. In December, the consultant presented her report and charted the medium- and long-term capacity issues for Juvenile. The focus was on Deschutes County youth primarily. The projection was that in the immediate future, 12-18 beds would be needed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 1 of 12 As part of the study, alternatives were analyzed, including the detention center from years ago, located downtown, underutilized space in the current detention center; also the Sheriff s work center. The recommendation was that of those alternatives, the work center was the best choice. Staff was directed to look at the work center more specifically regarding capacity and costs. This review has been completed. Susan Ross summarized the findings of the architect in this regard. She said they tried to use the existing footprint of the work center: 10 beds. Using all three dorms would equal 13 beds. They could not expand further as they are required to have an exercise area. They would have the recreation room and other ancillary rooms. A new intake area would be needed with two holding rooms plus the two existing holding rooms, equaling 14-17 beds. The costs are general, based on square footage and improvements. It would be $2.4 million for Option 1 plus another $500,000 for the juvenile detention facility to get it ready for part of the adult jail population. Option 2 is $3.3 million, plus the $500,000. Commissioner DeBone said this is a lot more than he had anticipated. Ms. Ross stated that it has to meet a certain criteria, so it is costly. Mr. Anderson said that the Sheriff informed him that moving the adult jail population with medical needs would require phasing. Not all of the work could be done at the same time. They cannot combine populations. So this transition adds to the cost. As a result, they thought it would be prudent for the Board to consider all of the options again at this point. Option A had been discussed more recently, making the juvenile center available for prisoners by this summer. It would house up to 88 adult prisoners at the costs given. From a staff perspective, the pros and cons were detailed. This would avoid the $10.9 million cost of expanding the adult jail to accommodate a larger population. By moving the juveniles into the work center, they can only fit in one pod. The operational costs of juvenile detention would decrease due to less staffing required. The savings would be about $400,000. As pointed out in the consultant's report, this limits capacity now and later if over 12 beds were needed at the same time. In addition, having part of the adult population in the main jail and others elsewhere is less efficient and has operational challenges. Ms. Ross said that with a lack of a feasible transition plan, someone has to be out of the way. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Anderson said that Option B is to add 144 beds to adult jail, and juvenile won't move. The challenge is to finance about $10.9 million. The pro's are that all adults will be in the same building, offering operational efficiencies and avoiding the limitations of having juvenile detainees in the work center. Also, to the extent that those limitations could not be overcome, they would have to construct a new juvenile facility at a cost of about $9-10 million. Also, this does not address anything having to do with the juvenile detention facility. A sub-option would be to address that issue as well by essentially accomplishing the savings by going from two pods to one pod, for 12 juveniles, plus the holding rooms. This would result in a savings of about $400,000. Some of the same issues would have to be considered, such as operational capacity, housing more than 12 juveniles in one pod, and so on. The ability to meet changing demands would be easier. The remodeled work center would make this a lot more difficult. And with some of the juvenile space empty, it might be possible to lease it. Other options are probably not as palatable to the Board. The Board could direct them to look for other alternatives for juvenile detention. It is unknown what that might be at this point, but could include 100% contracted space, construction outside of what the consultant recommended, or to not do anything at this point, but that creates issues with the adult jail. There could be other options not yet considered. Commissioner Baney asked how many holding rooms there would be if there were one pod in the juvenile center as it is today. Mr. Anderson said three. It would probably be the same for the adult jail; perhaps not a sleeping area, but holding cells. Ms. Ross said to follow this logic, each pod in juvenile has 14 beds. Mr. Hales said that even with double bunk beds, they couldn't be used in isolation type circumstances. You cannot house juveniles overnight continually in the intake area. Commissioner Baney stated that the best-case scenario seems to be a 13-bed facility. With the work center, it would be 14 plus 3. It is basically the same thing. They could invest $4 million nearby. It costs about $100,000 for courtroom space. Mr. Hales noted that about 75% of court appearances are non-custody kids. It is not set up for that volume. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 3 of 12 Commissioner DeBone said they hoped with the remodel and redo of the work center, it would be about $1 million. Ms. Ross said that numbers are about 75% accurate without a plan. This is about the best they can do at this point. The work center numbers are very conservative and minimal. The adult jail project is easier. It involves building onto the outside of the jail. Remodeling while trying to operate with a full jail population is expensive. Also, being able to use the work center for what it was designed to do will serve the community well for many years. Commissioner Baney noted that people talk about how slow government is. This is a good example for government taking time. There had not been a juvenile needs assessment done since 1996, and it was at a much lower level. She said she is sensitive to surrounding counties' needs, but dollars can't be spent that way. If the County can help the partners, that is good; but this is not always possible. They can get the exact same thing by revamping the work center. The existing juvenile facility is woefully underutilized. If this were embraced as a positive, she would like to direct administration to come back with a funding package for what they would have spent to revamp the work center, and move forward with expansion of the jail for the Sheriff, with the promise that this will work for years to come. Also, as critical, there have been significant staffing cuts, and they cannot continue to do this. They need stable funding in the future. She would direct that during the budget process this year, they adjust the juvenile facility from two pods to one; and come back with a staffing plan for how they would handle certain circumstances, i.e. mental health issues, a female detainee, etc. and present some rental opportunities to best utilize the space. Minor structural changes need to be known as well. Commissioner DeBone stated that the funding package would be meant to support adult jail expansion instead of a remodel. Commissioner Baney said that right now Deschutes County kid numbers are not what they thought they'd be years ago. Right-sizing for the current number but preparing for the unknown is tough. They have to right-size the detention facility but be prepared for peaking. They can benefit the surrounding counties in some ways, but those counties are not covering the increased costs. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 4 of 12 Chair Unger noted that there would be less money in the future, so they need to get a handle on fixed costs. They do not want to cut back on worthwhile programs. Commissioner Baney said that she wants to invest in programs to keep youth out of the system. Commissioner DeBone stated that he supports the concept. The goal is to be efficient but save money. Mr. Hales stated that if the question is not taking out of county kids, some start out in this county because the crime happened here. The courts decide what needs to be done. This is a small number. They can do a few things in programs to drop the level. He is concerned about peaking and will need to develop contingencies to deal with that. Much depends on the nature of the kids in the facility at that time. They can matrix out with the court's authority, but it depends on the makeup of the population. Commissioner Baney said that there could be new ideas to handle the population, or admissions could be done differently. They need to get to a sustainable average. Maybe other counties would give more on an annual basis if we help them out. Mr. Hales explained that they need to be flexible for the future. The population can't continue to go down. They have done a good job with this, but logically it can't go much lower. Chair Unger asked if any of the other elected officials wished to comment. Sheriff Blanton agreed that there is a time and place to be diligent. He started this process in 2003 with the initial assessment. He has tried to have his department live within its means, as he is always concerned about tax money. He supports the motion to add to the existing facility. This will hold down the costs of supervision and staffing, and they need something soon. He has concerns about available beds for medical and mental health situations. They will hold down the costs as much as possible. The priority is to add on and soon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 5 of 12 Patrick Flaherty added that he strongly supports this motion as well, which is unquestionably the best option. He also stressed the importance of having a fully-functional work center. There will be some effort in the legislative session to shift things back to the counties. This might mean that individuals are incarcerated in the local jails for a long time. They need the work center for this. Agencies have to be cost-effective, and the Sheriff has been doing that. Judge Forte stated that the courts support this. They also supported the juvenile facility in 1996. It was state of the art and allowed for flexibility or expansion as needed. Judge Wells Ashby said he appreciates how Deschutes County is a responsible steward of public money. He supports the need for expansion, and is encouraged that the Board is not overreacting to underutilization at this point. There might be a variety of ways to use that space. Temporary use makes sense to perhaps change the budget numbers. Commissioner Baney said she wants to be sure it is clear that this needs to be right-sized. There is a time to be serious about operations, and she wants this to be a priority. They have had other users in the past. The Board will assist when possible in the future; there needs to be a plan for unique situations requiring another pod be used. But they need to right-size for today and not stay the same. Commissioner DeBone stated they need a funding package to expand the adult jail, about $10 million; but also should adjust the cost of operations to support Deschutes County youth. Sheriff Blanton said that he has been told a funding package needs to consider available capital reserves, lessen the amount that needs to be bonded, and no new taxes. Commissioner DeBone noted that the exercise has created a lot of learning. This is two issues that need to be brought up to speed. Commissioner Baney added that they need funds for debt service and also to reinvest in services for youth. They need to move away from want versus need due to operational issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 6of12 Mr. Hales stated that they would be right-sizing, and give up capacity if the numbers do not warrant it. Mr. Anderson stated that the numbers for Deschutes County youth will change. They need to identify a sustained average to do this work and for a basis for budget recommendations. Whether they need one pod or two is the largest variable. As long as this is recognized, he is comfortable with this action. BANEY: Move that staff be directed, during the budget process, to adjust the needs of Deschutes County youth with appropriate operational staffing. Move support of Option B, the expansion of the jail, upon appropriate funding solutions. DEBONE: Second. Chair Unger said that staff should be directed to try to make up some of the time lost during the past six months to move the jail expansion process forward. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 2. The Board went into Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations, at 3:05 p.m. The session ended at 3:40 p.m. 3. Planning Division Update on FY 2012-13 Long-Range Work Program. Mr. Lelack gave an update of the projects that has been done, some of which is being wrapped up after years of work. Mr. Gutowsky said there have been significant role changes in the department. He has his hands on all aspects except transportation planning. The Planning Department and Community Development want to convey that, as other projects emerge, they need to meter those projects. They can start them and develop a scope of work, but it might take longer than desired to complete them. All projects have their own peaks and valleys. They will never say `no' but they need to be able to inform the Board of the priorities. They will know now that the South County plan is closing out. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 7of12 Commissioner Baney stated that they are a team and they want to stay away from potential litigation. They need to make sure the results are good and the group needs to feel it is supported. Commissioner DeBone asked about south Count and specifically Oregon Water Wonderland, Deschutes River Recreation Homesites and similar areas. He wanted to know what the larger picture is for those communities. In regard to a possible Goal 11 exception, he asked if the public is behind this. Mr. Lelack said that the steering committee will make a recommendation. It is not known if the DEQ will take this on. They might want to isolate this process to specific areas, and maybe take a first step at one of them. A community association or even an individual can initiate this at any time. BANEY: Move to support the recommendations as listed. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 4. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request. Mr. Lelack introduced the applicant, John Shepherd, who has submitted a private park application for his property located at Lower Bridge and Holmes Road. This is in the EFU, wildlife combining zone. Private parks are not specifically prohibited, and the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife oversees this. He gave an overview of the application at this time. Senate Bill 960 was adopted by the legislature, but a primary requirement is that there be a farm use. No farm use exists on this property. It is not known if there are any options available except as maybe a private park. However, this would require a hearing and there are costs associated with the Hearings Officer. Crook, Benton and other counties have since approved private parks. One problem is that none of these issues have been appealed at the State level. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 8of12 LDCD has not clarified this situation, either. It is risky, and probably any decision would be appealed. Mr. Shepherd said that he has no water on this land and no viable use, except to host weddings events. Mr. Anderson asked if he has requested the help of Oregonians in Action. Mr. Shepherd said they are waiting for an application and may assist. Commissioner Baney noted that his perseverance is admirable. The difficulty is the fee waiver request. There are a variety of needs of all kinds in the County. This department depends on fees. She wondered if there is countywide significance. Mr. Shepherd said that he hopes this would help to provide clarity. He can't afford $8,000 for something that is not more certain. Commissioner Baney stated that a lot of the unknown is out of the hands of the County, as they have to follow what the State says. Commissioner DeBone asked if there would be more clarity if an application was in place. Mr. Lelack said there is a Code enforcement action against the property now. Under Code, they can allow an event every ninety days only. Commissioner DeBone said he is hesitant to fund this with County money unless it gets them somewhere. Chair Unger stated that this should be in the business plan. The challenge is that other counties can get away with things that some in Deschutes County might challenge. Commissioner Baney noted that it is sensitive, as the first person out finds it more difficult. He may find support from individuals he has already spoken with. The County has to maintain a neutral approach and not be thought as not being objective. Mr. Shepherd said this business is an economic driver for the County. He is worried that the scenario might be impossible, but he can't afford to take that chance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 9 of 12 Commissioner Baney stated that she has a hard time figuring out some farm uses. EFU is the most restrictive. She asked what kind of relief is available for land that is not productive. If it has never been farmed and has no water rights, there may be a way there through the legislature. They would want to track this closely as it is of some significance to the area. BANEY: Move to deny the fee waiver request. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 5. Other Items. Chris Doty said the City of Bend representatives asked if the water line on Skyliners Road could be added after the road is constructed. There are a lot of cost and other issues relating to this. (He provided a handout with more information.) He is looking at what might be five years from now. He said there is a moratorium on pavement cuts. The County has some control over the right of way and could demand this work b done outside of the roadway. The City has an existing easement. This request could have a significant negative impact on the County's relationship with Federal Highways, which might push back with funding and construction. There are spending more on this than planned anyway. The U.S. Forest Service helped to push it through, but they are no longer at the table. Mr. Doty cautioned the City against pursuing this option. He does not want to jeopardize the relationship with Federal Highways. The City is putting together cost estimates to push for action now so they don't have to try to repair the roadway later. Commissioner DeBone said that it took a lot of political capital, and this is an economic driver for Bend, so the city should recognize this. Commissioner Baney stated that this project in particular has joint benefits, but she cannot support a decision that makes the investment vulnerable. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 10 of 12 Chair Unger noted that cutting pavement can ruin the road. He would like to see the City get the pipe at least under the road before construction, or decide to put it outside of the roadway. All Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Baney left the meeting at this time. d. Certified Local Government Grant - Permission to Proceed. Peter Gutowsky and the Board briefly discussed this grant. DEBONE: Move approval.. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. The Board briefly discussed a letter to be sent to the Oregon Department of Emergency Management regarding FEMA grants. Once drafted, it will have all signatures of the Board and legislators and the Governor will be copied. It is a sensitive issue and awkward for all parties. The letter offers positive background information and details on cooperative efforts. It is important to retain these relationships while they attempt to solve the various grant issues. DEBONE: Move approval of the draft form, and authorize Commissioner Baney to continue trying to resolve this issue through various contacts. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 1 I of 12 Day of 2013 for the DATED this ~ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ap"~ ATTEST: Recording Secretary Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vice C~hlir Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 30, 2013 Page 12 of 12 Chapter 3.24. WAGE AND SALARY ADMINISTRATION 3.24.010. Pay Plan. 3.24.020. Pay Periods and Pay Days. 3.24.030. Wage and Salary Adjustments. 3.24.010. Pay Plan. The pay plan will include a schedule of rates of pay for all County positions. The objective of the pay plan is to provide a competitive salary structure to recruit and retain qualified employees. A. Pay grades will be established based upon the following factors: 1. The relative difficulty and responsibility of work; 2. The recruiting experience of the County; 3. The prevailing rates of pay for comparable public sector employers. Prevailing rates of pay in the private sector may be used depending on the pay grade or position being reviewed. 4. Cost-of-living; 5. The financial policies of the County; 6. Internal equity; and 7. Other relevant economic considerations. B. The Personnel Department is responsible for the development and administration of the County pay plan. A County-wide pay plan for all County positions shall be adopted by the Board as a part of the annual budget adoption process. Pay grade adjustments for individual positions may be approved outside the budget process by the County Administrator if no budget amendment is required to fund such adjustment or adjustments. C. Pay rates. 1. Generally: Each employee shall be paid at one of the steps in the approved pay grade for the employee's position. No employee can receive base pay in excess of the established maximum step of the pay grade for the employee's position. 2. Longevity pay. For employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement, longevity pay shall be provided in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. For employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the following shall apply: a. Longevity is determined by an employee's continuous full-time or part-time service as a County employee. Full-time employees who have worked continuously for the County shall receive additional pay per month for each five years of continuous service. b. For employees working less than full-time but at least half-time, longevity shall be pro- rated by using the ratio of the regularly scheduled work hours for the employee to the regularly scheduled work hours for a full-time position. Employees working less than half-time shall not accrue longevity and shall not receive longevity pay. c. Longevity amounts for non-represented employees shall be equivalent to amounts provided for in the collective bargaining agreement between Deschutes County and AFSCME Local 3997 unless otherwise adjusted by the Deschutes County Budget Committee during the annual budget approval process. d. Longevity shall terminate in the event of the following: (1) Voluntary termination for more than three (3) months, except under special circumstances to be determined by the County; (2) Discharge for cause; (3) A lay-off of more than eighteen (18) months; Chapter 3.24 1 (612011) (4) An unexcused failure to report to work at the termination of an extended leave of absence; (5) Acceptance of other employment without the permission of County while on a leave of absence; or (6) Retirement. (Ord. 2009-027, §1, 2009; Ord. 2007-017, §2, 2007; Ord. 86-011, §1, 1986; Ord. 81-053, §1, 1981) 3.24.020. Pay Periods and Pay Days. A. Full-time and at least half-time employees. Pay periods for full-time employees and for employees who are regularly scheduled to work at least half-time shall run from the first day of the month through the last day of the same month, with payment for that period to be made on the last work day of the month. If the last day of the month falls on a holiday or a weekend, payday for that pay period will be the last work day preceding the holiday or weekend. B. Temporary, hourly and on-call employees. Pay periods for temporary, hourly and on-call employees shall run from the day after payroll cut-off in a month to the date of payroll cut-off in the subsequent month. C. New employees. Employees beginning employment on or before the 25th of the month will receive their first paycheck at the end of the month they begin their employment. Employees beginning work after the 25`n of the month will receive their first paycheck at the end of the month following their first month of employment. (Ord. 2009-027, §1, 2009; Ord. 2007-017, §2, 2007; Ord. 86-011, §1, 1986; Ord. 81-053, §1, 1981) 3.24.030. Wage and Salary Adjustments. A. New employees. New employees shall generally be hired at the first step of the pay grade. When a new employee has extensive prior experience and the department head believes it is justified, an employee may be hired at the second step of the pay grade. Hiring at Step 3 or above requires prior approval by the County Administrator and will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. B. Merit step increases. In addition to cost-of-living pay increases, if funds are available and appropriated, employees are eligible for merit step increases, provided their performance has met or exceeded performance standards established by the department head and/or the employee's supervisor. For an employee to receive a merit step increase, the employee's department head must complete a written performance evaluation of the employee with a recommendation for the increase. The amount of an authorized merit step increase will be determined by the adopted pay plan. Employees who are at the top step in their pay grade are not eligible for merit step increases. Employees shall be eligible for merit step increases on their eligibility date. An employee's eligibility date is based on the employee's date of hire as follows: If hired on or before the fifteenth (15"') of the month, the employee's eligibility date shall be the first day of the month in which the employee was hired; if hired on or after the sixteenth (16'') of the month, the employee's eligibility date shall be the first day of the month following the month in which the employee was hired. Supervisors shall complete a scheduled performance evaluation for on-call and hourly employees after the employee has been employed for at least 12-months and worked at least 1,000 hours. Subsequent scheduled evaluations shall be when the employee has worked at least another 12-months and at least an additional 1,000 hours. On-call and hourly employees are eligible for a merit step increase when receiving a scheduled performance evaluation. A department head may authorize a performance evaluation for an on-call or hourly employee before the required hours have been worked, if in the department head's discretion such an evaluation is necessary or prudent. In unusual circumstances and with County Administrator approval, a department head may authorize a merit increase along with an unscheduled performance evaluation. Chapter 3.24 2 (6/2011) C. Cost-of-living increases. As part of the annual budget adoption process, the Board will determine what cost-of-living increase, if any, will be applied to the County's pay plan. Increases are contingent upon the availability and appropriation of funds. Cost-of-living pay increases are not guaranteed and are subject to the discretion of the Board. D. Upon prior approval by the County Administrator, a non-represented employee is eligible to receive a 5% or 10% differential for performing lead work. The lead work must be assigned in writing by the employee's department head. Lead work may include the coordination and assignment of work duties to assigned employees and/or the review of employee work to ensure work quality and compliance with applicable methods, policies, and procedures. Examples of lead work include distribution of work assignments to employees, maintaining a balanced workload among a group of employees, or reviewing the completed work of employees. The lead pay must be approved by the County Administrator in advance of the employee receiving the assigned lead duties. Retroactive lead pay is not allowed. E. Upon prior approval by the County Administrator, a non-represented employee is eligible to receive on-call pay at a compensation rate of up to the equivalent of two hours per day at their current hourly rate. An employee receiving on-call pay must be able to be contacted by phone or pager during the on-call period and respond in a timely manner as determined by the department. (Ord. 2011-024, §§2,3, 2011; Ord. 2009-027, § 1, 2009; Ord. 2007-017, §2, 2007; Ord. 86-011, § 1, 1986; Ord. 81-053, § 1, 1981) Chapter 3.24 3 (6/2011) 7-7 l0 ~ C N N M 0 ;tl, r m E acs ~n r o lV C c _o ~ ~ a 41 Q r~ _ o ~ v a I ~ Q a o 0 0 r m -6 C O LLO _ Y~L m C N U I N N V 4 c ~ I QQ VJ 1f c~ -j v ~ IIU4 V ~ d . ~ V1 a I O l~ 0. 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 2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013 - Note Later Time Juvenile Community Justice Work Center Update - Susan Ross 2. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations 3. Planning Division Update on FY 2012-13 Lang-Range Work Program - Peter Gutowsky 4. Discussion of Fee Waiver Request - Nick Lelack 5. Certified Local Government Grant - Permission to Proceed - Peter Gutowsky 6. 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; ORS 192.660(2)(a), employment of a public officer; ORS 192.660(2)(i), evaluation of employee performance; or ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel discipline. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the State transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Jam. w DATE: January 30, 2013 Board of Countv Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200 • Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 385-3202 www. co. deschutes. or. us board P co. deschutes. or. us MEMORANDUM Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Alan Unger TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator SUBJECT: Adult/Juvenile Detention Background: For a number of years, the population in the Deschutes County adult jail had reached the point where capacity had been reached and difficult decisions were being made with respect to renting jail beds in Jefferson County and/or matrixing prisoners. Consequently, a proposal was made to the Board of Commissioners to issue bonds in order to finance an expansion of the adult jail, at a cost of approximately $10.9 million, which would have increased jail capacity by 144 beds. In August 2012, the Board supported the conceptual expansion and directed staff to prepare financial bonding plan for the project. Soon thereafter, due to continuing low populations in the juvenile detention facility, it became apparent that another option existed to utilize that facility for adult prisoners, which would have created 88 adult jail beds with minimal capital remodeling cost. The next question was what would be a suitable alternative location for juvenile detainees, specifically youth from Deschutes County, which are the primary responsibility of the County's Juvenile Justice program. In September 2012, the Board rescinded their previous direction to pursue financing for an adult jail expansion, and directed staff to commission a consultant report to examine short and long term juvenile detention needs, as well as possible alternative detention locations, including an underutilized section of the existing Britta St detention facility and the old downtown juvenile detention facility. The Board also directed that the juvenile detention facility be made available to the Sheriff's Office by July 1, 2013. In October 2012, the consultant was also asked to include the existing Sheriff's Office Work Center facility in her assessment of alternate juvenile detention locations. In December 2012, Karen Chinn, the consultant hired to perform the study, presented her findings to the Board of Commissioners. The report covered historical juvenile populations, which have been steadily declining over the past 10 years. However, it predicted future growth in population based on current referral trends, and recommended an optimal juvenile detention capacity of 12-18 beds for Deschutes County youth. The report also assessed alternative detention locations, and recommended the Work Center as the best option to the current location for juvenile detention. Accordingly, the Board directed that staff focus on the Work Center and bring back a more detailed assessment of a Work Center remodel, including layout, capacity and cost. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner • Factors for Consideration - Con: • Additional capital cost • Does not address underutilization of juvenile detention facility* *Note - Independent of the options listed above, to address current underutilization of the juvenile detention facility, capacity could be reduced from 2 pods to 1 pod. • Annual savings of approximately $400,000 • Reduced immediate operational capacity • Less ability to separate detainees (younger/older, male/female) • Increased opportunity to lease space within detention facility to other agencies C. Research Additional Alternative Juvenile Detention Locations • Delay decision on addressing adult jail capacity issues • Alternatives may be limited or more costly D. Status Quo • Capital construction savings • Does not address adult jail capacity issues • Does not address underutilization of juvenile detention facility* E. Other Requested Board Action: Discuss and direct staff to pursue one of the options listed above. Discussion: In conjunction with a contracted architect, Property & Facilities staff has developed two options for the Work Center. The first option includes 13 sleeping rooms along with 4 holding cells for a total of 17 beds, at an estimated cost of $3.3 million. The second option includes 10 sleeping rooms along with 4 holding cells for a total of 14 beds, at an estimated cost of $2.4 million. Following full architectural drawings and City permitting, construction time for either option is estimated at 4-6 months. Due to recent additional inmates in the adult jail, it became necessary to transfer additional prisoners from the adult jail to the Work Center. As a result, transitioning detainees from the juvenile detention facility to the Work Center, and Work Center inmates to the juvenile detention facility during the remodel work has become much more problematic, and it is not certain that capacity needs will be maintained during the remodel construction. In the opinion of staff, the two critical pieces of information noted in the previous two paragraphs warrants revisiting all options associated with adult jail capacity and current juvenile detention operation levels. Accordingly, the following options are presented for consideration by the Board. Options A. Remodel Work Center- 13+4/10+4 bed alternatives • Move juvenile detainees to Work Center and make improvements to juvenile detention to accommodate adult inmates • Allow up to 88 adult prisoners to occupy juvenile detention center • Cost - $2.9 - $3.8 million (including Detention Center improvements) • Factors for Consideration Pro: • Lower cost than adult jail expansion • Savings of approximately $400,00 in juvenile detention operational cost • Factors for Consideration Con: Limited capacity for juvenile detention needs and the need to construct a new facility in the future Operational difficulty and loss of efficiency with adult prisoners in separate facility B. Expand Adult Jail • Adds additional 144 beds • No movement of juvenile detainees • Cost approximately $10.9 million • Factors for Consideration - Pro: • Operational savings by housing adult prisoners in same facility • Allows greater capacity for adult prisoners • Does not limit juvenile detention capacity • Limited capacity to build new facility in future (est. cost $9 to $9.5 million) I 0 w .r g •o:~ p 3 :aY' W ~ ~ t n t L1 rn 02 ~ d~ 6 pq 7 V33 0 0 i ° F ~ a .ae3 p,~~a ~ I - ° - - - _ 17-- K,'7 . - - ~ j l' L.-- - - - - - - - - r _ yly I L ~ II } ~ ® qq r 7 _ T w Q GQ ~ T~ ~ G7 xx~~ ~S 9g ❑ a ❑ I W 0 I qqq aQA p yy ' El R 7 - - -W~ zY8 DD= - rest l -1-3 g l -a -z Wy-- I II I ^ L o - - a r r ❑ ❑ r r ~ ~ ~a) wal ';~al r.~1 - - - 1 I WORK CENTER CONVERSION FOR JUVENILE Prepared January 30, 2013 Option 1 (10 beds) Remodel work center to create 10 sleeping rooms 2,400,000 Improvements to juvenile detention for adult jail 500,000 Total Option 1 2,900,000 Option 2 (13 beds) Remodel work center to create 13 sleeping rooms 3,300,000 Improvements to juvenile detention for adult jail 500,000 3,800,000 Community Development Department t y Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 2013 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Interim Community Development Director Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MEETING: January 30, 2013 RE: Planninq Division Work Plan Update The purpose of this work session agenda item is to update the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the Planning Division's work plan and seek direction on future project(s) as capacity becomes available in the spring and summer. Since the Division's last work plan update in September: • Senior Planner Terri Payne retired and Planning Director Nick Lelack was appointed Interim Community Development Department (CDD) Director, reducing long range planning staff from 3.75 FTE to 2.25 at least through June 30, 2013. • The BOCC approved the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Needs Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Staff has subsequently developed a scope of work with regional partners to begin implementing the Large Lot Land Needs program (discussed below). The Planning Division's proposed role is to provide technical assistance to the City of Redmond for creating a clear, defensible approach for entitling regional large-lot industrial sites. • The Planning Commission recommended approval of Newberry Country. A Plan for Southern Deschutes County (South County Plan) into the Comprehensive Plan. BOCC public hearings to consider it are scheduled for February 26 and March 12 with adoption anticipated later this spring. The rest of this memorandum summarizes the status of high priority projects, introduces new ones requiring limited resources at the request of regional partners or other County departments, and offers recommendations for the BOCC's consideration. 1. Planning Division Existing Work Program Table 1 identifies the Planning Division's projects and coordination duties by their long range or transportation planning emphasis. Either a principal planner or the senior transportation planner leads these projects.' i Associate and senior planners in the Current Planning Section staff the Historic Landmarks Commission and process applicant-initiated legislative plan and zoning amendments. Quality Services Performed with Pride Table 1 - Planning Division Existing Projects and Coordination Responsibilities Project Description Long Range Planning Deschutes County is amending its Comprehensive Plan to formally recognize the South County Plan. On December 13, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 recommending approval. South County Plan Status: Two BOCC public hearings are scheduled: (1) February 26 at 6:00 p.m. at the La Pine Senior Center; and (2) March 12 at 6:00 p.m. at the Sunriver Homeowners Aquatic and Recreation Center. Plan adoption is anticipated later this spring. Staff is involved in two sage grouse projects. Last summer Deschutes County signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to become a cooperating agency. BLM is conducting an environmental analysis and preparing a draft and final programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for amendment of federal land use plans to incorporate conservation measures for the Greater sage-grouse in Central and Eastern Oregon. Sage Grouse On a similar note, Harney County has recently been awarded grant funding from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to consider possible land use strategies for Greater Sage Grouse habitat on non-federal lands. The grant program recognizes that involving all of Oregon's affected counties will produce the greatest possible benefit. Deschutes County will be participating with them in a unique regional lands approach to wildlife conservation planning. Status: These projects are expected to be completed by late 2013 or 2014. Coordinate with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on their efforts to lead the Statewide groundwater protection program for the Upper Deschutes basin, including discussions Planning Goal regarding Statewide Planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities). 11 (Public Status: The South Deschutes/Northern Klamath County . Groundwater Protection Steering Facilities and Committee is expected to issue its final recommendations to the DEQ in the next few months. Services) upon the issuance of the recommendations, DEQ and the County will cooperate and coordinate on next steps, timing and resources to protect groundwater quality in South County. Develop a scope of work outlining the tasks and schedule for undertaking a project that establishes criteria and procedures that would allow individual property owners and/or the Non-Resource County to reclassify areas with exceedingly low capacity for agricultural activities to a Non- Lands Resource designation. Status: Not yet started. Every 24 months, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), provides matching grants to local governments that have been "certified" as historic preservation partners with both the. state and federal governments. Certified Local Government (CLG) grant applications are due Certified Local on February 22, 2013. The Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), which Government meets quarterly, provides technical assistance and input. Potential projects for 2013/2014 CLG Grant include inventorying historic recreational sites, public education, photographing national register and locally designated structures and sites in the rural county, and HLC training. Status: Staff is preparing the grant application. Grant awards and agreements are expected in April/May. Grant-funded projects are expected to be initiated in summer 2013. Participate in and monitor Oregon Legislature, committees and work groups to amend state Legislative planning law, and keep the BOCC, Planning Commission, staff and the public informed and Session engaged on such activities. Status: Ongoing through July 2013. -2- Table 1 - Planning Division Existing Projects and Coordination Responsibilities Project Description NEW: Knott Coordinate with the Solid Waste Department to develop and execute a public outreach strategy Landfill Gas to for the landfill gas to energy project. Energy Project Sta us: Project expected to occur over 2-3 months in late winter through spring 2013. Coordinate with property owners, residents, river users, state agencies, Sunriver, and other Harper Bridge stakeholders to develop a solution for safe river access in the Harper Bridge area. Status: Ongoing. In December Deschutes County submitted a grant application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Fiscal Year 2013 Brownfields Grant Competition requesting $400,000 of community-wide assessment grant funding. The County envisions EPA using the funding to support two major types of economic redevelopment initiatives which will Brownfield form the basis of the County's grant application strategy and objectives; Community- Wide o Environmental Assessment and Cleanup/Redevelopment Planning of the Demolition Assessment Landfill in Bend and/or the Shooting Range Property in Redmond. Grant for the o Support economic development initiatives by other units of local government within the Simpson Ave. County, to assess sites within the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond, or Sisters. Demo Landfill Property A decision by the EPA is expected April-June 2013. Status: Ongoing. Planning staff will continue to provide support to the Property and Facilities Department whether the grant is approved or not. Coordinate with the City of Bend to complete their Urban Growth Boundary amendment. Upon City of Bend state acknowledgment, discuss initiating an Urban Reserve Area (URA) work program for the Growth City. Management Status: Ongoing. Transportation Planning Update SDCs with applicable policy changes with the Road Department. Director and SDC System Committee. Development Charges Status: Planning staff is supporting the Road Department on this project, which is expected to be completed by spring. Coordinate with local, state and federal agencies through the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to develop a regional trail plan. Upon completion of a trail Regional Trail plan, amend the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to include the routes. Also work with the Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to develop an online trail guide. Status: Project completion is expected in summer 2013. Administer a successful $185,000 recreational trails grant along with the Oregon State Parks Tumalo Trail and Recreation to the State of Oregon to design and construct a trail near Tumalo State Park. Grant Status: Project is underway. ODOT Participate in ODOT funded refinement planning projects for U.S. 97 and U.S. 20. These Refinement projects may include planning for the Quarry Road interchanges and the Wickiup Junction Planning interchange or bypass. Projects Status: Ongoing. -3- Table 1 - Planning Division Existing Projects and Coordination Responsibilities Project Description • Bend Airport Master Plan Update Technical Advisory Committee • Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization • Canals as Regional Trails Committee • Central. Oregon Area Commission on Transportation TAC • Commute Options Working Group • Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Transportation • Highway 97/20 Project Technical Advisory Committee Committees • South County Transportation Advisory Committee on U.S. 97 South Redmond Collaborative Group • U.S. 20 in Tumalo Project Technical Advisory Committee • U.S. 97 North Corridor Agency Coordination Committee • U,S. 97 Wickiup Junction Interchange EA/EIS Project • Wickiup Junction/97 Technical Advisory Committee Status: Ongoing. Coordinate with the City to update the Airport Master Plan. City of Bend Status: Ongoing. It is not yet known when the City will initiate an amendment to the Airport Master Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to adopt the updated Bend Airport Master Plan by Plan reference. Planning staff continues to coordinate with City staff, EDCO, and airport businesses on a variety of projects. Initiate an amendment to Deschutes County Code to establish a new stand-alone section for Code traffic studies and update provisions as necessary (remove from the subdivision standards). Amendment Status: Not yet started. Staff expects to initiate this amendment in spring 2013. NEW: Preliminary Large Lot Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory With Deschutes County's assistance, in February 2012 Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) received a DLCD Technical Assistance grant to formalize a management structure for the regional large lot industrial lands program and identify large lot industrial candidate sites. COIC recently approached Deschutes County and the City of Redmond to see if there was interest and the capacity to develop a clear, defensible approach for entitling regional large-lot industrial sites. Approximately $12,000 is available to complete the following scope of work for the City of Redmond that can serve as a model for other jurisdictions: • Task 1 - Preliminary large lot industrial buildable lands inventory • Task 2 - Regional large lot industrial overlay zone • Task 3 - Gauging property owner interest for large lot industrial siting • Task 4 - Reconnaissance level infrastructure analysis for preliminary candidate sites • Task 5 - Preliminary Urban Growth Boundary findings report • Task 6 - Lessons learned memorandum • Task 7 - Presentations If the BOCC supports allocating staff time to this project, the City of Redmond and Deschutes County would share the work load responsibilities listed above and split the grant funds. The work must be completed by June 30, 2013. -4- The timing of this opportunity complements recent action taken by the BOCC. On January 7, 2013 the BOCC adopted the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis (Analysis) and regional large lot industrial lands policies into the Comprehensive Plan. Both provide a policy framework for the tri-county region to coordinate as a single entity promoting large-lot industrial employments sites that best serve the region as a whole to create family wage jobs, region economic diversification, and place Central Oregon on the map for regional, national and international industrial recruitment. Crook and Jefferson counties are now in the process of adopting similar amendments to their comprehensive plans. Once all three counties complete their plan amendments, municipalities in the region will be able rely on the Analysis to address the short-term need for up to nine competitive and diverse vacant developable large lot industrial sites. Work Plan Recommendations Staff offers the following recommendations for the BOCC's consideration, which are achievable based on the Planning Division's current resources (2.25 FTE): 1. Complete the public hearings and adoption process of the South County Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Continue to participate and coordinate in two sage grouse protection efforts through its completion in 2013 or 2014. 3. Provide technical assistance to the City of Redmond with its preliminary buildable lands inventory with DLCD grant funding. 4. Submit the CLG historic preservation grant application in February, execute the grant agreement in spring, and initiate projects later in the summer. Some may be performed by consultants paid for by the grant. 5. Complete the transportation planning projects listed in the table above. 6. Support the Solid Waste Department's public outreach efforts on the Knott Landfill gas to energy project. While this project was not identified in the Planning Division's FY 2012-2013 work program, Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste Dept., has asked the Planning Division to allocate time to help his department develop and execute a public outreach strategy. The Planning Division believes it can provide this service without disrupting existing planning projects this spring, but it would delay initiating any new projects (please see below). 7. Continue supporting and partnering with the DEQ to protect groundwater in southern Deschutes County through attending Steering Committee meetings and others as requested by the agency. After the Steering Committee has submitted its recommendations to DEQ, which may include an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 11 to allow sewer systems in rural areas, conduct meetings with DEQ, DLCD, the Planning Commission, stakeholders and the public to discuss the recommendations and a strategy to move forward. Strategy discussions should address actions, leading and supporting organizations, general time frames, and resources.' 8. Similar to the DEQ groundwater protection efforts described above, the Planning Division will have some capacity to initiate a Non-Resource Lands program by early summer. However, if 2 Upon completing the South County Plan, City of Redmond preliminary buildable lands inventory, and Knott Landfill public outreach strategy in late spring/early summer, the Planning Division will have some capacity to contribute to this effort. -5- Planning Division's resources require initiating a Goal 11 Exception, then this work plan item may need to be delayed until staffing resources become available. 9. Support the Property and Facilities Department's efforts to plan for the redevelopment of the County-owned Demo Landfill site (Simpson Ave. in the city of Bend) and efforts to address the need for an improved boat launch at or near Har er Bridge. IV. BOCC Direction Planning staff seeks direction from the BOCC on the next long range planning project(s) as capacity becomes available in the spring/summer. The BOCC may support the Planning Division Work Plan recommendations, modify them, or direct staff to dedicate resources to other projects not listed above. -6- 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 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Interim Director DATE: January 30, 2013 RE: John Shepherd Fee Waiver Request Summary John Shepherd submitted the attached Fee Waiver Request for all or part of the $8,270 application fees to apply for a private park to hold commercial weddings on his property. Mr. Shepherd's 215- acre property is located at 71120 Holmes Road, zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Wildlife Area Combining Zone (Deer Winter Range)', and is not high value farm land. A private park application for commercial weddings requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($2,240), Site Plan Review ($3,030), and a Hearings Officer deposit ($3,000) for a public hearing. Mr. Shepherd is applying under Deschutes County Community Development Fee Waiver Policy 8: "The Board of County Commissioners may waive fees in any other case where the public benefit is served and other remedies have been exhausted." Background / Discussion In April 2012, the Board adopted amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) to allow agri- tourism and other commercial events and activities as limited use permits (LUP) per Senate Bill 960 in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. These amendments allow up to six (6) or eighteen (18) agri-tourism and other commercial events or activities each year depending on the type of LUP. However, in order for an EFU property owner to qualify for agri-tourism or other commercial events or activities a farm use must exist on the property. A farm use means the primary purpose of the property is to make a profit in money in agricultural operations as defined by state law. Last summer, Mr. Shepherd applied for a Type 3 LUP for up to 18 commercial events (weddings). He subsequently withdrew his application after planning staff informed him that he did not qualify for a LUP because he does not have a farm use on his property. Mr. Shepherd submitted the attached letter and Fee Waiver Request for all or part of the private park application fees for the following reasons: (1) He cannot afford the fees. 1 Deschutes County Code 18.88.040(8) lists prohibited uses in the Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone. Private parks are not prohibited in the WA Zone. Quality Services Performed with Pride (2) There is uncertainty in the outcome of a private park application to host commercial weddings, and this land use application/decision would clarify whether commercial weddings can be approved as a private park in the BFU Zone. Deschutes County denied an application for a private park for a commercial wedding event venue in 1991. However, Crook, Benton and Douglas counties have approved private parks for commercial wedding event venues over the past few years. Private parks are not defined in State Law and the Land Use Board of Appeals has not ruled on a private park application. (3) The economic benefits of commercial weddings to the region's tourism and local agricultural community. Requested Board Action Decide whether to grant a full or partial fee waiver for Mr. Shepherd's application for a CUP ($2,240), Site Plan Review ($3,030) and/or Hearings Officer deposit ($3,000) for a public hearing. If the Board decides to grant a full or partial fee waiver, it must find that the action is in the public benefit, per the fee waiver policy. -2- John Shepherd 71120 Holmes Road Sisters OR 97759 Request for Fee Waiver 1 am hereby requesting that Deschutes County waive all or part of the following fees in my application to establish a private park and qualify to hold weddings thereon: -Conditional Use Permit ($2,240) -Site Plan Review ($3,030) -Hearings Officer Deposit ($3,000) am requesting that the County waive the fees for three reasons: 1.1 am currently unemployed, receiving food stamps and cannot afford the fees 2. The outcome of this process would create a long-term efficiency for Deschutes County in that my case could be one of the first to complete the permitting process for private parks and would establish legal precedent for what is or is not permitted. In that the County has spent extraordinary means to clarify the Commercial Events Venue question, this process would be a great step forward in further clarifying this same issue. At present, Deschutes County does not know if or how weddings would be allowed on a private park. Proceeding through this permitting and hearing process would resolve that question. 3. Furthermore, weddings on my property would greatly benefit both the local agricultural community as well as Deschutes County as a whole. a. My proposal is that my wedding venue would support the local agricultural community by purchasing locally grown food products, such as wine from Faith, Hope and Charity Vineyards, beef from Just-a- meer farms and produce from Rainshadow Organics. This locally grown produce could be used for rehearsal dinners and wedding reception dinners. b. My venue would bring well over $1 million into the Deschutes County economy. Most of my weddings will be destination weddings, bringing visitors and their money to Deschutes County. 18 weddings at 200 people per wedding means 3600 people spending their money here. According to VisitBend.com, the average visitor to Bend spends $70 per day here. So, based on 3600 visitors spending $70/day for 3 days, that totals $756,000 in spending. In addition, according to the Wedding Report, a market research publication, the average wedding costs $29,000. Multiply $29,000 by 18 weddings, and Deschutes County would see $522,000 in economic activity. This totals over $1.25 million in annual economic activity, much of it coming from outside the county. Nick, Please find enclosed 3 documents to supplement my fee waiver request which comes before the Board on Wednesday, January 30th. Please convey these to the Board for their consideration. Page 1 is a map which shows the relative size of the proposed park to the overall size of the parcel, roughly a 1:100 ratio. This demonstrates the feasibility of the park on my large acreage. Furthermore, the map shows the two closest houses, one is 1/3 mile away and the other is over 1 mile away. Page 2 is a printout of the money spent on the average wedding. it is proof of my assertion that holding weddings in a park would be an important economic activity for Deschutes County. Page 3 is a copy of my current SNAP (food stamps) card, in support of my indigency request. RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2013 Der hutes county CDD (D Ci o N N ~ p 5 X N C N Y co c Ca •L s a N w D a a> N Q g i 0 c~ S Y s ~ Nwr ~~pMr s 0 We « •r J s CA5 9 0 ,OOPP .4 0 y r Nk ti'' M ~+l+y M Y. ♦t r' ~I f` R r., ~ .rte Uk 4 w N ~~kx~ « ~~j r '6~~r re'*"w,ylF M~": , .a A.w~wl~N"W r wM* rw ♦ti'~ 1ydy r !+»w *r rw • t. ~ O r. N~. N lyNa M AYT~' A ~ N ~ " INr. , ~ : t 40',"r~~ a • ..d ~ ~b*. ~ fir! N.d rf ~ ,~°.~n..w ~..R• ~ ~ w nM~~,':t R pry y S ,~yr N, k"'j,w''►r i, „"«~1:.~~ b~'R~~ r'ey~', ~;r.. t~ .~-1,4 V . ~ 'AV1'~c: N ~ wd.~ w ~"w n.: 'R+. •M « ..1~ it 41 0401 0 0% W • iiR " I11 X► • . Ili ~ft oi~ i 3 ~ .i„ EC* i,M , ~MR r r~df y ~,M •f • •r~Mx~ r, ~ r 0 ~.~"r.;fir tf Mw" ~ ~+p~ `~:_~t ~-1~~ ~c ♦.•.r,~rt~ tt r r + ~ ~NN1T~r~ 1~~ "ry ~11r~ •4r, j",~M r~.~L ~•~~r M Rr r ~F ~ w ~}MI r-'r ~ gar", j% m y4- r ' w. - , ; 0 * a ~ ~ * • ~ 40 " Nr • fir., ~'r r.F ~,~y„~'K Ii AA'h'.'4F r~.'A*~`~~"ri~ ft. ,eo v 44 '"'tw'o! z 73 -F.ile W""'UMWAP IW14 W4'4. +0 ~M J `fit, r a r C'olorado Wedding Prims Below are sortie average price ranges you can expect from Colorado vendors. Though many people are often shocked at the cost of weddings and events, keep in mind that many vendors operate small bttsinesses and incur overhead, marketing, insurance, supplies, equipment, training and multiple other fees related to the cost of doing business. In 2009, the National average overall cost of a wedding is expected to surpass $29,000 (source: The Wedding Report). Low Middle High Starting at.... Starting at... Starting at... $750 $1,200 $2,000 $3,000 $6,000 10,000 $1,500 E3,300 $8,000 Variable Variable Variable. 3500 $1,500 $4,000 33,000 $13,000 $25,000 $2,000 53,500 $8,000 $1,200 $4,000 $10,000 51,200 $3,300 $8,000 $750 $2,800 $8,000 $350 $600 $1,200 $500 $900 `.$1,800 $1,500 $4,ono $8,000 E200 $700 $1,300 5900 $3,000 $6,000 $400 $700 $1,200 $1,000 $4,000 $8,000 r'. -r i Day-of Coordinators Planners Location Rental Rentals & Decor Chair Covers / linens (100 guests) . e 2' Catering (100 guests)* ~ x e Q ~ y Beverage (100 gucsts4 c ~ fi Photographers \ r- Videographers r v= ' G y z ' Florists (100 guests, h attendants) Bakers (100 guests) Discjockeys Bands Invitations Bridal ('Town & Accessories Hair & Makeup (bride + two) Miscellaneous ti1'c'n[1r.a 11 alter ~ [ r ,t t1i Omit Wendee has been coordinatingweddings and meeting for over 12 years. She earned her Bachelors From Iowa State University and a Masters from Colorado Start: University. Her professional backb7ound includes being; an assistant to two wedding; coordinators, a director of watering . a meeting; planner for continuing; medical education grog rams, and t teacher. She specializes in onsite ctxwrdinating, location search assistance and detuilerl Ir istical planning. Shc is hascd out ofthe Denver area, but has tr.+vclcrl :ill over the world for work. 1-11 7j- distinctive. ,A ilk are her immense knowledge of locations and vendors, the ability to understand clients' desires, thoroug hucss, and attention to detail - all with awarm and friendly approach. 1 P ( VV 0r~cA,,l) V ~~hw,~ .tfstt)nl\\ c'!illiri;..;,,~~I('.ltlc,rull~l.['t)ttt ~ +.:;t' 1(;. ,i;I I:>. lil,irrp,rrl'irr✓rrrrl;r: l';' v. r;: „r rrrrnnuur.rlr/nr; r %rh! l.d✓r;r,rlu uhher;lr. ~ ~ ~ RJ^ ' ''~:.n, ,4 .~3 , ~ S.+CI.. i M,t. ~ :.a ti:7 f t~, z'. P^, w ~ 1',~. C CA, •i • ~ r G~JTES co` January 29, 2013 Tom Hickmann, PE City Engineer City of Bend via email: THickmann@ci.bend.or.us Road Department 61150 SE 27th St. - Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 Heidi Lansdowne, PE Principal Engineer/Project Manager City of Bend HLansdowne Rci.bend.or.us RE: Water line installation, post Skyliners Road reconstruction Mr. Hickmann/Ms. Lansdowne: Let me start by saying that Deschutes County greatly values the working relationship we have with the City of Bend, specifically with regard to the cooperation and communication that has existed in advance of the City's Bridge Creek Project and the County's Skyliners Road Reconstruction Project (administered via the Federal Highway Administration - Western Lands Division). In our meeting of January 25, 2013 and follow-up email of January 29, 2013, you have asked that we respond in writing to several scenarios regarding potential requirements that would be imposed if the City were to move forward with water line installation in or near Skyliners Road - after reconstruction of SIZaliners; Road. The scenarios/questions are specifically: 1. What road reconstruction and water line backfill requirements would the County impose if the water line were to be installed in the alignment as currently planned (10 to 12 feet off the centerline on the south side of the road, under the new bike lane)? 2. What road reconstruction and water line backfill requirements would the County impose if the water line were to be installed outside of the roadway prism? Prior to a response to the specific questions/scenarios above, please be aware that Deschutes County would be alarmed and highly critical of any future plan which would require significant pavement cutting of a new roadway - especially when that roadway has yet to be constructed. While Deschutes County will have the authority to permit such a cut in the future, the reliance upon a plan to significantly impact Skyliners Road in the near future will most likely initiate a dialogue with the FHWA whereby they question, and aware, once a road is cut, it is never the same, despite best management practices to mitigate impact. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions and continue the communication and cooperation that have mutually benefitted our respective projects. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, GChris Doty, PE/PTOE Director, Deschutes County Road Department chris.doty@co.deschutes.or.us cc: Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator George Kolb, County Engineer Attachments: December 6, 2011 Memo from G. Kolb. ~0-f ES C U O~ 0 Ali Road Deoartment B1150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-8581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 MEMORANDUM TO: TOM FIIC:KMAN, CITY OU BEND FROM: GEORGE KOLB, INTERIM ROAD DEYARL'tMLNT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SKYLINF_R5 ROAD DATE: 12/6/2011 CC: ERIK KROPP, INTERIM COUN11' ADMINISTRiIT'OR, BOARD OF COUNTY C:ONILMISSIONERS Tom: This memo is in response to the questions posed by the City of Bend as to what the County's position would be concerning Skyliners Road if the City delayed the installation of their waterline for several years versus installation of the waterline prior to the reconstruction of Skyliners Road. There are several issues that would come into play: 1. The Skyliners Road project was originally scheduled .far a construction date of 2016. In working with the City of Bend, USFS and Deschutes County, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreed to move up the construction date to the year 2013 to coincide with the installation of the waterline (see attached letter from City of Bend dated 12/16/2009). By doing both projects together, it would mean less disruption for the public and ensure that Skyliners Road would be reconstructed immediately after the waterline installation. FHWA has stated that the Skyliners Road project should not proceed to construction ahead of any waterline work within the roadway. Any delays to the road project beyond 2013 could affect project funding and delays of five years or more would likely require the project to re-compete for federal funding. Skyliners Road has deteriorated to the point where the County Road Department cannot ensure that they will be able to maintain the paved surface if the project is delayed. 2. County Code does not allow new pavement to be cut until 5 years after the project is completed. If it was allowed, the City would be required to install Cement Treated Base (CTB) in the trench for the entire length of the project which would be extremely expensive. We would also require the City to correct any damage to the road and possibly repave the entire roadway. Quality Services Performed with Pride 710 WALL STREET P.O. BOX 431 December 16, 2009 BEND, OR 97709 [5411388-5505 TEL George N. i'ekaris [641] 388-6319 FAX wwwA.bend.or.us Transportation Planner FHWA-Westem Federal lands 610 East Fifth Street Vancouver, WA 98661 Aoyw RE: Skyllners Road Forest Highway Programming Concern MARK CAP9.L The City of Bend requests that the Skyliners Road project, currently programmed for 2016, be instead programmed for 2012 in the Draft Proposal for JIMcuNT N Cwsiderabon in Programming 2008 Cail for Projects, FY 2008-2093 (dated cw c wow 11/19/2009). The proposed 2016 delivery date creates concerns for the City of J0wBARRAM Bend, including the following: The City is working collaboratively with Deschutes County and USFS to install a ■ major water line concurrently with the re-pavement of Skyliners Road, in an JWEAM effort to efficiently utilize tax dollars by re-building the road only once. The waterline is scheduled to be constructed in FY 2011-2012, creating a substantial Tom GWXW timing gap for the project, and significantly inhibiting our ability to move forward cWCourxaW with the single largest water infrastructure need in the City of Bend, affecting 50% of the City's water supply. OMAN TEATM c*y Skyfiners Road is a pivotal multi-modal route for citizens and visitors to Central Oregon. The condition of the road is deteriorating, which makes the route potentially unsafe for bicyclists and motorists. Investing in our local recreational assets, this route in particular, is critical to our continued success in attracting EaaKW tourism to our community while ensuring safety on this road. CRYMOMW During these economically challenging times, Deschutes County and the City of Fkance w MOW Bend have been hit particularly hard in our professional services and construction $0N1 sectors. This project is an opportunity to provide jobs in both sectors and invest in SANMALa4xTER our local economy; we can not think ofA more apropos time or location for the use PolmChw of this funding. We urge you to consider these"factors when making-your decision about the jiming-of the Skyliners Road Forest Hlghway'Project. LARRY H" FIre chid Thank you for your consideration. 1 PAUL Fb AMT 'r PublkMft !',t F /J lVJ vv~_ V~ Kathie Eckman, Mayor Mark Capell, Vice ayor, :'Jodie Barram, Councilor Jiim`t-linton, Councilor Jeff r/a? er,'Counciior /-"'Tom Greene, Councilor `O~d Teater, Councilor ' Eric King, Cify Manager :ommunity Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 2013 TO: Board of County Commissioners PROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MEETING: January 30, 2013 RE: Certified Local Government Grant Application / Permission to Proceed The purpose of this memorandum is to receive support from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to apply for a $13,000.00 Certified Local Government (CLG) grant.' Every twenty-four months, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) offers matching grants to cities and counties that have been "certified" as historic preservation partners with both the state and federal governments. Deschutes County is a CLG. The Community Development Department wants to prepare, with the support of the BOCC and Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), an application for the 2013-2014 grant cycle. The deadline is February 22, 2013. CLG grants assist local governments with their historic preservation programs on a non-competitive basis in order to ensure that all localities benefit. The maximum award for each locality is $13,000.00 based on fund availability and requires a 50/50 match of local funds or donated services/supplies. State and federal requirements regulate the CLG grant, including project budget, project timeline, inspections and audits, reports and billings, consultant/contractor standards, etc. The Community Development Department has been the recipient and beneficiary of CLG grants for several years. Staff relies on the professional input and direction of the HLC, an appointed body that provides technical expertise on historic and cultural resources issues for the rural county and city of Sisters, to customize grant proposals.2 Last year, in preparation of the upcoming grant, the HLC helped staff identify the following projects listed below for CLG funding. Upon receiving BOCC support for pursuing the CLG grant, staff will coordinate with the HLC will to finalize the application at their February 4, 2013 meeting. ' Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA-20 requires the Community Development Department to receive approval from the Board of County Commissioners to proceed with any proposed grant application. 2 Deschutes County Code Chapter 2.28. http://www.deschutes.org/County-Code.aspx?F=chapter+2.28.pdf Quality Services Performed With Pride 2013-2014 CLG Grant Project List Project Title Project Summary Estimated Cost Eligibility 1 Project coordination, tracking, reporting, Project Administration staffing HLC, and reimbursement $1,500 Administration requests 2. Preservation National Preservation Month activities $1,000 Public Education Month Photograph all national and locally designated properties and post on CDD's 3. Historic website. Develop presentations for public photographs and use, etc. This is a carryover from 2011- $2,000 Public Education. website 2012 grant to allow the City of Sisters use funding to complement their downtown streetscape project Deschutes County's reputation as an outdoor and recreational destination builds upon a rich history of Oregonians and visitors experiencing the extraordinary amenities of Central Oregon. This project inventories historic properties that have historical recreational significance. Inventorying historic recreational sites allows the County to: o Identify those that may be worthy of 4. Deschutes further recognition County's Recreational o Develop a public outreach campaign $7 500 Reconnaissance Heritage (Phase 1) that highlights the County's historic , Level Surveys recreational areas and potentially weaves them into tourism promotion using maps and interactive websites Phase 1 involves hiring a consultant who can reach out to property owners to perform a reconnaissance level survey of historic recreational sites and properties on public and private land. Examples include inventorying sites along the upper Deschutes River, Mt. Bachelor, Cascade Lakes, state parks, Newberry National Monument, and historic resorts of Sunriver and Black Butte. Other 5. Training HLC Member trainings $1,000 Preservation Activities