Loading...
2016-149-Minutes for Meeting March 28,2016 Recorded 4/8/2016NANCY111NKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS 1+3 2016.149 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/08/2016 02:38:11 PM 1111 tor xecoramg stamp unty 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 MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone; Commissioner Tammy Baney was out of the office. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Whitney Hake, Communications; and Dave Doyle, Connie Scorza and John Laherty, County Counsel. Attending for a portion of the meeting were Nick Lelack, John Griley, Lori Furlong, Peter Gutowsky and Will Groves, Community Development; Lt. Paul Garrison, Sheriff's Office; and five other citizens. No representatives of the media were present Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Code Enforcement Staffing. Nick Lelack referred to his staff memo (a copy of which is attached for reference.) He provided an update on the code enforcement program, the nature of the cases they handle and resources needed to do so. The number of cases and the complexity has meant they need to exercise prioritizing per the code enforcement manual. There are not able to provide the same level of attention to cases as they have in the past. They are spending most of the time on situations where there is a danger to health, welfare or the environment. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 1 of 8 This work has increased significantly over the past couple of years. There has also been an increase in hostility directed towards neighbors and County staff. Commissioner DeBone asked how they prioritize; do they just open the case and confirm the complaint. Lori Furlong said that they try to confirm a situation as soon as possible, but if it is not a level 1 or 2 issue, it could take some time to get to the site. The complainant cannot remain anonymous and sometimes they do not want the offender to know who complained. The solid waste situations are tough, and take a lot of time to address and resolve. Sometimes they have to end up in court to get some kind of action done. Mr. Lelack stated that the controversial and complicated issues can often have more than one complaint, or involve other types of violations. Some also require law enforcement presence. County Counsel is becoming more involved. The options are to continue as they have been operating, prioritizing per the procedures manual. They can hire seasonal or temporary help. Ms. Furlong noted that there are more people in the rural areas now. There are expectations that things are going to be more rural than they actually are. Failing septic systems take an inordinate amount of time to resolve. Sometimes there are drug or other substance abuse issues at a property. Things have changed and it is more hazardous to staff than it has been in the past. Mr. Lelack stated that another issue is the rebounding economy. People care more about the neighborhood. However, some are still struggling and cannot afford to make changes. Also, Measure 91 and the whole marijuana issue has generated in a significant number of new calls. Not all are valid complaints, but some are real violations. John Griley said that more cases are going to court due to the lack of compliance. They have started to send discovery information with citations to build the cases. It is taking more time to do this. John Laherty agreed. The cases that have come to him are complex, and there are more of them all the time. Law enforcement preparation for court is extensive. Often there are multiple site visits, and sometimes more than one deputy needs to be there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Lt. Paul Garrison said that this also relates to the homeless population as well, with multiple RV's on a property, wastewater disposal on the ground, and neighbors who are frustrated and shocked by all of this. It all takes a large amount of time, and the problems grow with the population. Commissioner DeBone stated that he likes to see a sense of community, and feels this work needs to be supported with the proper resources. There is often a big learning curve for all parties, and it is valuable to educate them. Chair Unger added that they need to staff up, because there will be more to deal with relating to Measure 91. They should also demand more from other agencies, such as the OLCC. Tom Anderson said that he supports what staff is saying. The volume of cases tracks closely with the number of real estate transactions. Rural environments are new to some people. They saw this happen ten to twelve years ago during the building boom then. He asked in the order of priority, how far are things like outdoor lighting and agricultural buildings down on the list. Ms. Furlong replied that it takes about three months to look at them. They have a volunteer who can help with some of the reviews. There is no capacity to do this otherwise. They used to have two volunteers for this. They can look at hiring on-call staff first. Mr. Anderson stated that an additional code enforcement technician is included in the proposed department budget. Code enforcement assessments will not pay for this, but there can be adjustments. He said this could be pushed up sooner. This is a problem across all of CDD due to the demand. This is addressed as part of the proposed budget, but they are looking at how to deal with this before then. There is well-documented higher demand. Chari Unger said that this situation is not going to slow. Commissioner DeBone added that other properties are still coming on line, per the utility companies — properties that have been vacant for a while but are now selling. Chair Unger stated that they need to sell this story to the media. People often do not understand the rural lifestyle. Marijuana issues will cause even more demand. He supports moving forward on additional staffing now; Commissioner DeBone agreed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 3 of 8 2. Review of Dreifuss Appeal Hearing (scheduled for March 30). (This portion of the meeting was audio recorded.) Will Groves gave an overview of the case. There has not been Board direction on some of the specific issues in the past. He gave a presentation on the history of the property and the improvements done there over the years. The original improvements were made in the mid to late 1970's. They allowed septic systems for RV use, but it is unknown if it was to be connected to the bathhouse. No one knows if there was a permit required at that time. There was a dock but it is no longer there. He provided a pre -development photo of the property, and then a post -development photo of the dock, fire pit and deck, another deck and the RV spot. It also shows a dock on the adjacent property. The bathhouse was expanded and a deck added towards the well house, and the garage. Two types of docks are allowed, personal and shared. The type has to do with use, frontage and square footage of the dock. The owner expanded the bathhouse into a bunkhouse. The Hearings Officer found that it is not a dwelling since there is no kitchen. There is a sink in association with the bathroom only. The County can be flexible in some situations to allow for food preparation, but this is not considered a dwelling. There are decks within 100 feet of the river. The deck does not meet size limitatons or river frontage requirements. The Hearings Officer found that both prior uses were not allowed. Gravel was replenished and this was found to be lawful. The well house and garage are both allowed, as are some decks beyond 100 feet of the river. The Hearings Officer found that the bathhouse was not lawfully established, because it cannot be shown if it was legal at the time. PL -5 found that this type of accessory building to support RV use was not allowed at the time. Staff recognizes that this has been handled in a flexible way, and there was no mention of RV use at the time. This leaves a question of someone asking about a small bathhouse in 1976. They may have been told it was okay and nothing was written down. Today it would require permits. To grandfather something in, they need to find that it was lawfully established when built. There are provisions in State law to give applicants the benefit of the doubt in these cases. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 4 of 8 The bathhouse expansion occurred within the 100 -foot river setback. The general standard is to allow expansions if it is not near the river. The same applies to dwellings. Per the Hearings Officer, non -dwelling standards are not called out in code, so therefore by not being mentioned, are not allowed. Staff is not sure how to get to this without doing a text amendment. The Hearings Officer did not address any potential septic issues, but environmental health staff have concerns. The water level in the area is very high. The existing system is probably not adequate for its use and certainly not if it is expanded. The dock was denied by the Hearings Officer since it went away in 1987, so now is considered a new dock. It was found that there is not 200 feet of river frontage, as required. This comes from the notion of not having a lot of docks in a row. Some of the existing docks do not meet the 200 -foot criteria, but nook and cranny surveys can often show more. This depends on how much irregular frontage is involved, but professional surveyors are considered the experts. The dock also exceeds the 160 square foot maximum size. Approach walkways are addressed specifically. This could comply with community dock standards but would then require one additional user. The dock on the adjacent property is in disrepair so perhaps they would be interested in sharing. This would involve providing access easements. Fill and removal rules apply. River viewing decks are within 100 feet of the river setback. It is felt that setbacks are meant to allow for unobstructed access for wildlife. Allowing decks in this situation might set precedence for others. There is a hearing on this issue on March 30 and there will be testimony on septic issues. Also, some neighbors wish to build the same structures but have been told they can't. Other people are concerned about riverfront development. The applicant has tolled the clock to May 31 for a final decision. Commissioner DeBone noted that he is a contract farmer for Oregon Water Wonderland II. He will disclose this on Wednesday. The Commissioners asked for a vicinity map to see how the property fits. The discussion and recording concluded Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 5 of 8 • 3. Other Items. Mr. Lelack stated that John Shepherd has applied for a permit for a church. He asked for the application last October. He asked what the Board's preference is: for this to go before a Hearings Officer or be a staff decision. There have been repeated inquiries from Central Oregon Landwatch about this property. If it is a staff decision and it is appealed, the Board can call it up for a hearing. David Doyle said he likes what they did with the private park. Mr. Lelack stated that from a comfort level, this is going into new territory. He fully expects that Central Oregon Landwatch will appeal. Mr. Doyle noted that this would fall under tax-exempt status, and he is not sure if this has been challenged in the land use arena. He would like to get through the local process as quickly as possible and let the parties fight it out. Commissioner DeBone asked if this is black and white. Peter Gutowsky replied that the church portion has 23 people and the reception part 250. The question is whether this is a core function of a church. If this were a brand new issue with no history, it would go to a public hearing. Mr. Doyle noted that they will be splitting a lot of legal hairs. So in regard as to whether it should go to the Hearings Officer and be jettisoned to LUBA, or the Board hears it. In any case, it will not be in time for this current wedding season, so there will be code enforcement issues. Chair Unger asked if a church, would the number of events be an issue. He assumes they would meet every weekend. Mr. Lelack responded that there would be activities associated with any other church, with just a limit of 250 for events. The house would be the church. It may need improvements relating to ADA, sprinklers and an upgraded septic system. Churches obviously conduct weddings. The question is whether the related activities are receptions or something else. This is still a gray area. Churches have events with gatherings beyond church services. Mr. Doyle said that the appeal might be on procedural issues. Chair Unger asked if there are any advantages of the Board hearing it. Mr. Groves stated that the issue of Board deference comes up. Mr. Lelack added that it is a permitted use under EFU, with standards under ORS. If there are reasonable conditions, there might not be any deference given. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Commissioner DeBone asked if there is any value in going to a Hearings Officer for clarity. Mr. Gutowsky replied that if there had been no history, given that first impression, the standard is for it to go to a Hearings Officer. He asked if the Board is sensitive to this particular situation and applicant. Mr. Lelack said that Central Oregon Landwatch is already involved. Mr. Groves indicated that there are two paths. One is an administrative decision, which will be appealed, and the Board asked to hear it. The other is going to a Hearings Officer for a decision, and an appeal probably to LUBA. The administrative path might be faster. They cannot write this up on matters of first impression or history. There are issues of religious protection. The battle will end up at the State level and the Board might want to get it there as soon as possible. The fastest way is if it goes to the Hearings Officer, who will be asked for an opinion only on the key issues. Chair Unger is concerned about staff time. Mr. Lelack said that the applicant will have to pay for the Hearings Officer. Mr. Groves stated that they are already holding Bible study at the residence. There are questions about uses accessory to a residence. Mr. Lelack said that they need to let the applicant know what the process will be as soon as possible. The Commissioners stated that they prefer it go to the Hearings Officer. In regard to the Planning Commission vacancies, Mr. Lelack explained that Hugh Palcic wants to be the south County representative specifically, which would free up the at large position. There are two candidates for the position and more interviews to be conducted on March 29. They advertised briefly for the at large position; the other is for Bend. Regarding the joint meeting with the Sisters City Council scheduled for April 7, the Board had no specific items to address, but could give an update on the proposed 911 levy. If the Council does not have items to discuss, the meeting can be canceled. The next meeting is scheduled for July 7. 4. Adjourn. Being nn further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 7 of 8 APPROVED this (o % Day of a -434-4-L 2016 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary ge_CLA,_ ()A/IV-- Alan Unger, Chair " -4 S Tammy Baney, Vic hair 940,_ Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 8 of 8 S to tri • W • „4 CDD O V� X 0. 0• ° co co co co �' m 0 * 15 ss. -a 0) 00 cD 24 "0 v —1 to ut 0 T O. r 0 (0 C6 O •a S. 0 •: et to :�iip s e•r o 'c'• 0- * 0 °er 9% t I.Q 7s. % Ft�Cl. CD .0 M M n- CD `Pt O S M0 n73 0N Q �+ • - e• t tD ack G O t (0 O•ma0 ► . • Is S ° c0' i OES 41, ("k 2-4 ap • Pe'ci) 0 " tigt Cf.?. ‘‘1"1, 75 0 cc o *-d Po' cn d V°d \ yl t9 o �, •4 )-6 Sy 0 r3 ¢' �'' rA.rD M 0 iln) "54 *% co . KL. Cr na o 0 \°5 cy ron o )p' r1) ro o eCS ..k f oCks 4 6 cll •'..4* cl) Q 0 tki) 0 ei s -A ;..4 .rt4 cd cd ^0 7'13 OD 0 s a) a) f•d ••-+ '•.' S .?:•k ec) 0 tJek e•E': cd d) 0 0 ,..0 :4k rA -4.4 'A ti.11 4) eo°"4,4 ro•k I'd OD 0) 0 0 OU p•c) (1) ,„k ., p.k :a 3' f•CS a) A'e 0 ,,:c°)` •kll Q 0 cd cn c,) 46 • • '•.'+' IP W ,I---k-A •^6 a) ,.k s.A 0 0 cS=k G) ''n je.24 °V) N6( 0 1/410 • ‘ ,''•' ta) cl) Iff-4 • '3 I,' •Nr° ‘k o 0 • too 6 c) • soo. 6 '?4, \.• • (1) ‘- s'' • 0 9 • • c 5'C) P -:r) rD rrDD a rD cn O )-i. t -t- rD o E Q-' Cr 0-h `C rD rD 0 CA Pu rD CA ~d 1_, rDLi Illegal structure not eligible for ICU protections Zone the fo r - r t Q 4) 4.) • S- 4 3 - 4) H 0 4-) • 'f7 c- C) .r_ 4-> •r- S S. ©-Cll C1. Uses .Perriitted 'U (t) til • i© U •r Q) rt) V • • c TJ 0 • -i-> •r • C°) 'E3 u CA .1_1 u U r� cG N r LJ N•i r O .r Q ct 4 V • Ca Ln 4 tt, 4/1 w a)_ CD N • In }▪ c•.j ✓ ^ 4) 4- b 41) O) •.- 41.) to nY • r .c •r c t 4/) r - a) r- 4-) 431 +4 41) 0 S-_ r » ..L "1 (/) •r S.. ri S- 4.) 'C:) V) S"') (..) S- cn ;•. CU'y •r O 4- r- r Sr.. r 4' N 0 •r U 0- •r V► in • rr11 •— to O c O t;-- "C7O U O to 1 'CID S- .�± U (0 -g- (A r(A Q) = to N V) 0) r.,.. ,r- S- •r- c„a u • 1.") •-- > ..:7 v rt3 I. r) 4u O r-- al • r tv rte- !•-• S.• • V) LA- 4/3 • 4-) (:).. Col 5.- C 'r- C) -C3 4U a • r y. - s: c 1.---i i-) UV (....) Ci) d•-) LI t-4 Lit V) •r - r• •i 4.) 0 N N 4) ordi n an ce to •r 4-' 4- Q 0. 4-) en - N b •1••) 5- 4 -3 to -0 c •r- 13 41i G) r-- • O E r CU 'Li 7Z7 a) N 0 -b z A (1) • U > • r•• , .n O 4-) E V -0 tiS U L'1. O •r CLI v- .,•.. 1 r S` c 1 r-- -r- •.- 4-) C O ..CZ E .n trt tC5 u O O rW- F-- 0- 4/) S.- 4. • r— N M St 1 r• -- r S - 4 V) C o c .4-) .--- :-) r- 10 .r • •• 0 in V E c) 4u 41 O V) In 4-) 4 0 tri 0) rt3 O 5- • 5- a) 0 O .0 V) V) Q) 4i) to (0 r- _C L7 O 0 ro L.) 4.1 .c < (0 N c 54.)L 4U •r 4.) �E— • . • Significant concerns from County Environmental Soils O • 0 rD rD rD o • • W f-1- ci, 1,,, 0 pu rD r+ k pu rz 4, rD 0 rD rD rD X ri) rD0 ItP-6* L 00 O tZL I N �1.1' cn O rD O rci ` v) 0 CD rD SI) 1-1 rD n 5. " cD cn s 0 Pu OH Aq p!up uotsupdxa 0 • • 0 c(pl C14 e 7-" P6A `r.J rt tp Pt°4 CD P,) (1) 0 c41, • rt ° 0, il cp 5 7k cn op rt (t) 4 Pr 0 til ,e0 tp (.2.4 0 (PI • rt 0404 tt • rd res 131) ttn 404 c) o CO co ftt .5•=k --EPA -4\;..4)) res y 71) o o (0 14 fot0 k Gn V� Q �V c:ck CO o 1 • CT\ TO: Community Development Department Planning, Building Safety, Environmental Soils, Code Enforcement PO Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue www.deschutes.org/cd MEMORANDUM Board of County Commissioners FROM: Lori Furlong, Administrative Manager Nick Lelack, Director DATE: March 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Update I. SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is to present an update on County code enforcement activities given the significant increase in the number, complexity and controversy of cases, and the Board's adopted FY 2017 Objective, 5. Enforce County regulations to preserve rural quality of life, under the Safe Communities Goal. 11. BACKGROUND In 2015, code enforcement cases increased by over 50% from 2014. The increased caseload is due in part to the increased development activity in the County. Each Community Development Department division experienced a 20% or greater increase in permit activity in 2015 over 2014. However, code enforcement cases far exceeded permit increases. In addition, the complexity and controversy surrounding many code enforcement cases has significantly increased over the past several years. Many code enforcement cases, like contested land use applications and appeals, now take years to resolve instead of weeks or months. In order to successfully and voluntarily resolve complex and/or controversial violations with a defendant(s), code enforcement staff are required to: • Make frequent and repeated contact (telephone calls, letters, emails, site visits, etc.) with all parties involved. • Coordinate site visits and meetings with multiple CDD divisions, other County departments, law enforcement, and/or state agencies. • Involve County resources beyond CDD, particularly Legal Counsel and the Sheriffs Office. • Address multiple complex violations on a property, and often with multiple residents. • Respond to significantly higher volumes of calls and emails from complaining parties. • Appear more frequently in court, particularly when defendants do not appear (a more frequent occurence). • Employ new methods to achieve compliance where voluntary compliance is unsuccessful. • Ensure multiple deputies are on-site where unsafe conditions are present. • Involve state agencies where children are present or appear to live on the subject property. • Adhere to new or additional safety measures where seriously failing septic systems are occurring (becoming more common). The combination of the increased case load, complexity of cases, and controversy surrounding the cases is also generating dramatic increases in the hostility of both defendants and complainants. For example, complaining parties are becoming increasingly frustrated at the length of time it is takes to resolve a case, which they express towards staff, often repeatedly. On the other hand, many defendants are now more openly hostile and threatening to staff than ever. Some issues frustrate both parties. For example, when defendants do not appear in court, CDD must re -issue citations. This frustrates the defendants (angry at the process) and complaining parties (angry the resolution process is taking longer than expected). Another new twist in code enforcement is that the courts have increased their expectations of County code enforcement staff. Specifically, courts expect code enforcement technicians to be prepared for court much the same as an attorney (e.g., witness preparation, making sure discovery is sent to the defendant). In sum, each code enforcement technician typically handles 100-150 cases per year of average complexity and controversy, and is able to achieve, on average, a voluntary compliance rate of 85%. Code enforcement has historically resolved 75%-85% of cases within 12 months. III. CURRENT STATUS Since January 1, 2016, nearly 150 new cases have been opened (this does not include the number of complaints received, etc.), indicating the 2015 case load increase may not soon end. With the sharp increase in workload, complexity and controversy, the County code enforcement staff are operating under Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual ("Manual") V. Priorities for Code Enforcement. This means staff are not able to give the same level of attention to all cases and some code violations are not receiving any attention. Pursuant to the policy, "In circumstances where not all code violations can be investigated, the most serious violations, as determined under the priorities set forth in this section ... should be addressed before the less serious violations are addressed, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received." The Board's adopted priorities for CDD code violations are (page 6 of the Manual) are: 1. Violations that present an imminent threat to public health and safety; 2. Violations affecting rivers, streams and/or adjacent riparian areas; 3. Solid Waste Code violations and Building Code violations consisting of ongoing non -permitted construction or failure to obtain permits for construction started after the effective date of this manual; 4. Land use violations. Code enforcement is currently operating pursuant to this policy because not all cases are able to be investigated. IV. NEXT STEPS CDD will continue to process code enforcement rmccc based on the Board's adopted priorities in the Manual as discussed above. If the Board wants CDD to investigate all cases, CDD will allocate additional resources for a temporary (on-call) or limited duration code enforcement position. A permanent position may be considered during the FY 2017 budget process this spring. 2 } as ci 0 0 u) a) -0 0 cs oo m \ \ O O O O O M u, a a w au )W cc 0 La co o. E O V c 0) E 0) u L 0 T c W C) 0 V o m N 0 c-1 00 m O 0 O 0 it O it) 0 11)l 0 in in '41 et et m m N N ,-i ri LD 0 N ri 0 N of 0 N m 0 N rn tin o0 W N M N CU OA C CO ors © r 7" ,r, • tr+ CO .• M Iii t 1, in 0 V 0 N t.-4to • N N M M 0 N 0 too 4.0 M 0 ei 0 N 3► 0 w" 40 M 0 nLo N CU ow• 0 `4 V N 0,8 tri cr fO N N N N 4 - 141ii-?016 ;4, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record. Discussion of Code Enforcement Staffing — Nick Lelack 2. Review of Dreifuss Appeal Hearing (scheduled for March 30) — Will Groves 3. Other Items These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. 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 lfyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 617-4747, or email ken.harmsedeschutes.oro. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 1 of 2 At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2) (d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. 4. Adjourn 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. To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 617-4747, or email ken.harmsadeschutes.orq. Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, March 28, 2016 Page 2 of 2