The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-21-Minutes for Meeting January 05,2015 Recorded 1/23/2015 NDESCHUTES COUNTY AANCYBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERK OS vV �v��`� COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/23/2015 10:46:00 AM I Il 1 -IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �JT o � Z< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org fi MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 2015 Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; John Laherty, Laurie Craghead and Dave Doyle, County Counsel; Nick Lelack and Anthony Raguine, Community Development; Steve Reinke, 911; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Chris Doty and George Kolb, Road Department; David Givans, Internal Auditor; and ten other citizens, including media representative Ted Shorack of The Bulletin. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Request to Approve Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application. Chris Doty provided an overview of the application (a copy of which is attached for reference). He explained the planned projects, which are all chip seal projects. Most of the County match is through staff, equipment and some materials. They will be asking COACT for a letter of support soon. He will know in May which projects are accepted. BANEY: Move approval of the application. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 1 of 8 Pages 2. Strategic Plan Briefing for 911. Steve Reinke said there were three stakeholder meetings plus a final executive board meeting on this Plan. He has come up with a simple, straightforward plan that can track progress. (He referred to his handout) He explained what they do, the level of service expected by all parties, and how they plan to provide it. They hope to close any gaps, but with an eye on the cost of doing so. The overall plan is to take the call, give it away to the appropriate agency, and be comfortable that someone on the other end will do the job. He went over some statistics covering the past five years, detailing calls during certain hours of the day, days of the week, with the busiest nights being on the weekends, and other peak times during the day, especially between 6 and 8 a.m. The work is level all year and not that seasonal, with a very small increase in the summer. It is important to know when the forecasted activity will be the highest so they can appropriately staff. Staff does their work well in spite of the overload, but this contributes to a certain amount of job stress and difficulty handling callers, and it impacts their training and recruiting program as well. He is proposing starting a program with call takers, with those who want to move up being better trained to become dispatchers. Deschutes County is the fourth busiest center in the State. Tom Anderson said that the stakeholders made it clear they want the best but at a low cost. However, they recognize changes should be made. A permanent levy will be sought. The stakeholders realize that there will be additional costs to refine the program. Mr. Reinke met with the trainers, who know they will have to keep training until the agency is fully staffed. The benefits of these changes will be seen long-term. Police agencies are able to handle surges in calls because 911 prioritizes those calls for the agencies. 911 does not know what will be on the other end of the phone when it rings. 911 also cannot stop training to handle additional workloads at any given time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Pages They are seeking people who have more resilience, and understand the impact calls and the schedule will have on them and their personal life; they also want to test for an IQ level since this has a bearing. It is similar to a computer processing unit that can handle a higher workload when necessary. Good people skills are paramount. The most important abilities are technical, training and teamwork. He feels the stakeholders are being reasonable, and there won't be a huge need for FTE's at first. This will happen over time. The fire agencies want to see two fire dispatchers on duty at all times. There needs to be a state of readiness. When they are not handling these types of calls, they can be call takers. Law enforcement users often ask for records checks, vehicle checks and other data. This bogs down the calls. This should be done on a different frequency during peak times. Supervision needs to be available 24/7. Team leaders have been used for this out of necessity, but do not have the proper authority to do much of the supervisory work. Accreditation is important. It does not have to be at the federal level, which is very expensive. The local users feel that state accreditation is much the same, and is cost effective. Regarding technical services, with two people doing the work of four or five, the department is way behind. They have not been able to do preventative maintenance as needed. The current proposal will fill this gap, and will allow those already working to gain further knowledge so they can transition into the future radio system. The partners are willing to consider a new records database that helps to better define the response needed about a given property, and to retain the information and combine with other data. When the systems are not integrated and more than one system has to be accessed, it takes a lot more time. By using RMS CAD integration with an administrator, the standards can be enforced so information is consistent. This program will be analyzed further. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 3 of 8 Pages 911 will pay for the upfront costs, with the partners covering ongoing expenses. Records management systems are very challenging, but it would be helpful if all agencies had access to the other agencies' information. It would result in better service for a minimal increase in cost. There is a high demand for public records from the courts, attorneys and the public. This has become more of a burden over time. Also, the front counter is not staffed full-time but he hopes to see that change. At the end of the levy period, they will have spent down what was anticipated previously. The reserves are being maintained for now, but will decline. If the levy rate were set at 23 cents rather than 20, they would be where they need to be. The `ask' for the next levy if the permanent levy does not pass is about 6 cents more, without the radio project. It appears they are going to be able to partner at a higher level with the State, so it is hoped the radio project will not be as expensive as originally thought. Mr. Anderson explained they will be spending into the 911 reserves, and there have to be funds sought before the end of the levy period. It will be a leap of faith regarding the timing. To move forward now and to ramp up is not sustainable, especially when you consider the radio system requirements. Mr. Reinke said the permanent rate is only 16 cents and if the levy does not pass, they will be short of funds mid-year. Wayne Lowry said that they have to maintain four months of operating funds per policy. Commissioner Baney noted that this means a lot of added positions. Mr. Reinke said the line level staffing is not as short as technical services. They have needed more staffing for this even ten years ago. Computers, phones and radios make this imperative, and they run 24 hours a day. He is frustrated with the inability to get things done because of this, as are the EMS and other agencies. They have three technical people but need two more. Mr. Reinke explained that the radio system is going to help all agencies. The Sheriff is paying in about $800,000 a year, and he thinks the two major cities are paying almost the same. A consolidated system for all would be on a user fee basis. It would be more efficient because a lot of the funds spent on outside vendors would be handled internally with the proper technical support. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 4 of 8 Pages Mr. Reinke said they hope to analyze what the public might be willing to support. Commissioner Baney stated that voters tend to forget time and amounts of money. Mr. Reinke wants to be candid, and show confidence they are on the right path with the cooperation of the other agencies. The goal is to get accurate information and make sure the costs are known. It will not be just 911 but all agencies including school districts, the airports and others who use radio services. Erik Kropp said that people can relate to what happens when a call is made and they have to be put on hold. Previous critics are involved in the process and are now supportive. Mr. Anderson stated that there has to be a coordinated and consistent message from all the police and fire agencies. Mr. Reinke stated they will meet with any and all groups throughout the county so they all understand how important this is. Mr. Anderson stated it could be a two-step process. They will value engineer the radio system, which requires some up-front money. They can't say now what the levy `ask' will be. The stakeholder agencies need to show some commitment early during the process, and full commitment when the final numbers are known. Commissioner Baney said that there is a concern if the Fair & Expo or other bonds will be coming up about the same time. Mr. Lowry said that the original Fair & Expo bond comes off in a couple of years. Commissioner Baney stated that they need to make sure other agencies are not also going out for their own funding at the same time. Mr. Anderson indicated this is important, and he is asking those questions already with his counterparts. Commissioner Unger looks forward to hearing recommendations from the user board. Mr. Reinke said the user board wanted this carried forward to the Commissioners for review. Mr. Anderson added that there was enthusiastic support for moving this forward from all the agencies, except one. They want the support of not just the chiefs or administrators, but their governing boards. Mr. Reinke noted that agencies are worried about the cost of changing over to a new radio system. There will be a way to transition over using their old equipment. Mr. Anderson added that the agencies are also looking for grants anywhere they can to get funding for the new system. Most of the grants would be for the radio equipment and not so much for the infrastructure. All the steps are being tracked so the public will know they are using due diligence. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 5 of 8 Pages Mr. Reinke said that the State has changed its attitude tremendously and is cooperating fully, and he feels Deschutes County will provide the model for the statewide system. Therefore, the State wants to see this be a success story. The State will also absorb much of the future maintenance costs since they are overseeing the whole project. Commissioner Baney asked about the $200,000 figure, and whether it needs to be a concrete number. She fears some will try to pick it apart. Mr. Anderson thought that they could demonstrate they are going to spend County money up front and ask for the agencies' help when the time comes to ask for public support. Commissioner Unger feels that an unknown number is worse. There will be questions about permanent funding versus levy funding. Mr. Anderson stated they wanted the Board to see this proposal before it goes beyond the user board. The main reasons are to be sure all the stakeholders are on board and know the steps that need to be taken, and to realize there will be up-front costs. The next step is meetings with all the agencies to get their feedback and gauge their support. Mr. Reinke feels that it is important for this to have the Board's signatures before that happens to show the level of commitment. Mr. Anderson feels that the chiefs should handle the introductions to indicate it already has their support. Commissioner DeBone would like to emphasize the radio system and other equipment is aging and unsustainable, and reaching end of life. It will need to be replaced at some point anyway, and there are gaps in the current system. Mr. Reinke would like the Board to formally approve the plan, possibly on January 14. Mr. Doyle said that the Board can be very aspirational now; but less when something ends up on the ballot. Commissioner Baney said that they need to have complete support of 911 staff, since some of them worked against the last levy. Mr. Anderson added that the union did not lift a finger to support it at the time. Mr. Reinke stated that the document has been shared with all 911 employees, but he will check on this further. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Pages 3. Discussion of Appeal of Tumalo Irrigation District Decision. Anthony Raguine gave an overview of the item. A land use compatibility statement was submitted by Tumalo Irrigation District, and CDD determined at the administrative level that it was an outright use. This was appealed and went to the Hearings Officer, who said that a conditional use permit is needed. The Hearings Officer's decision was then appealed by both parties, TID and the neighbors, in particular due to the methodology the Hearings Officer used. Staff recommends the Board hear this appeal, as there is new information that staff and the Hearings Officer did not have at the time. Commissioner Unger said if the Board does not hear this, whether it goes to LUBA. Mr. Raguine said that it could go there through one of the parties, but LUBA gives deference to the Board's decision. There is significant public interest in this issue. The Commissioners indicated they would hear this to clarify, de novo. Mr. Raguine said that would be best because the Hearings Officer's methodology is at question. Because of the amount of public interest, he suggested the Board consider having an evening hearing. The Board was supportive. Nick Lelack said they would talk to both parties to make sure this is the best way to do it for most of the people involved. Mr. Raguine stated the clock has been continued so there is not a tight timeline at this point. There will be a work session prior to the hearing to update the Board on the details. 4. Other Items. BANEY: Move approval of the December 29, 2014 minutes. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Being no other items discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Pages cfri DATED this Day of `" 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissi4hers. Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: I -, , • a Tammy Baney,&immissioner // Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 5, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Pages �JT ES c, Altr % �G2 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 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 2015 1. Request to Approve Federal Lands Access Program Grant Application — Chris - Doty 2. Strategic Plan Briefing for 911 — Steve Reinke 3. Discussion of Appeal of Tumalo Irrigation District Decision—Anthony Raguine 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE:At any rime 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. fyou 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(dldeschutes.org. f r r 30 NII o e av d S _ 45 N. tesIN o i kj to mI E ....4 Ai "ct Jt A ! 0 pl l Ni ` I rob. S w l V% '- * 41 m Ifl b I - > I III MI o M d v k T — � v‘ , LA v I s col� i p . t .J j I � � qq IV I} C�' I �` C :I ,, < 1 I r_ I - — , - -- t ...• 4) })1 i �' � I t I V� %) 00 1 S M it i 0 r 7 1} Cr i J > `1 I f I. ICrI J I r Q � U J 03 P-5 - �II to J A I- '' I I Q n S f—I S : c O �! c 4 �, � CO Q 11 d� I ,i \ I I 1 f Si 111 0 f L., j I ! I N I L I ( I I v h GpII �' �� 1 I a ro bo Q III \ ,11 WI� 4 �, 9 TTY. s s.VI 03 N •t N m V, \ SC - Z w 4k • vi in 0 'E •" + a o o0 ° C O C � o c .C w � � • r. t, 0 o al U � ct cu C CA) b N Cu, saw� •0 Ems L ' 3 i-i t:70 0 E s a a C L E o 4) u C CI N . > C0- CO � •( U — t-�° ea `. = O0 = RI U = H O � _ i C O _ �D .– s co) °' ° ONO ' ao L p C u id i ez is ' ^ �° L L v L ca to +J a j, V u J (d day L i d 0 �- N Q h r� L C LL 1 ! ' O V - U• E L 0) C ,_ V C O 3. /'�{ V �V 0 O r O E L O et C N `�' L H ° N > .0 ; sue L c 0 o v CD a�i 0 p• '-° y N Q)Q) o L t 7 t a. UQC W E O O L U et _j C J U Ce J 1 Y O d ��0 0 J V O La L 0 N su CD I L S L 0 C c RJ cVd u Q u� 3 0°�0 c°' cn U c v U � a LL 0 u. a a a E cd �--I L ?-i b•0 0 C C) O CL ? • 2015 Oregon Federal Lands Access Program Paulina Lake Road Chip Seal /EAST LAKE` 1 ______/ End Project MP 19.356 End of County Maintenance PAUL1NA LAKE \N----.______4 E ULI ii a tY W Y Q J Q Z J 0 a Begin Project MP 0.00 Highway 97 \ NEWBERRY RD NE W Ins arellikk 11_ y. _ id X111 = qy Miles Legend 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 — County Routes Printed: 12/24/2014 —= State Route The information on this map was derived from dotal al databases on T_s John Anderson,GIS Analyst xh — Road Centerlines Dautes always G.I.S. Care was taken in the creation of this • . :ne sac;322-7102 map,but t is provided'as is'. Deschutes County cannot accept any '.'r a ^: 0 s�rnuies.�,y Streams �1 Z resporsbity for errors,omissions,or positional accuracy in the dptal r/ , Bew,C s 770 se z2m=_c data or the underlying records. There are nowarra ties,expresso t�n ae,w,on uncz 1 Lakes implied,inducing the warranty at a fitness for a r the notification �/ Road Department Federal Land parka purpose,aaor�am� p of any errors wit be appreciated. P:1ArcGIS_ProjedslForest Highway Projects\Paulina Lake 2015 • 2015 Oregon Federal Lands Access Program South Century Drive Chip Seal ifi a a 1 Start Project �� 441, es pQ MP 8.048 ' rt -cvT Maxwell Bridge !j G�� — a. p CC 5G ,\� H i • I/ , i t � �I MM �AA -- Mil I Ill DAWN RD IaflhUt w C 0G SUNRISE BLVD j �c �' €o i>mom S,o I err_— o End Project ' J MP18.888 a 0 � °r Burgess Road >- o 0 ti It ' '-� � I U J It I nS" / i Mires 0 1 2 3 4 Legend Printed: 12/22/2014 — County Routes The information on this map was derived from ddgital databases on T.s iohn Anderson,GIS Analyst Deschutes County's G.I.S. Care was taken in the aeation of this • •- '� Phune.(;n r;3zz zmcz Road Centerlines map,but it is provided"as is'. DeschutesCwrty cannot accept any .: 1, :mar V'V.andeson1RceshuIesom re ndttY fa errors,onissian,or anal accu racy in the I ` Be9d,O 61'1:30 70 x znn sr �o b Pow eY dgital ro ❑//•� �t McIr OR 97702 JRiver data or die underlying scads. There are nowarranties,damns a imlii d,irdudng the warranty of march/ntabiity a fitness*Jr a �� Road Department Federal Land particular purpose,accompanying this product. Hawser,notification of any eras will be appreciated. PiArcGIS_Projects\Forest Highway Projects\South Century 2015 2015 Oregon Federal Lands Access Program Spring River Road / River Summit Drive Chip Seal — fir cu YpR End Project MP 0.00 (River Summit Drive) Century Drive tia N G co Q 73 a a 'p Qco .I •1 • r1 C Project MP MP 2.094 (Spring River Rd) USFS Boundary -if , • t MP 11.430 (River Summit Drive) � ' dr- . rr cc; nr MP 4.051 (Spring River Rd) SPRING RIVER RD .' i r i vs sk°40 1111111111111111 •IIIIM a) 11 a Miles Legend 0 1 2 3 4 — County Routes Printed: 12/22/2014 --- State Route The information on this map was derived from duke!databases on ,-7.,..• John Anderson, GIS Analyst Deschutes County's G.I.S. Care was taken in the creation of this • prom:(5-11)322-7162 Road Centerlines map,but s is provided'as is°. Deschutes County cannot accept any , ,, 1 Fina' i 5056 fide"h"'cs`"9 re adli fa arras,ordssarrs,or sitional eea in th dotal atlaresE 1 a sc air,t H W �Y o 0 iA 0,.1 wind oa t Za2 i—� River data or the underlying records. There are no warranties,egress or espied,�dudng the w.ranry a merchant■lility a eoreu tar■ Road Department Federal Land PrtiaMr purpose,accompanying this product. However,notification of any eras will be appreciated. P:WrcGIS_Projec(s\Forest Highway Projects\River Summit 2015 Community Development Department 0 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: December 30, 2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner RE: Tumalo Irrigation District Land Use Compatibility Statement Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision (File Nos. 247-14-000238-PS, 247-14-000274-A, 247-14- 000452-A) Before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) are two appeals. One appeal was filed by Tumalo Irrigation District (TID). The other appeal was filed by Thomas and Dorbina Bishop. The appeals were submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's decision reversing a Planning Division decision to issue an affirmative Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUGS). Both appellants request the Board formally reconsider the Hearings Officer's decision. BACKGROUND TID submitted a LUGS to the Planning Division to allow an intra-district transfer of 108 acre-feet of Tumalo Creek water from Tumalo Reservoir to a pair of newly-constructed reservoirs at the former Klippel Surface Mine (SM 294). The subject property is owned by KC Development Group (KCDG). The Planning Division issued the LUGS on August 13, 2014, finding the water transfer involves the operation, maintenance and piping of an existing irrigation system operated by an Irrigation district, which is a use permitted outright under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.60.020. On August 22, 2014, Thomas and Dorbina Bishop, neighbors to the subject property, appealed the Planning Division decision to issue the LUCS. A public hearing before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer was held on October 7, 2014. After significant public testimony and evidence submittal, the Hearings Officer reversed the Planning Division's issuance of the LUGS for the following reasons: 1. The Hearings Officer found that the activity conducted on the subject property to create the two reservoirs constituted surface mining in conjunction with the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an irrigation district, which is a use that requires conditional use permit approval under DCC 18.60.030(W). 2. The Hearings Officer found that the southern reservoir was specifically designed for water skiing, with undisputed evidence in the record that water skiing has occurred on Quality Services Performed with Pride the southern reservoir. The Hearings Officer further found that the southern reservoir is a recreation-oriented facility requiring large acreage, which is a use that requires conditional use permit approval under DCC 18.60.030(G). 3. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer found that the Planning Division incorrectly categorized the use on the LUCS, and erred in issuing the LUCS without further review. On December 23, 2014, TID appealed the Hearings Officer decision. On December 29, 2014, the Bishops appealed the Hearings Officer decision. APPEAL Both TID and the Bishops submitted letters describing several assignments of error. These errors are summarized below. 1. Is the LUCS a development action or a land use action? TID argues the LUCS is a development action appealable only by TID. The Bishops argue the exercise of discretion by the Planning Director makes the LUGS a land use action. 2. The proposed water transfer is a use permitted outright, not a surface mining activity, which requires conditional use permit approval. 3. The site activity to create the reservoirs was either specifically allowed under temporary use permit TU-14-81, or excluded from the definition of surface mining under DCC 18.04.0302. 4. The new reservoirs are not structures as defined under DCC 18.04.030. 5. The southern reservoir is not a recreation-oriented facility requiring a conditional use permit. 6. The Hearings Officer determined that Exhibits W and X of the applicant's final argument could not be considered because they were received past the deadline for receipt. Similarly, the Hearings Officer should have specifically excluded the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife letter (October 31, 2014) which was received three days after the close of the initial evidentiary round of submittals. 7. The Hearings Officer erred in excluding certain exhibits from the record as "new evidence". 8. The Hearings Officer erred by not requiring conditional use permit approval for a cluster development. 9. The LUCS should not have been processed because the property owner, KCDG, did not sign the LUGS application. 1 TU-14-8 allowed rock crushing on-site for the maintenance of private roadways and landscaping. 2 DCC 18.040.030(B)2) excludes from the definition of surface mining, "Excavation and crushing of sand, gravel, clay rock or other similar materials conducted by a landowner...for the primary purpose of construction, reconstruction or maintenance of access roads...and excavation or grading operations in the process of...on-site road construction and other construction..." File No.: 247-14-000238-PS, 247-14-000274-A, 247-14-452-A Page 2 of 3 10. Exhibit J of TID's November 20, 2014 submittal should be stricken from the record as new evidence. The appellants requests de novo review. If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the review shall be on the record unless the Board decides to hear the appeal de novo because it finds the substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo review and it does not appear that the request is necessitated by failure of the appellant to present evidence that was available at the time of the previous review; or whether in its sole judgment a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate a significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use action.3 At its discretion, the Board may determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed in the notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on the notice of appeal.° DECLINING REVIEW If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the county, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the mailing of the Board's decision to decline review. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may consider only: 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2. The notice of appeal; and 3. Recommendations of staffs STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Hearings Officer's decision provides an analysis of code provisions in light of specific legislative history. The Hearings Officer's method of analysis and conclusions were not presented by any parties, and are essentially "new" to the record. Staff believes the public should be given an opportunity to weigh in on the decision. Additionally, while staff concurs with the Hearings Officer's code interpretation, it is the Board's code interpretation that will be given deference should the county's decision be appealed to LUBA. Finally, the LUGS decision and subsequent appeal to the Hearings Officer has generated significant public interest. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Board hear this matter. Staff also recommends that this matter be heard de novo. Attachments: 1. Notice of Decision on the LUCS (247-14-000238-PS) 2. Hearings Officer decision on the LUCS 3. TID appeal letter 4. Bishop appeal 3 DCC 22.32.032.0247(B)(2)(c)and (d) DCC 22.32.027(B)(4) 5 DCC 22.32.035(B)and (D) File No.:247-14-000238-PS,247-14-000274-A,247-14-452-A Page 3 of 3 COUNTY LETTERHEAD January 2015 LETTER OF SUPPORT: FORMATION OF A NEW COUNTYWIDE 9-1-1 SERVICE DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT TAX RATE AND CONVERSION TO A REGIONAL RADIO SYSTEM The entities and officials identified below recognize the urgent need to form a new countywide 9-1-1 Service District within Deschutes County, to include the establishment of a permanent tax rate to fund 9-1-1 call receiving and emergency dispatch services and the conversion of the area's disparate radio systems to a centrally managed Regional Radio System. The new system will facilitate interoperable communications between the region's law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency medical services, schools, hospitals and other general government agencies. Formation of a new countywide 9-1-1 Service District with a permanent tax rate will benefit all residents of Deschutes County by providing adequate and stable funding to operate 9-1-1 call receiving and emergency dispatch services. A comprehensive emergency communications system will enhance the safety of all persons and institutions within Deschutes County. The 9-1-1 Service District proposes to fund comprehensive scoping of the emergency communications system, including value engineering,preparation of financing alternatives, investigation of grant fending, and development of a governance structure. It is estimated that this work will cost$250,000. Subject to official Resolutions approving the formation and permanent tax rate as required by ORS Chapter 451, in recognition of the critical importance of these items as well as the financial commitment of the 9-1-1 Service District to develop a final proposal to the voters of Deschutes County, the entities and officials signing this letter resolve to unconditionally support the formation of a new countywide 9-1-1 Service District. This will include a permanent tax rate to provide 9-1-1 call receiving and emergency dispatch services and the construction and maintenance of a new, regional radio system. That support may include, but is not limited to,written advocacy, testimony at public forums,and interaction with the media. ENTITIES: Anthony DeBone, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair Tammy Baney, Commissioner Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Eric King, Manager, City Keith Witcosky, Manager, Rick Allen, Manager, City of of Bend City of Redmond La Pine Jim Clinton, Mayor, George Endicott, Mayor, Ken Mulenex, Mayor, City of Bend City of Redmond City of La Pine Tom Anderson, Deschutes Larry Blanton, Deschutes Tim Moor, Redmond Fire& County Administrator County Sheriff Rescue Steve Reinke, 9-1-1 Director ??, Board Chair,Bend Rural Carroll Penhollow, Board Chair, Fire Protection District#2 Redmond Fire & Rescue Andrew Gorayeb, Sisters Ti, Mayor, City of Sisters Denny Kelley, Black Butte Manager Ranch Police Chief David Tarbet, Redmond Bob Kathman, Board President, Jim Porter, Bend Police Chief Police Chief Alfalfa Fire District Roger Johnson, Chief, Mike Supkis, Chief, La Pine Thad Olsen, Chief, Cloverdale Sisters-Camp Sherman Fire Rural Fire Protection District Fire Protection District Protection District Chuck Newport, Board Doug Cox, Board President, Jerry Johnson, Board President, President, Sisters-Camp La Pine Rural Fire Protection Cloverdale Rural Fire Sherman Fire District District Protection District Richard Hoffman, Crooked Art Hatch,Fire Chief, Sunriver Randal Garcia, Board Chair, River Ranch Fire &Rescue Fire Department Black Butte Ranch County Service District Bob Bengstson, Board Debra Baker, Chair, Sunriver Marc Mills, Chief, Sunriver President, Crooked River Service District Managing Police Department Ranch Fire &Rescue Board Tom Fay, Deschutes County Larry Langston, Bend Fire Rodger Gabrielson, Board Rural Protection District#2 Department Chair,Black Butte Ranch Rural Fire District Nancy On, State Fire Marshal ??,Deschutes National Forest ??, Oregon Department of Forestry ??, Bureau of Land Management r I r I C C) L ■2 0 to -1. Y INN c � ;, q N to rn 1-1-c. ‘ 1 ) it:c:titc ff 0 ctiti CD ao V to 0 Aa 0 Cl) CO w ca L C cn^ cn^ W to cn v, 4- a) w W O 0 O O . - a (1) -..I -I (15 CD cn - J 0 p O O c ' - a 0 cl, -C:3 0 0 _0 . u) u) u) 2 Co V U - U - � p cn O rot w Cl) � O V � O p O U �c3) .� o a) — -A= a) co U cm co a) .a - p ' � a E - g2 co co co (nu) NE 0 L. - - 0 = o or co a E5 2 E p p O p > O n" li Lt 0 IL W o CD a) •v E a) cm C CD co cz co c c E a) CO V E E Q O 2 a) 06 CD cn co O co > o` � c3 o Ti CD et ° E -- v J U L 1-12 'c Cl) _ > it 0 y- a)r.i it. t) cu co _ u- I 1 C E c co 0 Cu a' Q •O O a 0 0 t cn •— •—Pa co ._ U - � a) co w co t� o- 0 .L_ •— •— .— ^ L. t- ow n Octet n/ v, m a 0•~ Q m U 6 Ili LJ: d z o cn in r- E co co o a) a) N j E2 U U) CO Ns' is- 0 >, n 00 0 .0 'O a) " SS 11) >% 2 O 4- • - N E -E IS ' as 2 co E a)a ) E I as .fir o LO , V +� Cl) N 0 _ N b �- �- Q • b •. C E 3 • • • • i ` - - a 0 ca) o al c ._ .— aj ftt 0 M c o a c c E . a) = CO C 0_ co = b LL = ca v o }• >, m co _Q a o E 0_ :it= w co ca • Cu Q CD) c EL ti ® 2 c 0- L. LE c M gi) w co W ' ' W• in 0) 13 Iii 2 22 a < •Faa. w 52 :Ira n U) Wy _Ca) v Ft; o +-+ L a . . ■ 6 zi a) c a) +�2 ti s U U O (i) c IT) %-- 4-11 4) O O 4� O Tim E " o C ..A= 0- 0. 0 CD- 0 E _c -0 s. 0) 4.• a). ED C3) w a c E co -0 ..c 0 ci) o c -1-• C C� L O .L— O D .0 N C (1) • mmi O � (0 U) O .— C U Ca 4- It —2 u)CO r. W CCU r. O 0 -c c > 0 — 0 E c(t3 C(ii : Li- CD I O c/) => E O — > � � C..) — 0 C/) 0 4) C� C O -� O � � Q O s= L v CU 0 +_i -a a) _. U C(13 L O Q -a E ›,I_ ,„_, nom, , >t a , Co =.4.$ O O a) .— L L C0 L TD C wo ,1/4-- C - -Y, a D i ca Z ! M . p 0 0. " n C 4 d Ptq f,'• €7•■.dt,,, i �c • } Ir N„ O Qa %,• t• y Pca. ICJ'5 . i X0,0 �,. 4 •f 0 8q1 '\ . W L!�• k:i •_ j o0 7•+ // O. i ', 00, CL) • a 6 O V` ' ! ^. Off! + 0 V 6 lJ yrrr [a ; 00, �..� , 11.0v'. .1 I�II o l, '�. ,i 11; p' 11�f dYk r+ , Cyy 7•kd' 00 , Off' oc. ;'(" ca '0 c� ,4'' o CS 0 c 0 0 CS I.Cj o �T. . � i.r Ci .. N "§sP 1 P --. - .4, „,,?: C L: c ._,...:‘, 7 .: Lo :-- 1- --'' ■.,,.,., .Nd 00 a) 6, a) (Jo . 4.... 0 0 C : I'll' T$ , 1k' ,1 ' >bt Pi -C2 0 I .. \ ' , >I „?,,,, f., CI.) 4,. 4 (), (r) ,: ', ,... .,.„, ;, .,,, o 0, (/) 0, ......, ca , 00, 5.,.. , cts , C) „... >,- , 1.1”) :, ... ... ._ --4 'i ',,,'•''.,,,' , :','.,,s,• :'-,i:',■,),:/,''',, r..-.) , • , . '■„. .d. • ..,,, ..,.....:. :- ,;,',. • II/ ' , ad) I., ,,' ' CI() '■.■‘. SIME > (1) ,2::I'I,,'I'' CI;lil ,''',‘ ' ',. SIM• ' 1....44,...._ --.. 4.- ...-..- C , 0 CD r3) • cts 7,..: i... .., ,,.. a) .,..., cu. ›, r'... .z..,._ .1.4 ■I (13 CtiB . , ,. a).,„.„,,„ f-I >,- LC) ,,,,,, 4e7,.. ..,, ''',i',,,'''l' •■11 's:, ' ''''' ...... : s•, ,•.]:.. • •■ , „• 0 „s,,,,„, • ',''.'';',■‘,,',1,■,,'” ..,,,,,s,s . 5 q,:,,J,,„;y,,,,■.,,,,t,.!,,,:: ,,,, ' .,,:i, 0 c,:"J '''''''''''' .'' %.:''.,,, '.:D. ,1',1';';'11'4''' '',',`' ' ■,■ C ■...":" '2.......),,, ::'," ,'S',,1:,',1,,,■!,',: ,,411'Ii,''Pl'1:■'''S■'■j,,,' <C1 1C.i.fi 7sr, ".".." '■ ■:111F:11■Plilll'‘■1,i. Ws 2 Q cs 0 °o• c'2 � T 0 > °�• O Y { ga, z �+ O °° O - � 0089 C0 G "' 00. m r! 0 ! 0. 2 0. 0 to y. 0. ,v 0. U ip °08 0 r °° O ° a N °O•y 0 µ sO o°, °o O O O O O O o o o N N r r 0 0 Co N 0 O N N / 0 0 N 0 0 O N O O O O O a O O J L o O c"f/'</" cri 00 > o O N V O O 0 Q o T o00 ca cot- +; o O V) o l 0 y a CO N o U di 0 0 0 Q o U o L o A� o W o iir LO O a 0 0 v 0 0 M 0 0 N 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o O a Ocr co N O O CO 3y. COI 0 ›. < 0 5 0 U V O an Z < O W. art u X Fm' ji' iP ti 'w '9 'i I 0):., a..) >IN A■i° a.) ,,: li ''I 1191 V) CO Ck3 9 p !';1;1;'?1P,;,;Yi ill r L a.) ,,,,};,,,I,,,e,,,.. 0 c ,„:,.,,:,„,„.,, ,,„:, ,,,! , c m so. „,„,, ,,,, „, , U1) 0_ L.> co x a. a . — o Cir ›N N-- CD_ 73 o 0 t = a) D C .,:.,I,,,' , ' 03 7-.3 0 c\I 0 cr) Ci) 6. _ u.) _C E c X N a a) CD D a) O s- • ,,,,,,,,,„.„, fl. -C -ii-J (1) 'xi- N"' (.0 zi 'rn -c V) Cn = 11111111111111111111 X , ,'.'' 0 cry — a -1-0 I L N L U;) ..=GI o co 73 cn • U') _c CU C c CD (...) a) LD a a.) v , , , . 0 E C, .: ,,, _ tt �-. ., , ,,, , •.... �= a. a a) a)> > „ , , ,, ,,, , „,,,„,,„,,„ .11-•„,„,,,,„t,,,,,,,,, u) co . . co a.) a ,,,,„,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,„, (..,) . . 0 ,.. c — ,,,,,,,„,,,,,, , ..,, , , . , . W p o -0 ci 0. co _c o.. a.) co . . s. 4,,„,,I,p, , • ...91 Lu , , ,,'„ , 4ii;1'1''' In W D (f) -1-• 0 E ,,,,,,,,,,,,„ _1 , F--- .1 U”) C/1) < . ,„.,:, . :,.. , ' - cn -0 _ E ,, _: a) 0 W a.) C) 0 11) ..c c .- C > CD 0 Cl) 0 O - • w Q • _ 2 0) CO (1) 2 11- 0 0 a) ..._ (n 2 a.) co c , CU o co t3 a) a CO cio• -.1 a) a a� 2 = 0 cl ° — m- iJ cl) r.t ( as sa) ..) 06 -0 .-. a) 0 cn O , ,:, E._ ._ v, w Q I 46 . = a5 (1) < - H 0 C/) O a) c + U -o D • . O = O 4. > M = 0-) 0 '5% c • — w u) c -•-• L a 2 o Cn Cn a) c.5 0- w 2 2 0 O o cn a) . a, , . . --,71 -0 -0 m x -2 = a3- mug Tip coLutt' " co '''-' 0 Q Q > LL , „,,„ ','„',:, at - CO C , , ,, ■ a) ... ,, ,. , (I) L. E E -0 - i•ii, ,,:,,,,,,,,„1,!:,:, 0 o - Ls.. U •— 013 . — v) C 3 — �. Z:3 p CO U 0 CO C 0.) C CO — C� ■' Q ,,,,,,„,,,,' CO , a) ■ - -0 ■- a) L. C -10 ID p a ai) ,,, ,:,,:,,:,,:,„, CD = m' MIME Z� p �' U CCU ,' ,', ' E ,,,, U) a) to 0 ... a) a3 ,, , , co 2E2 U c n L. 74 I O 0.o E a) U E c O tr) .� U . - a a p • - a) i _ O ,,,,„ ,,,,,,,„‘„,,,„,,,,, ■■sU _c v� c CCU ,,,,J,,i,,, :l, -i A-. 73 a) -- L c „. ,, ,., ‘ ,„,, C..) cu w C3 ,,,, ,, , , ,. „,, :,,„., ,, ,.,,,,li , ,:,,,,„,i,,,,„„ w a) a cf)-6-• ..c9 _c a) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„ ., a) 0 cf, .., L. r ;;;;,S 2 a) n 4-- • - fi " 11. .L,, 9,„ ,, O 14-• co TD , N -0-�--' D CC)� c� O � ca � DG) cli pp N � v a a N c, = , 0 - 0_ • -. c c\I 4.• > x %-. x co Eft . u) a) a) (I) W a) 0. 4— _c w,,, E .`13 0- 73 > L. lc a) lc . cf, . _ O v a) a) .... o > (13 co -P.,. ...j CD. 0 CZ -s 0 a) ›N . co • __ > Lci 0•— CO m o � � �• � � o s H � o � mod= 0 � � o � � N � . � � O U3 I-1- a) � L c5 0 > Li. a E (i\I eh 0) L. C\1 0 a cr), 0 ca) r_ - '-d5 ` .(0 ki 7 0 C o_ co a) 0- _c › a) >, a ID la -cm Ec > 0 H co H ---) . • ..... a L.,. (..) 1.!r Deschutes County 9-1-1 Strategic Plan for 2015 — 2018 1 Planning Process Steps 1.1 Reviewed the District's current level of service. 1.2 Established a reasonable and appropriate level of service based on industry best practices. 1.3 Identified policy, staffing and equipment requirements to close existing level of service gaps. 1.4 Forecast the cost to close level of service gaps. 1.5 Evaluated the cost versus benefit of all proposed changes including forecasting future levy rates. 1.6 Reached consensus that the forecast costs for plan implementation were reasonable. 2 Primary Goals 2.1 Determine the District's intermediate and long term operational and capital needs including planning, construction, maintenance and oversight of a countywide, multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary communications system. (April 2015) 2.2 Determine the level of public support for the District's strategic initiatives; assist with the development of a communications plan; and provide information, strategies and recommended materials for an effective campaign. (May 2015) 2.3 Obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners to submit a ballot measure to the public for a maximum levy amount, with a commitment the initial levy rate will begin at a specific (lower) level which will be raised in the future only if absolutely necessary. (May 2015) 2.4 Obtain voter approval for permanent funding for the District which supports its ongoing operations and long-term capital needs, including a county-wide communications system. (November 3, 2015) 3 Objectives — Line Operations 3.1 Law enforcement dispatchers should only answer 9-1-1 calls as a last resort. (September 2015) • Hire, train and deploy call receivers for when call volumes are forecast to be highest. • Establish a clear order of priority for answering emergency and non-emergency calls. 3.2 Staff two fire dispatchers 24 x 7 x 365. (January 2016) • Hire, train and deploy telecommunicators to achieve this objective. 3.3 Law enforcement data channel should be staffed 12 hours per day. (April 2016) • Hire, train and deploy telecommunicators for when data requests are forecast to be highest. 3.4 Staff for 24 x 7 x 365 supervision. (January 2016) • Promote an eligible and qualified person into a new, sixth supervisor position. 3.5 Deploy staff to align with forecasted activity levels. (January 2016) • Utilize past data to forecast future activity and staff accordingly. 3.6 Achieve Oregon Accreditation Alliance accreditation. (April 2016) • The Operations Manager will lead this initiative. 3.7 Improve the retention rate for new line employees. (Now and ongoing) • Continually evaluate and improve the entire entry level hiring process. 4 Objectives — Technical Division 4.1 Address unmet maintenance and system administration needs. (March 2015) • Hire, train and deploy a Public Safety Systems Specialist. 4.2 Address unfinished projects. (March 2015) • Hire. train and deploy a Public Safety Systems Specialist to work through the backlog. • Expect to transition at least one Specialist to the radio project. At that time, determine whether there is a need to backfill the transitioned employee(s). 4.3 Value engineer and cost a county-wide communications system. (April 2015) • Retain a qualified engineer to lead stakeholders to consensus on system design; coverage and reliability and forecast its cost. • Develop relationships with potential partners and secure written commitments for participation, first for the concept, then financial. • Obtain all available grant funding. • Develop and adopt communications system governance and operating agreements. 4.4 Facilitate full CAD % RMS integration. (April 2016) • Determine user needs and whether HiTech's RMS can meet those needs. • Obtain commitments from participating agencies to assist with deployment and ongoing funding. • Develop and adopt an agreement which details funding allocations; required data entry standards; user responsibilities: and system administration and security requirements. • Hire a CAD/RMS System Administrator to serve as project manager and after go-live, as the system's administrator and inter-agency coordinator. 5 Objectives — Administrative Services 5.1 Meet the increased demand for records from the public and criminal justice agencies and staff the front counter during business hours, including the noon hour. (January 2016) 5.2 If the radio project goes forward. hire an office manager to supervise the front office staff, assist with grant management. vendor management, contract administration, agreements, purchasing, inventory tracking and administrative duties. (July 2016) • Contingent on communications project funding.