Loading...
2014-499-Minutes for Meeting September 24,2014 Recorded 10/20/2014 DESCHUTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK W 2014499 NANCY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 10/20/2014 03;48'43 PM I 2 1 4B 0-Es UJ�'�J c Z pI �{ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and,for a portion of the meeting, Susan Ross and James Lewis, Property & Facilities; Judge Alta Brady; Nick Lelack, John Griley, Lori Furlong and Peter Russell, Community Development; Judith Ure, Administration; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Justice Court Judge Charles Fadeley; Anna Johnson, Communications; Jeff Hall, Court Administrator; and about twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Discussion/Update with Bendbroadband. Gary Lawrence of Bendbroadband introduced himself and advised that Telephone & Data Systems has purchased the company. He explained that the company is friendly to smaller communities and customers. He does not see many changes occurring in the immediate future. Chair Baney said that the relationship between the company and the County has been good, and she is pleased that this can continue. She also mentioned the business loan fund if they hope to bring additional employees here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 1 of 12 Pages Mr. Lawrence stated that he has lived in Bend for years, but was brought into Bendbroadband last year to help with the transition. Tom Anderson noted that the City has asked to use County meeting rooms for lager meetings, and the recording and a/v system has been upgraded to accommodate this. This might result in being able to televise meetings. 2. Discussion and Update of Courthouse Funding Project. Judge Alta Brady said they requested a judge and a referee from the State. They already know that the judge will not be approved, but might be able to obtain a referee. They will continue to ask. Susan Ross said they requested a $4 million bond through the State for facilities upgrades, but feels the larger cities will win out. Chair Baney asked how political it is in getting another judge. Jeff Hall stated that there are various factors. The Chief Justice is the head of this branch of government, so they have to work within that budget process. The Chief has made decisions about this already. They can continue to let local legislators know there is a huge need for this area. There was $65 million in requests and this had to be pared down to maybe $30 million. The legislature is not eager to create new positions, even in good times. This has been the first run at new judgeships in a long time. Chair Baney said that having an inadequate number of judges has been a big problem for many years, and they have tried to compensate and work around it; but at some point there will be consequences to having this shortfall. Mr. Hall stated that a referee is included in the package, but it is not known if this will be approved. There are many competing interests. At this time, power to the building was off for about 20 minutes. Mr. Hall asked if they should completely stop these efforts, or go forward with design at some level. They have to be prepared to even be considered for a new judge. State dollars for any bond should be requested now, since those dollars might not be available in the future. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 2 of 12 Pages Susan Ross said they have a preliminary design for a 3-story structure attached to the existing building. Courtrooms could be added as needed and the rest left as a shell. They do not have a full set of construction documents but useable information is available. The cost would be around $10 million, with $200,000 for design development. Commissioner Unger said they need to be prepared without spending a lot on plans that might never be used. Ms. Ross stated that they geared up for this session, since being ready for a judge is required, but since it will not even be considered at this time, the risk might not be appropriate at this time. The plan would include two courtrooms and ancillary space. They would move some out of the old building. They still have space needs regardless. This would ultimately put court operations in the same building and leave much- needed room for the D.A. There is a need for one story now. Judge Brady said that the sooner they can address some of this, the better. It would be more efficient to do some of this now, and they will cooperate with the construction interruptions. She would like them ready to go when the chance for an additional judge arises again. Chair Baney stated they have not had a lot of luck with the State when it comes to retiring debt. They went through this with the jail project. They need to consider all options and not overcommit. Ms. Ross said they should see if any judges get approved this session to get an idea of the trend, Chair Baney noted that they still need some space. She would like them to go forward slowly and contain costs. Commissioner Unger asked for timelines and trigger points. They need to show they are together on this. 3. Discussion of Mediation Services for County Departments. Judge Fadeley commented on the importance of mediation services to his court and the community. He said they handle about 1,200 cases per year. Erik Kropp introduced representatives of Cascade Mediation and Central Oregon Mediation. He stated that some departments pay for these services, but the courts use this the most. The service agreement was consolidated some years ago, so there is a total amount of compensation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 3 of 12 Pages Representatives of Cascade Mediation have indicated they are interested in working for the County. The question that has been raised is whether to continue the relationship with Central Oregon Mediation as-is, or do an RFP and open it up to other providers. It is possible the cost could change, others may come along at a future time and want to be considered, and Central Oregon Mediation also provides low or no cost services to the community, since 1997. If they did not have the contract, this could jeopardize their ability to operate or offer the low cost or no cost services. They also receive grant funds. Judith Ure said she is not involved with those funds, only those that go to nonprofits. Judge Fadeley said that mediation is very important in keeping the courts from being more pressured than they already are. Many small claims are handled. this way. Dick Eisman, who operates Cascade Mediation but who was a volunteer for Central Oregon Mediation for years in addition to his private practice, said that Justice Court charges $300 per case. In his view, this is a lot more than they need to. Most, but not all, mediators will do a good job. He stated that there is little work involved other than an e-mail going out to the mediators to set up the meetings, and perhaps a phone call. There is a way to do it for less than $300 per case. His company would do these cases for less, and he suggested other cases be referred to private mediation services. Judith Ure stated that at one point Central Oregon Mediation was converted from a service provider to a contractor. The $30,000 is not based on actual caseload. Mr. Eisman said that if the County wants to, they could pay actual costs to his company for court mediation and donate the remainder of the $300 per case to Central Oregon Mediation. Chair Baney reminded everyone that mediation is not a dedicated fund, and this is not a mandated service. At this time, the power was restored. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 4 of 12 Pages Jim Ruff of Central Oregon Mediation stated that this should not be viewed in terms of quality or how easy the work is. The bigger issue is that they cannot figure out how they arrived at the $300 per case. They do much more for the County than Justice Court. Most mediation can be done at little or no cost, but they also deal with family cases, divorce, youth issues, probate court, elder cases, nonprofits and the schools regarding conflict resolution, so it is a lot bigger than Justice Court. Most of these other cases are handled at no cost. In Redmond, they worked with the County and the Fair Board regarding various issues. They have worked with Redmond High School. In La Pine, it has been. road districts and homeowners associations. They have helped with Sunriver zoning issues, and Sisters Habitat for Humanity. They facilitate a lot of discussions at little or no cost that take a lot of time. Just looking at $300 per case for Justice Court misses the bigger picture. This misses the bigger picture of how much they do for citizens here. Another big issue they are assisting with is the OSU Cascades campus, facilitating and hosting big meetings involving all parties. They are making a lot of progress at a normal cost to all. They also teach required continuing education to anyone who is going to handle mediation. Commissioner DeBone asked who the volunteer mediators are. Mr. Ruff stated that they are people just like any others. Some like to help people come to agreement. They come from all walks of life. (About ten people in the audience indicated they are volunteer mediators.) Mr. Ruff added that they do a lot, continually train, and have partnered with the County for a long time. If all that matters is the $30,000, it will have a negative impact not only on Justice Court whose workload is growing, but other things. The County is growing as well. They need a big, experienced organization to fill that need. Mr. Ruff noted that some of the volunteers are also private mediators. It is difficult to handle only Justice Court cases and make a living. Some handle bigger issues involving sewer, water and other types of cases, in addition to volunteering with Central Oregon Mediation. It is their way to serve the community. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 5 of 12 Pages Chair Baney said that in her view, nothing is broken. They just were questioned on something that had not come up before. They contracted for this amount at the time for good reasons. She does not think anything has gone awry. She now has a better understanding of the complexities. Government needs to be transparent. Any adjustments will not happen at this time. The budget process was completed in June. The next conversation might be whether to structure an RFP process, but she does not want to pursue this now. Commissioner DeBone stated that he wanted to understand the details. He feels there is great service being provided. They can perhaps talk about this at a future work session. He is not ready to change anything at this time. Commissioner Unger said this has been a good discussion regarding partners and funding. These services are need. As a service partner, he wants them to stay whole and function well. It is either that or going to the private sector. He feels it is being done well now and he is happy with the way things are. The $30,000 adds certainty and helps to cover the various aspects. He realizes that the County has to justify what it is paying for. Judith Ure noted that this amount comes out of the general fund, so it was not highly discussed under lottery funds. There is no pressure on the video lottery fund for these services at this time. Commissioner Unger stated that they have expectations of justice court and they have to be realistic. Perhaps the Justice Court has greater needs than this, too. he needs to understand the balance and whether there is even more need for mediation services. Chair Baney suggested they talk about this further in January, with Judge Fadeley's involvement. Mr. Ruff said that they mediate downtown, and schedule for Justice Court and Circuit Court. They also handle the foreclosure avoidance program and probate, and in one month alone, volunteer mediators handled from 72 to 75 cases by volunteer mediators. If they did not do quality work, the judges would not want them there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 6 of 12 Pages 4. Discussion of Document No. 2014-482, the Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. John Griley said they held the hearing on this on. August 27, as there was some public interest. Written testimony was left open for seven days. In total, they received seven comments in writing. Today is for a status update, to go over comments received, and seek director on next steps. He envisions incorporating some language, and either go over it again or set a date for deliberations. Chair Baney said no future work session is needed; the business meeting should be enough. Mr. Griley broke down what is part of policy and what are procedures to implement. One policy issue was to limit permit possibilities if the property is already under a Code violation. He referred to a handout, and said there are potentially others if the Board has concerns. They are making one recommendation as well, regarding the notification of complaining parties. Chair Baney stated there were some side conversations, so perhaps there was some clarification after testimony was taken. Commissoner Unger added that there might have been a misunderstanding that has since been cleared up. Mr. Griley said that most was related to legalities, with the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. This was discussed with Counsel, who advised that it would have to be adjudicated before permits might be restricted. Then they could pursue it further. Mr. Lelack stated that there was confusion on this, as a notice of violation should not prohibit permitting for other things; the party would have to be found guilty first. Laurie Craghead added that it could be incorporated into a land use decision, as a condition to be calrified by the applicant. For example, filing a conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling and wanting to add an accessory dwelling, they would have to fulfill the first. therefore, the County can ask for them to clarify and justify. This is one route. There could be a finding during the land use process that can then be appealed. However, all of this could be cumbersome. Chair Baney said that she prefers that it is either adjudicated or not. The other is a long path with too many potential issues. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 7 of 12 Pages Mr. Craghead stated that this is kind of what happened with the Kuhn case when the Dowells wanted a building permit. The Board found the homeowners' agreement needed to be in place. LUBA remanded because they wanted a finding on the lawful establishment of the building. Chair Baney said they would be hard pressed to end up with another case like that one. She wants to have a broader view. Ms. Craghead noted that to alter an already established use, the underlying use needs to be lawful for the additional one to be issued. Mr. Lelack said that they could craft a text amendment to cover the basics. This is in the work plan, but may not have to be in the Policies and Procedures Manual, until the text amendment is actually in place. Mr. Anderson and Commissioner Unger agreed. Ms. Craghead clarified that it would have to a related modification to avoid permitting. If it is a different use and it is not related, can be permitted. Lori Furlong added that septic systems and other factors are already exceptions. This addresses a small number of cases, and doing a text amendment and the staff time needed seems excessive for just this. Chair Baney noted that there seems to be a significant disregard for the law at that point. The cases are few but they can have a big impact. Mr. Lelack said it does not need to be in the Manual, and is already on the work plan. He does not want to hold up the manual for this. The Commissioners agreed to take this portion out for now. Regarding Policy, Mr. Griley revisited the matrix and reviewed the parts regarding the complaint process, and whether a complaint can be anonymous, etc. Commissioner Unger stated that he feels it works well the way it is. They got sidetracked with other issues at the time. Commissioner DeBone said he is also supportive of the manual and the process, and the system flows well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 8 of 12 Pages Chair Baney asked about the right to farm laws. Mr. Griley replied that they always consider the implication of this protected right when they get cases or hear nuisance complaints. It there is a nuisance violation, this Act says that the County would pay costs if it did not prevail. They know it is guided by statute and does not have to be in the manual. Chair Baney noted that many believe the use of brewery and grain waste will be seen more. It might make sense to reference right to farm issues to staff; but leave it out of the manual. It could be too hard for staff to make that determination at the time. Commissioner DeBone said he does not want to see a frustrated neighbor use this to go after someone. Mr. Lelack added that right to farm is a whole different section of law. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this is a manual and not code. It is policy guidance and does not trump code. Mr. Griley stated that CC&R's are another big issue. They have to be consistent. The manual says that the County does not enforce CC&R's because they can be more restrictive than code. Ms. Craghead added that they are a private contract and not County law. There are certain times with destination resorts where they have to be in place, but the County does not enforce them. People have to deal with their own association or the courts. Mr. Griley stated that the notice of complaining parties procedure will be enhanced regarding the status of the complaint. People will be notified after the initial investigation and at the conclusion. They will provide reasons for why they are or aren't going forward. Ms. Furlong said that there are some concerns regarding staff time. They need to gauge what it takes. Mr. Lelack noted that one individual complained about not getting a response after a clam was filed, but there was an application regarding the same issue shortly thereafter, and that person was very involved in the case for months afterwards. Mr. Griley said that they have rankings on violations, with health and safety being first, with issues along rivers, building code and solid waste after that. Last is zoning violations. They look at all complaints, but some are not suited for them to deal with. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 9 of 12 Pages Mr. Griley pointed out that the time to resolve cases was raised as an issue. The other is the use of discretion. There are a lot of uses of the word, `may'. Commissioner Unger feels they need to have some discretion. Commissioner DeBone added that they will close eventually, and they need flexibility and a well thought out resolution. Commissioner DeBone said this all needs to be put into perspective. Commissioners Baney and Unger stated they like how it is handled now. They are ready to move forward. Mr. Lelack said they have worked with County Counsel and the Sheriff's Office, who were a lot of help. Ms. Craghead added that it was a big effort, and Mr. Griley did a lot of work and coordinated it with all parties. 5. Discussion of Ordinance No. 2014-026, Corrections to the Zoning Map at the Bend Airport. Peter Russell introduced Gary Firestone, attorney; Gary Judd of Bend. Airport; and Damian Syrnky of the City of Bend. He gave a brief background on the issue, which is meant to correct two mapping errors from years ago. They are not adding any uses, and not allowing existing uses into other areas. In 1942 this was developed; an exception for agricultural lands was put into place in 1980, and since then digitized, but the zones were not clear. (He referred to a map.) The error remained and another one added in 2003 that should have been adopted differently. It is correct in code, but cannot be administered properly since the map was not also changed. They need to redo the zoning and reestablish the maps to be consistent. He asked that this be handled by emergency. No one has submitted an application but it needs to be fixed before then. The County already paid the City $5,000 for the City to make the changes at their end. This will go to the Planning Commission. Thus far there has been no input from the public. Some cases are in the pre-application process, so this needs to be corrected quickly. The Board indicated that it is appropriate to move forward. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 10 of 12 Pages 6. Other Items. The Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations, at 3:30 p.m., concluding at 3:55 p.m. Commissioner Unger stated that Judge Grasty has asked about the Sage Grouse, after receiving a memo from Gutowsky addressing this issue. Judge Grasty wants more information. Mr. Anderson said that this is an agenda item to be discussed with the Planning Commission on September 25. Commissioner Unger said they have not yet landed on what to do about agricultural lands. He wants to know next steps. Chair Baney replied that the meeting with the Planning Commission would be a work session with limited testimony. She also wonders about the hoped for outcome. Mr. Anderson said they cannot magically change EFU land. They are looking for direction on how to prioritize any changes. They are watching Jackson County to see how that goes. There are a lot of stakeholders involved. Chair Baney asked if the Board should seek the same opportunities as Jackson County. Mr. Anderson stated that they need provide direction on how far to take this. Commissioner DeBone noted that it is a big picture issue and may involve changes in State law. The community needs to be clear on what it wants. Mr. Andersons stated that another issue for discussion is how to proceed regarding endangered species. Regarding a joint meeting with Sisters on October 2, the only thing the Board said they could talk about at this point is the new clinic. Commissioner DeBone asked about the trail system there. Some people complain about the possibilities. Mr. Anderson said it is almost all outside the City on Forest Service lands. He added that most people are in favor of it, and the Forest Service has had a lot of meetings on the plan. The Board had no agenda items for the joint meeting with Sisters. Mr. Anderson said that they have received several surveys and will respond as appropriate. The Board said Mr. Anderson is free to handle them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 11 of 12 Pages Chair Baney brought up a possible employee survey. She suggested they wait a bit longer to send it out due to sensitivity regarding certain medical policies. Mr. Anderson said that they can do this in the spring. There will always be something, and it will never be a perfect time. Chair Baney likes the survey as is, but would like to wait a bit to send it out. Mr. Kropp said there is a new EBAC representative for the Deputy D.A. Association, Sarah Foreman. Chair Baney stated that Western Interstate Regional Conference indicated that Doug Brightenthal is the western representative from Jackson County. She suggested to him that the next conference be held in Central Oregon. A decision has not been made regarding the location, which would have about 400 attendees. She asked how to handle this. Mr. Anderson said the only thing that might work is the Riverhouse. It could be handed off to Visit Bend also. Mr. Anderson stated that Sunriver might be an option. Commissioner Unger said that perhaps they could figure out which facility wants it the most. It would not be for a year. Chair Baney will confirm that the group is serious about Central Oregon as a possible venue. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. DATED this Day of 7J-e-ph-nar-ell----) 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 11, 2APAA _ T7' Caney, Clt;ir r002&"---- Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: etAvt. Ut4-14A-- Alan Unger, Commissioner (5//k-- ' Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 24, 2014 Page 12 of 12 Pages •l'JT Q W , • ' 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, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 1. Discussion/Update with Bendbroadband--Representatives of Bendbroadband 2. Discussion and Update of Courthouse Funding Project —Susan Ross 3. Discussion of Document No. 2014-482, the Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual —Nick Lelack and John Griley 4. Discussion of Ordinance No. 2014-026, Corrections to the Zoning Map at the Bend Airport—Peter Russell 5. Discussion of Mediation Services for County Departments —Judith Ure and Erik Kropp 6. Other Items Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations 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;or other issues under ORS 192.660(2),executive session. 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 encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible,please call(541)388-6571,or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker(i4deschutes.org. A ,E) , 1 1)- • 1 ‘.3 , 1... —4 ■ "CI V .. 1 114 • .._ 1 — Cr E 1 ic, d.) li Z QF 1 -p - - — tr. _... N Ir. cu CNe N I 5. CO II NI .0 %Si 1 ivi (----- *• 1 -4- ly% A — I- --... , Ril 1 t> ‘■.)- r/' 1 r,.... 1 ........I., ci ..." 1 1 \.\\ r) • , A 0 .... 7 vs -E2 ._ ,,,,, ■N\, .-.. . a )44 2.2 ,..., .., f- , : I 0 --• st F r-1 1 --1- 7 7 . a \,--9 .--- . - .. i ti)I _4_ i NI I. o k, c ,.4. (1. cA w -.• -.i.„:.. —t- ,3 ' ,. .,-- \" bo a. qi ,t ..., __. --,- - %%Pet:3N ° ...) L.- z -1 i— II" A ..41 1 - 0 c.) k,) r r,) 1 ...› 0 7) ..... .....Z ., VI „, ,...0 --1.. gq I Z -• \--Y-- ----L .-1 kj 1 -'- '' a c.:14.: ......i ci..) ba ca a. -J ■ co � \ v S- a., ,, E �) v V r 4 r I il 'J DJ Q .] r^` 1 I I 111, a 111 .I) s — 1 1 NI r �/ 1 Cr) I - - T 1 T_. km 1 41 r G1 I 1 I I 1 V j' V'1 \ s t 11 I C W �'.. - b0 `� k y 5 < c t �„ 1 '...s.""...,-)t .. _,,sN'...-)-,-._"---- cl U .. �! �v a L rteJ' 1 1 � bv0 C a1 I C vim, C E CD (— `�- �! co r O O ti p■ -_c \\ V v<IT ■v% Q r,. 1 1 J �.,.� d G iiiilli Community Development Department 1 Planning Division Budding Safety Division Environmental Sods Division f ? , a s rs .k/txa � \ .4,; ,CWp:.— . J +,,,•,• e,re., .i M'✓, C“ a 4,A 'C H.^F.> , a ..E. lk° 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM Date: 09/24/2014 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Code Enforcement Staff—John Griley, Tim Grundeman; Lori Furlong-Supervisor RE: Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update Summary The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing on a draft update to the Deschutes County Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) on August 27, 2014. The purpose of the public hearing was to provide an opportunity for public comments and BOCC consideration of a draft Manual update, including long- standing Code Enforcement program policies. The Board closed the record for oral testimony at the conclusion of the hearing. The written record was left open for a period of seven days until Wednesday, September 3, 2014. The purpose of this work session agenda item is for the BOCC to discuss the draft Manual update, consider public comments, and provide direction to staff on next steps. Background The Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) Code Enforcement Program operates according to established policies and procedures. The current Manual was developed in the mid 1990s, adopted in 1996, and amended in 1997. The manual had not been formally reviewed or amended since 1997. For the past few years, the CDD Work Plan has included an action item to update the Manual "to reflect current practices," remove outdated sections, and review/discuss long-standing program policies. In coordination with the Board, CDD staff initiated the review in 2012. Staff subsequently coordinated with Assistant Legal Council and the Sheriffs Office and prepared a draft Manual update for public hearing. At the hearing CDD staff provided a general overview of the procedures manual review process, provided information related to program operations and objectives, and presented a decision matrix for BOCC consideration of long standing polices with respect to complaints, compliance and penalty. Quality Services Performed with Pride Staff also introduced into the record, one public comment which it had received prior to the hearing. At hearing the BOCC heard testimony from eight private individuals or entities. A summary of this testimony is provided in the attachment. Six public written comments were also submitted prior to the closing of the written record. Issues Identified Based on the record before the BOCC, predominate concern with the draft manual update appears to be a long standing procedures manual policy calling for the limitation or prohibition of permits or approvals on properties with an uncorrected code violation. Staff informed in the hearing that the policy had never been implemented, and recommended BOCC consider whether to retain or remove the provision from the Manual. During the hearing five parties testified calling for retention and implementation of the policy. Three parties spoke against retention and implementation. By the closing of the written record, the County received two additional comments over the policy--one in support, and one against. Other issues identified from oral and written testimony include: • Notice to complaining parties regarding the status of their complaint; • Concern over the amount of time it takes to resolve a code enforcement case; • Concern over priority ranking of violations in the manual (specifically, the lower priority indicated for zoning violations); • Concern over enforcement discretion afforded in the Manual; • Concern over code enforcement on properties/uses protected under the State Right to Farm Act; and • The Manual policy pertaining to CCRs (non-enforcement). Discussion / Staff Recommendation(s) / BOCC Direction: Procedures In work sessions to date, Code Enforcement staff has discussed with the board many of the other issues identified from public testimony. Some of these issues pertain to long standing policies regarding compliance, and are a focus in this Manual review. Other issues identified in the hearing, such as Code Enforcement consideration of the State Right to Farm Act, and enforcement of CCRs, are guided by statute. Based on public comments, staff recommends the following procedural change: • Incorporate text into the manual to include a procedure requiring the notification of complaining parties upon conclusion of complaint investigation and upon conclusion of a Code Enforcement case. This amendment will promote balanced communications in all investigations. Discussion/ BOCC Direction: Policies The primary policy issue raised at the hearing is whether or not to retain and implement a policy to restrict permits or approvals on a property with code violations. The most salient consideration from the hearing is the legality of implementation. Staff has confirmed in consultation with the County Legal Department that the County would need to adjudicate a complaint before restricting development permits. Many jurisdictions have code provisions to serve as a guide or model to implement this policy. In addition, CDD's 2014-15 Work Plan includes the following action item: "Consider initiating a text amendment to prohibit the issuance of land use and building permits if a property has a pending code violation or is in violation with conditions of approval from a prior land use decision." Staff seeks BOCC direction on which of the following options to pursue given the current Manual policy, public comments, and CDD Work Plan regarding this issue 1. Maintain this policy in the Manual update, and direct staff to initiate a text amendment to implement this policy. (Note: The process to draft the text amendment would include staff meetings with proponents and opponents, and work sessions with the BOCC and Planning Commission prior to formally initiating the text amendment). 2. Remove this policy from the Manual, and direct staff to initiate a text amendment to implement this policy per Option 1. above. 3. Remove this policy from the Manual, and do not initiate a text amendment. 4. Other. In addition to the policy discussed above, Staff also seeks BOCC direction on whether or not changes should be made to the existing complaint policy, compliance policy and penalty policy (summarized on the matrix included in the BOCC's public hearing packet). The BOCC options are the following: 1. Maintain all existing policies. 2. Revise some or all of these policies. Staff seeks direction on which policies should be revised and the changes to be made. BOCC Direction Staff seeks BOCC direction on next steps: 1. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to scheduling deliberations. 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule deliberations at a regular Business meeting. 3. Other. August 27,2014 CE Policy and Procedures Manual Hearing-Testimony Summary Steven Hultburg—Questioned the establishment of a violation when considering policy of limiting development land use permits.Suggests that complaints may not be founded or that County may not have proven that owner is in violation and believes policy violates State Law. Regarding the issuance of land use decisions, believes this to be even more problematic because State Law guides process on decisions. Merry Ann Moore—Supports policy of requiring resolution of CE case before owner can get a new development permit.Would like to see inclusion of a statement in County Code that violations run with land,even if owner changes the name of ownership or property is sold,and that violations must be resolved before any new permits are issued.Wants to point out that in County research of other jurisdictions,8/11 do have a policy for restriction, 1/11 is undecided, 1/11 has a hybrid policy,and only one allows a permit on a property,so long as it is unrelated. Urges County to have language on restriction of development permits,and suggested Multnomah County's policy is optimal. Moey Newbold (Central Oregon Landwatch)—Testified that it is appropriate to require land owners to be in compliance with code before new development permits are issued. Andy High (COBA)—Emphasized that his understanding on the policy to restrict permits and approvals on properties with code violations is that the County would ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty. Understands that there are few instances that meet this criteria. Encourages the Board to remove the policy from the manual. Paul Lipscomb—Supportive of Voluntary Compliance, but believes County needs a stick in enforcement. Suggests language from Marion and Multnomah Counties should be considered in implementation of policy on restriction of development permits. William Kuhn—Supportive of text in manual regarding restrictions on development permits. Regarding timelines, believes they are excess in his experience. Bill Robe(Central Oregon Association of Realtor)—Believes this(restriction on development permits)an extreme tool for a problem that does not exist. Believes County has admirable record. Recommends removal of provision from manual. Nunsie Gould—Testified that she submitted a complaint in May of 2013,though was never contacted about County investigation of the complaint. Regarding whether to retain policy on restriction of permits/approvals with code violations, is supportive and would like to see a text amendment for implementation. Believes consideration should extend also to other properties owned by violator. Is concerned over prioritization of land use violation complaints. Does not believe they should be tiered below other violations. Is concerned over verbiage on reasonable time frames(e.g.what is reasonable?). Believes the County needs to tighten up the Code Enforcement program and procedures. Believes there are negative trends in the effectiveness of the program. Believes program scope needs to extend to County Risk Management issued event permits. CE Policy and Procedures Manual Hearing—Written Record From:Matt Cyrus[rgaittg:Jvlattt asnenlakes.com1 Sent:Saturday,May 24,2014 12:59 PM To:Nick Lelack Cc:Matt Cyrus Subject:Public comment on Code Enforcement Manual To: Nick Lelack,Community Development Director From: Matt Cyrus,President of Deschutes County Farm Bureau Re: Comments on Draft Code Enforcement Manual I respectfully request that the new Code Enforcement Manual include provisions from DCC 19.12(Right to Farm), especially with regard to DCC 19.12.130 and 19.12.140. _ I From:Merry Ann Moore[mailto:menvannmooreDgmail.comj Sent:Wednesday,August 27,2014 8:37 AM To:Tammy Raney;Tony DeBone;Alan Unger Cc:Nick Lelack;Peter Gutowsky;Planning Commission Subject:Comments on county code enforcement policy revisions Please consider my comments on the revision of the county code enforcement manual for today's hearing,and submit them for inclusion in the public record. Thank you,Merry Ann Moore Merry Ann Moore Moore Creative EDLWE.L rp Lein 541.549.2468 merrvannmoore@vail.com Twitter®MerryAnnMoore Linkedin'http://www.IMkedjn.coin/in/merrvannmoore/ August 27,2014 Dear Board of County Commissioners, I urge the County to formalize its longstanding policy obliging property owners to comply with county code BEFORE they can get a new development permit on the land in question. - The county often requires developers to comply with certain preconditions before they get a permit. The issue before you is,if the developer doesn't comply with these requirements,should the county look the other way when the developer asks to do something new with the property? Or should the county enforce these requirements, like retaining 65%open space in a cluster development in perpetuity or until the land is brought into an urban growth boundary? You now have a perfect example of this unfolding,the proposed Miller cluster development near Shevlin Park. The developers are proposing to preserve 75%of the land for the development as open space in perpetuity. These are very reputable businesspeople,but even so,what if,in ten or 20 years,the developer comes on hard times? And there is a great deal of pressure to develop additional lucrative housing on this land? Or the county decides that the open space is the most logical place to do infill development? Clearly,building on this open space would violate the county's cluster development restrictions,which requires the developer to hold at least 65%of that land as open space. But without an enforcement mechanism that's formalized as part of county code,there's little resort but the legal system to prevent future policymakers _ . from allowing a reversal of the open space commitment. This is a very real scenario with a precedent. I also urge you to include a statement that a code complaint should run with the land. Even if the owner changes the name of the owning entity of the property,or the property is sold,a development that is in violation of county code must be brought into compliance before any new permits are issued. When the county does not enforce what is required when a new development is approved,you create conflict among neighbors,false property values,unfair advantages for developers who don't comply,and a cynical citizenry who is more strongly inclined to oppose projects for fear they won't turn out to be what we're told they'll be. It comes down to simple fairness and orderly rules for development:if something is required as a condition of development,then this requirement should be enforced. And compliance can be evaded unless this policy is put into the county code. It's important to note that your Planning Department's research shows that of 11 counties responding,eight have such a formal policy in code,one is undecided,one has a hybrid policy,and only one allows a new permit on property with a code violation so long as it's unrelated to the new request. Please add the language on restricting developmemits on properties with pending code violations to the county code. Please model nt this per language on Multnomah County, e riihat this policy applies to any permit approvals previously issued which by includes the countythp:ovson t iy* Ci -rOi .4,? p h' J' diY �f2 a 'f J�.}� ar(I f a z t �c. ��` � ,f 1 �:i � 5 l3JC.� �!>S CPy,r rill; C¢d�* ,Ia1J}1,! p - T '� . f ,, 7 -“ i '�vk tiJ_dlla. , y7 .� } -' het �a ; ;+ [ ..1.f 'rV< `ar k�e +a`',;7.Cz aP'•4JJ {' 7 [ ''1 f i it .l� t_;4 x)_21. �' 3 I�C�"i7-1 - . . 3r l,,' : r i hi,.yJL, - J! Z i i{� �°3 F .1 6 {. s p;� 'I; 1- o f ; ,- 5 s .1" � e�.,��.< ,� 'aa jsac �h Jy q 'l bJ�11 �1l c}:➢� hlp`4 F0 f ¢ d I• Thank you for considering my views, 4 '-f 44:T,'"11`,,i,,, ,11$7-(1,04...:„. - - Merry Ann Moore Hawksflight Dr. Sisters,OR 97759 } I 1 ■ 1 1 ■ John Griley From: BillRodgers<billOcascaderangeriders.org> Sent: Wednesday,September 03,2014 3:17 PM To: Tony DeBone;Tony DeBone;John Griley Subject: Proposed changes to the Code Enforcement Procedures Manual for Deschutes County. Iii Tony, I'd like to follow up on our conversation of last Saturday. I'm concerned that Deschutes County is considering retaining language restricting issuance of development permits on properties with pending code violations in it's code enforcement procedures manual. Years ago I was involved in the code enforcement business as a building official in Virginia.I'm still peripherally involved with code administration in my current job as Construction Compliance Manager for a local architectural manufacturer. I'm also certified by the International Code Council as a residential building inspector and by the state of Oregon as a Oregon Certified Inspector. My concern with the retention and/or implementation of language that would link one project to another is two fold.: Fairness:Just because a property owner has been cited for a violation does not mean that he or she is guilty of that violation.Every citizen deserves their day in court.If the language were to be modified to the extent that it was clear that there would be no sanctions unless the County had charged the property owner with a violation and obtained a verdict of guilty by a local court,I would be less concerned.Even then,I would prefer that separate issues stayed separate. Liability:If Deschutes County were to implement such a rule the County might well be adjudged liable for damages if a property owner sued and could prove that the first violation was not valid and that the property owner had suffered a loss as a result of the denial or delay of the second permit. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns. Sincerely Bill Rodgers 1407 NE 9th St. Bend.OR 97701 From:Nunzie[mailto:nunzieOuacifier.com] Sent:Thursday,August 28,2014 12:19 PM To:Tammy Baney;Nick Lelack Subject:code enforcement policy/procedures manual Hello Commissioner Baney&Nick Lelack: At best the complainant assurance now in the draft code is only one listed on Page 10 VIII: The draft policy/manual provides for and allows complete sidestep action by the County of a complaint by any one of these means: lack of resources,staff and/or funding,too busy schedule,other prioritization,no political will,no specified timeline,poor attempt... Furthermore:Land Use is given the least priority of the 4 cases... what does"shall attempt to investigate"mean?, The County shall investigate?or for whatever reasons the county's attempt to investigate actually precludes an actual investigation? "...some code violations may receive no attention at all" Page 7 VII.Initiation of code enforcement A.1...."To be investigated,a citizen complaint must contain all information required on the complaint form." The most telling use of the 85'may'words is on the last page of the draft: I have learned that where the word may is used,to fully understanding the meaning of may,one must also assume that 'may not"could occur... May does not mean will or shall or must. _ I think at the very least: 1.the draft policy Mission must include risk management permits 2.the County must investigate each complaint. (Even if it arrives at decision that there is no violation.) 3.the county must keep in written contact with the complainant identifying the steps of its investigation and/or action toward compliance 4.the Item I needs to remain in the manual:with some text revision page 19-20 item I: It is the County's policy... not to(issue permits or approvals)deem an application for a permit complete in the event the applicant,owner or land has a NOV pending in Deschutes County...t, p g� ty...continue with approvals,nor to renew...etc the term development usually refers only to building:I think this section must specify land use, development/building,risk management,and environmental health:otherwise it could be interpreted to only apply to a building permit... this section must relate to the owner as well as to the land "uncorrected code violations"would appear there need to be plural code violations,this must apply even if there is only 1 code violation Using the word should is not the same as using the word must:The restriction must continue until such violation(s)is/are corrected. Since many events now are held in agricultural buildings or related to agritourism,I frankly don't see the need for ag building permit exceptions in item I 2. I understand the right to farm...but in the context of this manual:I don't think exempting ag from code enforcement is appropriate In addition: 5.The County must send written notice to the complainant either of there being no violation,or with the specific resolution. I think it is important to follow the Shepard-case as an example of how far a land use violator is going... Having filed a code complaint before,I don't feel that folks file complaints frivolously:in my case violations began 2 years prior to my filing a complaint and I think this is referenced in your manual on page 6 I would venture to say that violations have occurred for several years prior to a complaint or in the case of land use:problematic issues arise thru sloppy code implementation...weddings/noise ordinance for instance,OMG versus commercial events etc Whilst I recognize that the policy/manual is framed for the benefit of the County,I find little assurance by this County draft for the complainant and especially for a land use type violation other than the stick. In the recent past,the state and county have expanded land uses in Deschutes County to include events,resorts, weddings,OMG,agritourism;Deschutes County is just beginning to see these become permitted... I think it is only fair to the public that the County investigate and cause compliance with it's own County Code. Thanks for your attention to and incorporation of these issues. my email is always open, Nunzie Gould 2 l I John Griley ii From: Nick Lelack Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2014 2:42 PM To: John Griley Subject: Fwd:testimony re code violation handbook Attachments: 20140827 Pending Code Violations.pdf;ATf00001.htm Nick Lelack,AICP Deschutes County Community Development Director 541-639-5585 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: William Kuhn<william@riskfactor.com> Date: September 3,2014 at 12:57:46 PM PDT To:Nick Lelack<Nick.Lelack @deschutes.org> Subject: testimony re code violation handbook Hi Nick, Please include the attached as part of the code violation handbook testimony. Thank you, Bill William Kuhn INVEST/O - Registered Investment Advisors PO Box 5996 Bend, OR 97708-5996 541 389 3676 William @RiskFactor_com "First, they ignore you, Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Mahatma Gandhi -a A ro C a ? r1 °' ' a CU c w a 1 to - r c `` nw+ o : d d t7 W o �g Ong s. E. E '' S 4.; - a rw a � Q g gt A a fir to -1:3 !v..'4.: 8. g ri E... . 3- ea- a " .it C < -2, 0 >a ="4. 2 to."4" lint-5 LS. rt V 4. 1 U. 0 a m 94,,i": . �° aEgRo. o �r . a :ro- 0. 1a ft, Q CD � t4 .' _ 7 0 ' =±,r� -a a it 04 C ti O 0 .o e. m .4 cu 4.„0� b tu p .. zQS °. F &, ni, 4 dew 8 r a it °' ,Z-.' 0081 :„.10 ro 4 w - . - gt a- 1 R. - u ..• 1 ” - - ..-, �4 .g. -c W IL:4 as r,A g, ei. ,i- re , 4 at 1 . t ' w 9 g - - ° ,'7 k�. m: m n .° .m fir• N g. co m „ t 0 fa g M.. 1 i a&E -' .. iv a.ro a I 0, v 5 a c� A 54 a s m 0, a -, a " 0 r" E ° VI C I -a 8 7. m mn u a 0 &' a I 1 1 •i 1 1 1 1 1 O. g O , 0 0 2gt, %.0A g5y ► w -mow ! 1" a 9., ?' m ;. 8 ri ;of waw O9, s & 3 Ro of s ~ � y, fil c w w O co co ro qo m nai '�ID `^ �2 f°1 C R 4, G m b; t. m g D O.4 r3A ;'A �' w e p Q H m fp 7 .q n D 0 . " z fl.ir-0 -pn a "�'' P. 5 s N p 'h a p fix. n 9 D I us c m ,+ O n n: * a *. * .d 1. &i O rA xx 9' U) 1 T p "ry . O c a) D N a g 4 ea p fe y C. •C fb Q -may of i ro v CJ !^ a w+ a a Zr; N `c far w - o _ c '0 0 -1 3 rda '� P v m a d cii 1 1 cr q ..ry u1 Oaa O .n p N 0. CI. p + ..y i.S r a C' 3 of 2. N A g w p' trop +t! W c R. 0 .+C O E. -, ..0 a 1;D3 n D. .", d m 5r °c g w. R „ 9 tax " -n*0 m m Q b a, a +!, a f1 A �. m a ro ww = o O. •v, a a ,@a. ro 5,2 035 an 0 g oa 0 ") j '� v on a. V0 a — a n a TD m R o" c io co o = C D d H -o ro a, .' ., 0 0 a C,' %A 2 0. n- 1 I rr�� A 0 j N dOm 'v !'7 m 5 m p m t _' pr. gip C. S? Q,.: t ! m w •fi+ „A, K9'7-4 0 j #,.:103,4-. -:P 0. aC 0 •^ ,:• ur 5. , 4 p0 .4 4 ro ut' }gy� .,,� by ,� �, � ti i �D f+�p � ff �' ;11 r� .•s 4.'A E,5.• 3:.� • :i.4.•-s;.40 u+ '"e..� N�Cp k C 11 tl fal a. �, wt'. .0,.12.-17- W�'��np N p� ..'1p� IT .. ; d 'Y , �" m " w C6. y .'Li' . :.v - ,-, a. 0 _ , . ro e a N rte di• i II ^�S. Yp eV7 •..l:. Q p $ fir. c. a .° s a' "F 1.it ' d c r 41.0-. D 5 '• :.0 0•• , .‘-:, . t -e- B -‹. si-.E, s icka !t, - 9 ,E tO. ..q: a N 7, 2u # sd a . 5 2p e• pro^ o ..5.. v Lp + DI: I:a' a ..-... 0 N. P-, E..1.g. .6 0 ow t' a I[ .� ..IC A _ n i .�. 'r 1��fl, 1-+ r_6 °. iR IP.• A M" 1 ., I I I I Iw 0 >ZT .z a yD m on Loi N N - 2 a 4.71 40 tai:.%,.- a754- 1344g..9.ro E �., ro m !°`D 'e. . 2. ro. �p ‹' UD 1.-9 i Y.iA 14 C. "' IB ro o , t t „2, S3O -' ' V. ms e n X O a R liCI 10, a a a m C7 ro a ., ti. 7 S n .° '� ti, •�' P. `µ b fT ro ^+• j'5. a w N p.,., . 4 Cy % o N y !o K .. tm. ” Wp n1 i Ggi .17 c S-i. 'Np 2 P q�i a .tag 3 (a M ,g q iv d O. q * -, p 5- - V, ro. p . ` rn M ° R x a 4 `� ° ^ asap d' a �.a- � "" ro 0 4 m kb a `� tti Q a ti t °• °,°� ate. a b � i. 1 � " $U IHI ' 1 0 T fd "• `" cvtrx o1 . g ff a' W ° 1 g m s •� yr a Ida d o =fl, w a;2 2 ro n ' �x ° - •. DO C tit N K W =A +i d a A W o 1'0 `+ ro . ta. a. W' ro R 4 O H ff0w0 Rio ro ' ,�* S r Pi Ii"i CV u�i 4 I�iD N g ■ i i 1 John Griley From: Bonnie Baker Sent: Friday,September 05,2014 10:42 AM To: John Griley Subject: FW: FYI. For the file. From:picottes0dol.con2[mailto:Dicgttes @aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,September 02, 2014 1:49 AM To: Board Subject: August 31,2014 County Commissioners, My concerns with the building department involve code enforcement and land use. People who are not in compliance with building department codes and rules should be informed so, given a reasonable amount of time to comply, and then be fined for each day they are not in compliance. People applying for permits should be in compliance of land use rules including CCR's. Upon applying for a permit,paperwork should include a CCR affidavit. Applicants not conformin g to the rules should not be issued permits, or should have permits revoked. My version of an example of an affidavit is below: CCR AFFIDAVIT Check Boxes that apply: There are no CCR's that apply to this permit Work involved in this permit does not violate CCR's for this property. A variance has been granted for the work involved under this permit which does not comply with local CCR's. Documentation of variance by HOA is provided. i Signature: Date: Thank you for your consideration of these matters, Joe Picotte • PO Box 571, La Pine, OR 97739-0571 (541-554-8705- i 2 W -1 Community Development Department 0 .< Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division Mgr-436■1 ., ,. 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 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Date: Sept. 24, 2014 Re: Rezoning at Bend Airport to re-establish Airfield Operations(AO), Aviation Support (AS), and Airport Related Industrial District(ARID) zones (File 247-14-000156-ZC) Background The Bend Airport is owned by the City of Bend, but sits on land zoned and administered by the County. During preparation in March for a City of Bend open house on future helicopter operations, City and County staff discovered several zoning errors. First, 16 acres on the northeast edge of the Airport and the intended site of the proposed helicopter operations is incorrectly shown as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), when in fact the land is zoned Airport Development (A-D). Second, in 2003 the City applied to the County to adopt the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan, but the maps for the AO, AS, and ARID subzones were not adopted due to a procedural defect. The result is no aviation uses can now be approved at the Bend Airport. The City has applied in File 247-14-000156-ZC to correct these errors. Planning Commission Summary Staff held a work session with the Planning Commission (PC) on Aug. 14, 2014, and the PC was concerned about how the zoning miscue might adversely affect businesses approved at the Bend Airport between 2003 and now. The uses would be considered legally established non- conforming land uses. A second question was for a reiteration about the boundaries of the A-D zone. The boundaries of the A-D zone were established in 1980 by Ord. 80-222 and described in that ordinance as"Tax Lots 200 and 300 of Section 20, Township 17 South, Range 13 East" and "Tax Lot 200 of Section 17, Township 17 South, Range 13 East." On Aug. 28, the PC held a public hearing, closed the record, and decided by a 7-0 vote to recommend to the Board that File 247-14-000156 be approved as submitted. EFU or A-D? The City of Bend Airport has existed since 1942. When County zoning was developed in the 1970s, the lands were zoned EFU. Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Ordinance 80-221 created the A-D zone and Ordinance 80-222 gave a written description of the A-D lands that received a Goal 3(Agriculture)exception from the Department of Land Conservation and Quality Services Performed with Pride Development (DLCD). The described areas also appeared on maps that were exhibits to Ord. 80-222. BOCC Ord. 82-031 adopted the A-D zoning map for the 340 acres at the Bend Airport. In the mid-1990s a third-party vendor digitized the County's paper zoning maps and inadvertently made a scrivener's error, incorrectly listingl6 acres on the northeast edge of the Bend Airport as EFU instead of A-D. This error was not discovered in either the 1994 or 2002 updates of the Bend Airport Master Plan. The error was incorporated into the County's GIS database for zoning. 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan Update The City updated the 1979 plan in 1994, but did not formally apply to the County for adoption. 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan Update The City updated the 1994 Bend Airport Master Plan in 2002 and applied to the County for formal adoption. The 2002 BAMP reports no changes in local land use or airport zoning had occurred since the 1994 BAMP, although State guideline regarding incompatible land uses adjacent to airports had been completed since the 1994 BAMP. The 2002 BAMP contains the 1994 BAMP as an appendix and the County used these to guide land use decisions. In the inventory of existing lands on Page 12 the 2002 BAMP does state: "However, during a review of existing zoning for this project, it was discovered that a small area near the northeast corner of the airport is zoned Exclusive Farm Use(EFU) rather than Airport Development(AD). County planning staff indicated this was most likely an oversight, which may have been created a mapping error at some earlier point. The City will pursue re-zoning the small area from EFU to AD at some time in the future. Aviation- related uses are permitted outright in the AD zone. Conditionally permitted uses include light and general industrial uses. Fifteen acres of airport property south of Nelson Road and 80 acres of airport property north of the runway, both used as Runway Protection Zones, are zoned EFU." (Emphasis added) The figure labeled "Preferred Development Alternative" shows the problematic parcel on the NE side of the airport as labeled EFU. On Page 80 of the 2002 BAMP the plan again summarizes the airport's zoning as"...the majority of the airport is zoned Airport Development(A-D)with areas of exclusive farm use (sic) (EFU) located at the north and south ends of the airport." 2012 Bend Airport Master Plan One aspect of the 2012 update is the rise of rotary wing, aka helicopter, operations at the Bend Airport. The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in the 2012 update depicts helicopter operations on the 16 acres on the northeast side of the current runway. Initially, staff thought the land was zoned EFU, however after extensive research County staff agrees with City staff that land is in fact zoned A-D. EFU or A-D conclusion The language in both the 1994 and 2002 Bend Airport Master Plans is incorrect; the entire 340 acres of the Bend Airport are zoned A-D and have been since 1980. The current land use application corrects the EFU error. At a later date, the City will apply to the County to formally adopt the 2012 update in a subsequent land use action, which will require public hearings before the PC and Board. 2 AO, AS, and ARID subzones The City applied to the County to adopt the 2002 updated Bend Airport Master Plan, which added the AO, AS, and ARID subzones to the A-D zone. BOCC Ord. 2003-035 adopted the 2002 Bend Airport Master Plan into the County's Comprehensive Plan. BOCC Ord. 2003-036 repealed and replaced DCC 18.76, adding the text for the three subzones into a new DCC 18.76 and mapping those subzones. The subzones' text appears at DCC 18.76.070 through 090. While the text was adopted correctly, the maps were not and the procedural defect of BOCC Ord. 2003-036 has had unintended consequences. Legally the maps for the AO, AS, and ARID subzones do not exist, which means the subzones cannot be administered. The upshot is the only zoning in effect at the Bend Airport is the A-D zone. Unfortunately, the text for A-D was changed drastically as part of BOCC Ord. 2003-036. Before Ord. 2003-036 the A-D zone read this way regarding core aviation uses: "18.76.020 Uses Permitted Outright A. Airport and non-structural uses such as fuel storage, tie-down areas, and parking facilities; B. Hangars, aircraft site, sale and repair facilities and related offices" That zoning language was then replaced by the language in Ord. 2003-036, which balkanized the A-D zone into three districts, apparently based on the concepts from the 1994 BAMP. The intent was to have the zoning districts' current and planned uses at the airport be in better synch in the amended DCC 18.76 (A-D zone). The A-D Purpose Statement at DCC 18.76.010 states "[T]he A-D Zone is composed of three separate zoning districts, each with its own set of allowed uses and distinct regulations, as further set forth in DCC 18.76." (Emphasis added). The three zones set forth in Ord. 2003-036 were Airfield Operations District(AOD) at DCC 18.76.070; Aviation Support District(ASD) at DCC 18.76.080; and Aviation-Related Industrial District(ARID)at 18.76.090. The ASD is the largest at 118 acres, AOD has 105 acres, and ARID has 35 acres. These three are the only zoning district in 18.76 that allow aviation or aviation-related uses. After Ord. 2003-036 the A-D zone reads this way: "18.76.0.30. Uses Permitted Outright A. Class I and I road or street projects... B. Class III road or street projects C. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems... D. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18" The only allowed conditional uses are farm accessory buildings, utility facilities necessary for public service, and selected excavation, grading, and fill and removal operations. No aviation or aviation-related uses are allowed; they were all shifted to the AOD, ARID, and ASD zones. AO, AS, and ARID conclusion The County has administered the AO, AS, and ARID subzones for a decade, believing the maps were adopted correctly and the zones were in full force and effect. The procedural error, where the maps were not adopted as separate exhibits, was discovered by City staff in March 2014 as part of the research on the EFU or AD question regarding the 16 acres on the northeast side of 3 the Bend Airport. File 247-14-000156ZC will simply re-establish the three subzones the County thought it had adopted in 2003. Next steps The Board will hold a public hearing and at its conclusion the Board will have several options: • Continue the hearing to a date certain • Close the oral record and leave the written record open to a date certain • Close the oral and written record and hold deliberations at a date certain • Close the oral and written record and hold deliberations immediately Staff would be happy to answer any questions. Attachments: Air photo comparing boundaries of 1980 and 2003 A-D zone Map of AO, AS, and ARID subzones 4 Airport Development Zoning 1982 vs. 2003 1"-750' ,,,s-.1..,'...T,r° 1, , on t + . Aayr?y$;x$i 4i. it + ."+{ ri kdP tip, Q y A 1982 Zoningrrr■ u, ° r y L : 1 1 c I'-'..• t i '•ugrS"v"p°i�6f1 u sw rjW• .yf 5."; .� + �q u�i S ,, '{ h I v6+ ` vh y p 4$� Ii `" ,y v . x IN+ kr e yPii w a i � ,;rwr W a trEa '., ! i t X s M,r■ •ti g' V a `, 'M. c � r nn ? l wrw �w?4:� (�k* ` e^'yA u1qd}W 9� :','.:,,l'''.41,'''.':4:1, '' rH.:t"{. y h' ''''4,',1.'.1, �t i r t u! Y 'q i 4. k ' 6 o Pl r, � d it', � ' a ,i,:„r $0(7'',.,s,,,,,,,.q� u V 9 03 Zoning , �,=;-, W.,4„11".:..., A! � 20 "2 1 T k#'4, q , k k T log 'a S � 9 , ^ i1 � F'' r rh„{a $ ,. 4• !1 »N t 1 d f TI M T f t .1 o 4 6' ° � - t ' 1,'y'" 'b.r + : ,t ' G Au fib .- t " .E t T 6"r r 6„';,..,k M ~ r f ��r o d 6 a,4 ., K- M s F 4 a i a t ,t t , r 1Tr L f y1� W1w 6 f"y a, ; ' r i 4 Pd> )?'' t ''''' M:N� d% > «f � . + 1 N , "+ " ! 1 t'; r K u tr ndy f ire,; „f t �� y ,is M Pk it, CTr3, C� CZyC�N[�rJ,u 'i�J' a ,/ `Sr; -'f n ,',. l o l(Kr�tn,,,�—, o C1�1 CJAT� 'ilk 1� =rt aXi Tii tr ff March 11„a 0114 �e.T jk 1.a hq.# d r X ht{Ca•!'+"; FS., �,ry'!1', 3 '.%I q S!} K M- dgl" P 1r-SX rlt:Xn;( 3 airr, t K X k K x�,,,t 1 4� _"� X nr ^ <>, fin' 1 a "w x� hknk (r Hk :. " + 1 100'Buffer :+a ales 1 . i a u "; 1 .� 1 ° P .`� y � iT 'Er°, "R 1a, r a ,w i i {�at1�, t r < h., p� �„ `1''f R .. 1 r 446'•4 k � t {�� 11 �.♦:`♦�♦♦. 1 i Mr xrTsikax * ti9 d !I ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� �� rgta as > ♦*♦♦♦♦♦♦♦` 1 ti.� t i �` �` 7Y' ',�T fit' `L ♦♦♦♦`+-' 3 : w ', r 1 q0 tl'; s �� r 3 x'45: I n ,X x�" �r fit �1" ,',1 �� r,,��a��� .� � �* rr r,, ''" r' i �a pond � 4�r .i v hew F } ,,�'`r*�,, 5,;:lip ,a ' rr' �''' a 1 ^� z �R ts �rrya ii, 1 '{f`. 9 M ! ,�y"., ,fib,:} at ,,, I 1 �, tr5r Deschutes County Planned Runway Existing Runway Bend Munici al Ai ort Parcels p Airport Development Zone (AD) -3O1alr Airport Development Zone Airport operations District(AOD) -105at - Deschutes Airport Districts ®Aviation Related Industrial District(ARID) -35 ac- County Adopted by Ordinance 2003-036 on November 5,2003 ARID Reserve Area-5 ac- rr: Etteceve Date:January 1,2004 Aviation Support District(ASD) -118 ac �+ :w:, ASD Reserve Area -38 ao- .,...�....". �w.o�.c..7.....-- County Zoning .ry....,.e:rw c.:n,..a. ..�w.�.�n w.,a................w..a rs w.Y•••--. ti...,......•,s•∎-∎—•.d.d+r n.r.+Mr u. aeoprephk infwmelion sYelam r.....w..�,e.r «..... .a.w..,...�a.oA.a EFUAL �___ EFUTRB ATTACHMENT D e" "P r w. no...mt. n.o ww.w..d w ,.�. MUA1O 1^-ear 2011 0 200 400 800 Feet FxnihitA \\± / +0G -9,ti TA h , „ z ._, \ z _., \ _M N M w ,w 4 . .......rikN \ , _BUTLER MKT:RD--I PEACOCK I N M ►u I-! I- M 7 DOUGLASLN m cc re a a z O N CO C9 a NELSON RD -!`�NELSON PL NELSON RD DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING AIRFIELD OPERATIONS DISTRICT , e AVIATION RELATED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT• / -AVIATION SUPPORT DISTRICT / EFU-ALFALFA SUBZON — - 01 7, BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT(BDN) EXHIBIT A FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY - - REVISED.March 2014 AERIAL IMAae.Hera.2013 .... NORTH Document Reproduces Poorly _' i. Airport D/evelopm�ent Zoning (Archived) ""�e >, i982 vs. 2003 1..=750 > . . } p 1982 Zoning ■ T" .,a R Aw r.a n ,( ` .7 t . .4. . I• :� . s.a 3•;h p$i 5 C ', z /t f a i n' V a e ^ fa ^r Ct�I..,.!�i'� r"`d�u�' " d r *,, UN ' E� ( N r a „P', r,.1::,� N k,'.' fi? ,>k, ''q�1 i^ " ` k i e y�tf" r dd;1 7r �4,y` h " ,, (r a 1 „ d u C w ,`.4'.-',4° ' ', ,,,.` , , P I re'' ',,,i'. k P� N ,\y u + N,� p r ,» g„.1 +fit u ng ' "� y 003 Zoni t fi an qy a y�' , 140,'F.,. l',''`'''"''''. i' 4 4� N � '' Y µ� qF @k1 'yy�,F, � r � 7',,,,,,',44„,W '� r � 11 i X � F t � i n: s a iYf i a V S n rM r �af l k f"" ! !"-`1a 6,r j �' F "A�14� V. ba t' �f' A l� n ' fF� �lry �� n' +a: ++S u M I M , ' I " /�d « , t 1, a I i Pr! rt�, r i e '" �SZ i ,,-a tt,'-1'S Pa1 �yr. i1 7�` a . 1 4�� ° t 1,$' 1`! +� 4' r g iI�,�g t k �" 1� I M1 f 1�,q�"� —roll C , rx 3O1 A P1 � �� « . t I L �L � G March 11 A� , 7 u�nl 4E.,,,,,, ,%7Py3 Ix33l�i�Xu,l j Li ,,4,i:Imo,Ic ?12:=11 f,ft x a7n111nT4� i I I� �\ ? J l'fi II I,r.. '.; t Md 6!;t"s iY M •Sy`SAY" N Y t l< All f M1X$ k P ""w FN�dd 4 „,,"4,. i Sy Ni�"7. 41 ;t 9w•.: ♦ u.KxX I a.KA,* I 1 , ....„.,:xy,c\,,,,,,, ,44. ,....ii ,, ,„ . ., 11;'!Iilli I 100 Buffer ! q ^a' I ���i ��, +�4 -.1:`,.-",!,''' 4�s r wl Nr � �n I j ' � *,cSttl''.7k, K: fay'� � vv'v1"7 " ^i? ik tr f rya 1 , . t a ��.�.. 1 x x / d X I ��# x y■ D " �q f v Er,,, M, ti ;v i T h 4.1•:‘,y i�K� Y i y $ �r^ I t xaP r f': * I` two r pond 'Px" a t " r tai M'� 5,i' r yy ! '4b dt }d .y4 Y af "�' }„ d �t 7�; t r'a e,9ci,� '.A, S r ' P '',,, ,y ''' ."'; ri 1 . 1 a -:„:„.'`,:5;,.!,,4,4",,, r` Y ' S! y „xr2 I nP r r x Y �r 1 III I �' .„ 9 a Iy h; ' w; P is Deschutes Count 7 tC1s:::33 Ri a ting Runway rt Y Existing Ruy Bend Munici al Ai rt Panels p Airport Development zone (AD) -3°1:c Airport Development Zone ®Airport operations District(AOD) -1oac- Deschutes Airport Districts [m Aviation Related Industrial District(ARD) -35 ac- County Adopted dy ordinance 2003.036 on Novon ber 5,xoat ARID Reserve Area-5 ac- Effective Date:January 1,2004 Aviation Support District(ASD) -119 ac- ASD Reserve Area -38 ao- 'a" `."°^7"^"-°� County zoning .r, 'w...b .,,...—w.. w r: .7d:°.. ,. EFUAL ceogrp�np iNOmvedon synem EFUTR$ ATTACHMENT D " w�,T._ ..,.,..---... .-o..,. .... .r,w MUAIO i.eons 200 0 200,,.,,..._„llo flllll Feel A IV), y N. Z cc W I- Lu Ufa \ -.-... BUTLER:MKT:RD-1 --.-- -- PEACOCK'LN' S W DOUGLASLN m 7 J W ct.. 4 x 0 w m o NELSON RD -- NELSON PL ......:...... NELSON RD I/ IH - DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING AIRFIELD OPERATIONS DISTRICT fs AVIATION RELATED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT_ ®AVIATION SUPPORT DISTRICT EFU-ALFALFA SUBZONE 1•71-4Z1, BEND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT(BDN) IN EXHIBITA FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY REVISED.March,2014 AERIAL IMAGE.March,2013 NORTH • v-cES ,e` a ow A Date: September 17,2014 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Erik Kropp,Deputy County Administrator Re: Mediation Services Background Staff has scheduled time at your September 24,2014 Work Session to discuss the County's use of mediation services.Various Deschutes County departments have historically procured community mediation services on occasion to help citizens resolve disagreements related to legal matters,land use activity,neighborhood nuisances, small claims and business issues, and other matters that can more efficiently and effectively be addressed outside the courtroom. In the past, each department budgeted funds individually for these services and paid for them either on a per- case fee basis or through unrestricted grants. Approximately three years ago,the County merged all of the funds budgeted countywide for mediation services into a single line item within the Department of Administrative Services' budget. The Board of Commissioners then established a Service Partner relationship with Central Oregon Mediation,the only non-profit community dispute resolution organization located within Deschutes County,to provide the services. Through this agreement,Central Oregon Mediation is currently paid$300 per case referred by a County department up to a total of$30,000 annually. Justice Court refers the majority of disputes to mediation. Of these, most are related to small claims court.At the request of Justice Court, Central Oregon Mediation has expanded its services provided to Justice Court. Discussion Recently,representatives of Cascades Mediation,a newly formed,for-profit entity,have approached the County to offer an alternative to the current arrangement. Listed below are relevant points to this discussion: • The current$300 per case fee paid by the County is based on a three-to four-year old estimate and a competitive process may result in a different rate. • As a non-profit organization,Central Oregon Mediation offers low-cost and free services to all residents,providing a community benefit beyond the County's caseload. Reduced funding may compromise the organization's ability to operate and reduce access to such services. • • Central Oregon Mediation receives grant funds from the University of Oregon School of Law which require a match. County funds may provide a significant portion of that match and reducing or eliminating them may jeopardize the grant. • The FY 2014-15 budget was adopted with a$30,000 line item dedicated for mediation services provided by Central Oregon Mediation. The organization's current budget is based on the availability of these funds. • Central Oregon Mediation has been providing services to the County throughout the first quarter of FY 2014-15 which will soon require payment. + Probably due to a lack of organizations providing mediation services,the County has not competitively bid out mediation services.Bidding out the service could result in a lower cost and/or improved service. Options The County has several options for mediation services: 1. Continue the program in its current form with Central Oregon Mediation as a County Service Partner. 2. Continue the program in its current form through the end of FY 2014-15 and initiate a Request for Proposal process to allow eligible providers to compete for the County's mediation needs beginning FY 2015-16. 3. Initiate a Request for Proposal process during the current fiscal year. Staff will seek Board direction at the conclusion of the work session discussion. Please direct any questions you may have concerning this information or other issues related to the County's use of mediation services to Deputy Administrator Erik Kropp or Management Analyst Judith Ure.