2016-208-Minutes for Meeting May 11,2016 Recorded 6/3/2016DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2016.208
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK vJ
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06103!2016 02:30:22 pM
IIII�IIIII�I 111111111111 III
2016-208
For Recording Stamp Only
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, MAY 11, 2016
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; and Dave Doyle, County Counsel. Attending for a portion
of the meeting were Will Groves, Anthony Raguine, Peter Russell and Nick Lelack,
Community Development; Judith Ure, Administration; Nathan Garibay, Sheriff's
Office; Whitney Hale, Communications; Tom Kuhn, Health Services; and five
other citizens, including Richard Coe of The Bulletin.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Approval of Emergency Management Performance Grant Application.
Nathan Garibay said that the grant is higher this year to cover staffing for
awareness campaigns and other efforts. No one has been identified for this
position. The Department is guaranteed a certain amount, but anticipates more,
and it is budgeted. The plan is to go forward with the position regardless.
Chair Unger noted that in previous discussions, he has not seen a lot of
engagement from FEMA. He would like to know if there was a Cascadia event
tomorrow, what they would do. Mr. Garibay said that they have been bantering
with FEMA regarding expectations. Planning assumptions are changing, but
FEMA has not updated its information.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 1 of 16
There needs to be more attention given to this now to help FEMA realize that
local input is important. Some groups think they will be able to go into the
Fairgrounds, but not everyone is aware of how this might be handled. After the
Cascadia Rising exercise, there should be more clarity. Some current
assumptions are inaccurate. They might need more input from federal
legislators as well.
BANEY: Move approval of the application.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
2. Economic Development Loan Program Discussion.
Roger Lee and Tom Rowley of EDCO came before the Board. Judith Ure
explained that the loan program was formed in 2010 by Resolution, but is
mostly silent on criteria. The current agreement is different from the original,
however, with more refinements. Some agreements address family wage jobs
and other issues that come up over time. They use a particular definition from
the Oregon Labor Market Association. It is a baseline, however, and not a link
to family wage amounts.
The Board also asked about granting multiple loans to the same company,
which has happened a couple of times. In addition, benefits have come up,
since some companies pay less than family wages and may not offer benefits.
The loan amount has been up to $2,000 per job. Regarding geographic
distribution, there is not much control over this since some communities are
more ready than others. The Board has not required leveraging, perhaps with
the cities weighing in, or matching dollars.
She asked if the Board wanted to formalize some of the criteria.
Commissioner DeBone said the big picture is that this was created when the
economy was down, anticipating the future. It is a great program to offer but
definitions would help. He wants to know if this was meant to be permanent.
Is it even the right thing for the County to be doing this. And, is there
appropriate funding for it.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 2 of 16
Chair Unger stated that he would like it to be a permanent program since it
works. Central Oregon has benefited from growth and economic development,
and perhaps this played a part in that. They are not able to do much to enable a
business to come or stay here. Central Oregon Trucking stayed but perhaps a
few others went elsewhere. The benefits are a growing economy, more jobs,
higher assessed value and more tax revenue. They can invest ahead to promote
development and get long-term benefits.
Commissioner DeBone noted that is for diversification of the economy and
growing foundational jobs. Some in small businesses end up buying
themselves a job. This needs to be on a professional level.
Ms. Ure said that the Resolution says they are to be traded sector jobs, doing
business outside of this area. Chair Unger said that they bring outside dollars
into this area.
Roger Lee stated that they continue to refine the program. There can be a lot of
flexibility but not a license to abuse it. It is the County's program and he will
help them execute it. More direction is helpful.
Commissioner Baney said that she struggles with this when the wages are lower
than they would like to see. She wants to know more about benefits or training.
Mr. Lee replied that the majority of manufacturing jobs are above average most
of the time. Some are adding jobs at the entry level. An average wage of jobs
is being created, but overall the average is above this.
Ms. Ure added that if you look at the last three companies, there is a big
disparity between the higher paid persons and other employees. An average
would not break this out. Chair Unger said that he supports new jobs, and
expects them to have a family wage component. He likes the idea of total
compensation including health care, a pension and other benefits. He feels they
should include this.
Commissioner DeBone asked for a definition of the wage issue. Commissioner
Baney stated that she wants to see an average baseline. Regarding the $21,000
jobs, she wondered if they are benefited. They would be on the Oregon Health
Plan and she does not want this to happen. She supports some entry-level
positions for job training, as this allows for experience. Commissioner DeBone
noted that some people will not care about moving up. Commissioner Baney
stated that they need a zone for what they want to see and define it further.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 3 of 16
Mr. Lee said that the term `family wage' is widely used but it is a debatable
term, and there is a different number for each county. It is an average payroll of
all industries by number of jobs. It does not say if the employees are able to
pay the rent or buy food.
Mr. Rowley stated that some companies he has assisted are young and starting
to grow, and cannot afford to pay higher wages at this time. Commissioner
Baney said she would like to allow for this, but would like to see a number.
Ms. Ure noted that there is a number in the contract but it has not been criteria
for the application.
Commissioner Baney wants to offer some flexibility. She would like more
scrutiny of multiple loans to the same company, since the well is only so deep.
Chair Unger stated that Medisiss started in Sisters but then moved to Redmond,
and was bought out and the bigger company, Medline Industries, might have
moved them away. He wonders if the loan helped to keep them here. It might
have made sense, to keep them here. Ms. Ure said that it was not the same
situation with Navis.
Commissioner Baney said she would like flexibility if a situation is unique. If
someone wants a second loan, it would have to be extenuating circumstances.
This is meant for startups or to keep someone in town, and not for each time
they want to expand.
Mr. Lee stated that he does get those requests. One that was just forgiven wants
to do it again. He understands that there is a preference for companies that did
not get a loan in the past. Commissioner Baney stated that there needs to be a
real need; that there is not enough capital behind them to come here or grow.
Commissioner DeBone said that this was put into place as the economy was
going down. It is different now, but there will be another downside eventually.
Commissioner Baney likes to give preference to those who are entering the
pool. Chair Unger added that it should not be used just to grow existing
companies, but to expand the base further.
Mr. Anderson stated that the due diligence committee is to look at the business
plan or specifics. He asked if they get information on wages and other
information.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 4 of 16
Mr. Lee replied that they could look at wage categories, but usually they look at
the company's financial strength and positon in the marketplace. They could
possibly show the average benefit value. Commissioner Baney stated that she
would like to know what is included in the overall package. Chair Unger added
that he would like to see j obs that will give people some kind of future.
Commissioner DeBone noted that the company may not want to be locked into
disclosing this in a public setting.
Ms. Ure confirmed that the loan basis is up to $2,000 per new employee. She
asked if the loan limit of $100,000 is appropriate. Chair Unger replied that he
likes it at $50,000 but it depends on the opportunity. Commissioner Baney said
she would look to EDCO as to whether it makes sense. They cannot keep
taking money out of general fund for big requests. It is a fine line to use
general fund for business support. Some would say this is not the role of the
County.
Commissioner DeBone stated he would like some lead-time to make sure it can
be planned out, and not receive these requests at the last minute.
Under geographic distribution, Chair Unger said they need to put money where
it is needed. There are too many factors to limit it this way. Commissioner
Baney added that there are EDCO representatives in each area to help advocate.
Regarding leveraging, Chair Unger said that this is a leverage of everything
else. Mr. Anderson said that this is not the best term to use. The bigger
question is if this is part of a package, with other sources of assistance, and who
else is supportive. Commissioner Baney stated that it would be beneficial to
know this. She asked if the cities participate. The County is using general fund
to invest in the communities; the cities should do the same. Chair Unger said
that Bend should have the resources for this. They have Desert Rise, which is
land they could discount through staff time, and could expedite permitting and
planning. They could bring that in instead of money. The County cannot do
those things. Mr. Anderson agreed that it does not have to be just dollars.
Ms. Ure asked if the Board wants to know this when considering whether to
grant a loan. Commissioner Baney replied that she would like EDCO to ask
these questions. Mr. Lee said that there are a lot of investment programs, but he
understands the County does not want to be out there alone.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 5 of 16
Chair Unger stated that the Deschutes Watershed Council turns a grant into a lot
more, as a match. To him, this is leverage. COIC has a loan program to
support part of what a bank might bring in. This kind of thing could be part of
the package to make it work.
Chair Unger said that all of this can be discussed when the loan is proposed.
They are trying to help businesses move forward and grow, and be successful.
He recognized that some of them might need startup funds. Maybe they need
more help with getting workers. Perhaps some of this could help grow a
qualified workforce. They are not looking at new money, but perhaps this is
important, too. They can consider internships, training programs, vocational
schools and on the job training.
Mr. Lee stated that this is happening somewhat already. They are taking people
with no skills and giving them some on the job training, but it is just not
formalized. Chair Unger said that the Better Together program works at how to
get kids into jobs, with monitoring to help with this. Maybe companies can
bring them in seasonally for training. They should be encouraged to do this.
Ms. Ure asked if they want project specific programs for something like this.
Commissioner Baney said that successes help to mute any criticism. Chair
Unger added that he likes the model they have, working with EDCO, and it
seems to be effective.
3. Consideration of Discretionary Grant Request for J Bar J.
Ms. Ure said that J Bar J is asking for a grant of $2,285 to cover site plan
review expenses. They were not anticipating this cost.
The Board is overspent in discretionary grants since a lot went to the Bend
Opera. The Military Ball is not going to happen. The fundraising category is
also overspent. There is money in the overall fund that could just not go into
the beginning fund balance for 2016-17. It was pointed out that the radio
system grant request of $2,000 is not being used. The Board decided to fund
the J Bar J request.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 6 of 16
4. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal — Caldera Springs Resort.
Anthony Raguine gave an overview of the appeal by Central Oregon
Landwatch, whether the Board should consider individual overnight issues
rather than the resort as a whole. They are requesting the Board not hear it but
instead let it go to LUBA. Caldera Springs will also toll the clock in this case.
Neither the appellant nor the applicant wants the Board to hear this.
These are interpretations at the State level and not covered by County code.
The biggest issues are statutory language.
David Doyle added that the applicant will not otherwise waive the 150 days, so
then there would be no decision to make.
BANEY: Move signature of the Order denying review.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
5. Preparation for Deliberations: Dreifuss Land Use Case.
Will Groves provided a matrix of the items to be covered under the appeal of
the Hearings Officer's decision. He gave the history of Board activity on this
issue. There are seven issues that need direction or policy interpretation.
Decking too close to the river:
The question is whether the dock complies with river frontage standards of 200
feet minimum. It was surveyed to show over 200 feet. The purpose of this
regulation is to limit the number of docks along the river. It is a reasonable
argument that you would use a surveyor for any other property measurement.
Individual dock versus community dock:
The applicant says there is a walkway and the dock is separate, so the square
footage is okay. The applicant will cut back the dock if required. A permit
needed to do this and it involves various agencies.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 7 of 16
Under fill standards, the wetlands are to be maintained but the Hearings Officer
wanted more evidence. The riverbank was built up in the 1970's so there
wasn't much, and the character not being altered. No mitigation is required by
other agencies.
Bathhouse:
It was legally established in 1976, and staff feels there was a septic permit
issued for RV use at the time. There was no requirement in code that RV use
was even allowed on the property. In 1976, PL -5 may not have covered much.
The structure was to support this use accessory, but the Hearings Officer says
this is not one of them. The owner at the time says that he asked the County
and no permits were needed. It is a murky issue. A decision is to be made on
the preponderance of the evidence, which is all they have. Maybe it was not
regulated or enforced at the time. Staff feels it was lawfully established in
1976. The Hearings Officer says that this doesn't legalize the use.
A technical issue of the Hearings Officer is that the Uniform Building Code was
not submitted until after the record closed. However, it was part of PL -5 so the
Board can take notice of it.
Bathhouse expansion in the river setback:
This applies to any structure in a yard, and there is one specific to river
setbacks. Only a dwelling can be allowed to expand, not a separate shed or
garage. This is an unusual structure, not just a shed, and was done at great cost.
It is interpretive as to which code pertains. A reading to allow this is a stretch.
The Hearings Officer recognizes it is a very nice development and not
offensive. But it might open the door to other structures to expand in this way.
The Hearings Officer was questioned about potential adverse impacts to
neighborhood by the septic system. Staff has a different conclusion. The
Hearings Officer said this is DEQ's job. Staff says there needs to be no greater
adverse impact. It is supposed to be used for RV camping and storage. Staff
recommends a condition of approval due to neighbor testimony about visitors
being at the site. Staff feels that no one should be able to spend the night in the
outbuildings. Recreational use standards for vehicles would be applied, to
mitigate the septic issue. Staff recommends the bathhouse be legal since it is
primarily used for storage. Conditions of approval should handle this.
The question is whether the expansion is lawful. There are other questions in
the Hearings Officer's decision that the owner is addressing.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 8 of 16
Commissioner Baney asked if the deck is to be defined as a structure rather than
landscaping. She is worried about a rippling effect. Mr. Groves replied that a
structure is permanently constructed, like a fence. A deck is an easier call than
a liner or a fence. The landscaping definition does not have to be just greenery,
benches, a fountain or pathways. The Hearings Officer stated that decks might
be part of landscaping, but are structures as well. Staff feels that allowing this
might result in more decks. They want to protect the river corridor. This is a
policy choice. The Board can let the definition be more flexible if it is not
adversely affecting habitat or wetlands.
Chair Unger wants the deck and the dock to fall under acceptable standards.
6. Other Items.
Ms. Ure said she drafted some interview questions for the lobbyist interviews.
The department directors were asked if they had any questions as well.
Commissioner Baney stated she wants to be able to cross-reference and use the
same questions for each. The Board will review the questions and come up with
what they feel is relevant. Mr. Anderson noted that structure and using the same
criteria is important.
Tom Kuhn presented an application for Central Oregon regional health
improvement resources, which has a tight timeframe for submittal. It has to do
with the diabetes prevention program, which is evidence based and shown to be
58% effective. The numbers of those with diabetes is increasing, and this will
help address that problem. It is a three-year proposal totaling about $500,000.
They will need one FTE for a health educator, and they are already doing a pilot
diabetes program.
Sara Worthington has partnered with Mosaic Medical and St. Charles —
Redmond, who send clients to her. This would be a similar model with St.
Charles, Crook County Health, and Mosaic in La Pine, Madras and Prineville.
All three counties would be covered. The ultimate goal is to develop a
sustainable diabetes prevention program. Medicaid is looking towards
reimbursing for this as well. This is a recommended strategy in the regional
health improvement plan and focuses on weight loss, activity and nutrition. It
involves lifestyle coaches with special training who can help to modify daily
activities. This will benefit families overall, by looking at the risk factors and
determine how they can be modified.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 9 of 16
Chair Unger noted that it is critical to get ahead of this to solve issues early and
reduce health costs. Some people don't even know they have it. They need to
build on what has already been done.
Mr. Anderson said that there can be many factors between now and three years
from now. They will have to reassess this in the future to make sure it is working
well. Mr. Kuhn stated that others will be providing staff resources, and funding
will be shared with the other counties, with Deschutes County coordinating.
Commissioner Baney indicated these are COHC funds and it has to align with the
health improvement plan for the region. These dollars are granted towards the
Medicaid population. This is a competitive grant, but it helps that it is regional.
Diabetes is a high health cost driver, too.
DEBONE: Move approval.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Abstain (due to her involvement with the COHC and
WEBCO).
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Chair Unger said the Board is looking at reasonable rules for marijuana
production and other issues, and wanted to talk more about access. Private roads
are supported by those who live there, and there is a possible condition that
someone would have to get permission from the neighbors to be able to apply for
a marijuana grow license. He wants to know if they have to do this if the use is
in line with the customary use of the private road. He asked if there would be
any kind of a trip cap, and when they actually would need permission.
Commissioner Baney said that not all properties have a home on them or are
buildable. She wants to know how to address this type of easement. Some
companies might hire a lot of people who would be there year-round. She asked
how to navigate this, and what if it was more residential or had a different crop.
Chair Unger noted that some said they will do it all themselves, so there is no
additional impact. That's the issue. It could go from just a little use to a lot of
traffic.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 10 of 16
Peter Russell explained that the County has no regulatory authority over a private
road. A private easement or road agreement is worked out between whoever
owns the properties. The local public roads allow up to 9,000 trips per day, and it
would probably never get to that point.
Someone might have a great year with alfalfa with two or three cuttings, but this
is normal agricultural use. The County does not get involved in this. A trip cap
sounds nice, but there are too many problems with monitoring and enforcement.
The public road capacity would be fine. Easements can be worded in a lot of
different ways; some might say 'any use' and some might say `residence'.
Commissioner Baney asked what is required when someone is establishing a
business. Mr. Russell replied that there is site plan review, but if there are less
than 50 trips a day, there is no traffic analysis required for public roads. Again,
the County does not have authority over private roads or easements. There might
be SDC language if the use is intensifying, but that doesn't address agriculture.
Historically that has been a low trip generator.
The public roads have a physical capacity to handle a lot of traffic, but the
County can't get involved with private roads. Typically, in regard to business
trips, they count employees and deliveries, but not the family that lives there.
Chair Unger asked about the road situation for Faith, Hope & Charity Vineyards.
Mr. Russell said that there was a question about the road width for emergency
vehicles. Nick Lelack added that the others using this easement road did not
have veto authority over its use, since the land belongs to the Vineyard.
Chair Unger asked about the condition of the private road and who pays to keep
it to standard. It is not fair for a neighbor to create a lot more wear and tear. Mr.
Russell said he can look up any cases that might involve a special road district.
David Doyle pointed out that anyone has a right to be on a public road. A private
easement is between the parties, and the County cannot enter into this. It is a
civil issue if there are problems. One party can sue the other if there is a problem
and they can't come to an agreement. It is not reasonable for the County to
impose rules on private parties regarding private roads or easements. Much
depends on how the easement or agreement was written. It needs to be worked
out by the affected parties.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 11 of 16
He stressed that the County cannot insert itself either way and take sides. This is
just asking to be brought into a lawsuit and having to decide whether to take
sides. His strong advice is to let the individual parties work it out.
Commissioner Baney said that most who granted easements did not imagine this
happening. There could be a lot of employees and activities. Mr. Doyle
emphasized that the County needs to leave this between the parties to work out.
Mr. Russell added that there won't be much of an impact on public roads in any
case, so people can't try to stop the business on that basis. Fifty trips per day is
the threshold for public roads, with ten trips for residential use. This is not tied to
the size of the house or family. A type 3 home occupation allows twenty trips.
Mr. Doyle asked if the use is industrial, whether there is any say on how a private
easement is used. Mr. Russell replied that they have to follow local road
standards. The County cannot force anyone to improve an easement since it is
not the County's road. There are no rural industrial standards, and they can't use
the home occupation language.
Commissioner DeBone said he does not want to take risks getting involved in
personal property issues. Nick: Jackson Co. required public access, with all
parties allowing it for private easements.
Mr. Doyle explained that this is EFU land and not residential, so someone can't
complain about farm use when they are in a farm zone. That is the underlying
issue. They can't use the income basis to justify a dwelling. People sometimes
try to use transportation to halt development.
Commissioner DeBone said he would like to remove the whole concept. Chair
Unger added that it might impact one or two properties. Mr. Lelack said they
could require production and processing to have public road access.
Commissioner Baney wants to attach requirements to tier 2, larger facilities. She
said some want to have tours, lodging and tasting rooms, too. Mr. Doyle said
they are already rolling this in with farm uses.
Mr. Russell asked about SC's. Bend Distillery was charged for this.
Commissioner Baney asked if it would depend on the size or level of production
or extraction. One owner thinks that hemp will be carte blanche. Chair Unger
said that hemp is a farm crop.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 12 of 16
Mr. Lelack said they could tie it to processing, not the growing. Mr. Russell said
the SC's would be low grade. It is difficult to capture this for a particular
agricultural product. This isn't the same as an SDC; it is just for road
improvements, not development in general.
Whitney Hale presented a draft media release regarding the marijuana decisions.
Also, a reporter wants an on -camera interview. Commissioner Baney wants to
add what it is and isn't to the media release. Medical marijuana has been legal
since 2008, and the legislature continues to move forward with additional
regulations. The Board recognizes the need for reasonable rules to find balance
with the realities of legalization, taking into account property rights and
protecting the rural nature of the County.
Some people might read that it can be grown anywhere, anytime; and that the
Board could have made it all go away. This is not reality.
Chair Unger added that he wants them to correct some of the oversight of the
medical that is already out there today. There need to be reasonable regulations
to address the concerns of rural residents regarding sound, lights, odor, security
and other potential impacts.
Commissioner Baney said they have no control over what the voters put in place,
but they have to deal with the details. Continuing the opt out would not have
made marijuana go away. It would remain lawful regardless of this decision, so
they are doing the best they can to regulate some of it.
Chair Unger stated that they originally opted out because there was no time to
work on reasonable regulations. Commissioner DeBone said they needed to talk
about the meaty stuff. It had to be thumbs up or down eventually.
Regarding the State of the County event, they are considering various ideas. A
draft was presented to the Board for review. He asked who will be doing the
talking for this and for the 'top ten'. The Chamber notification shows
Commissioners Baney and Unger doing this. The Commissioners said they
would alternate. The new draft will be ready by Monday's work session.
Ms. Hale gave an overview of the Centennial upcoming events, starting with this
weekend.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 13 of 16
The Board then discussed Planning Commission appointments. Mr. Lelack said
the interview panel has recommended Leslie Hudson and Jim Beeger. There
were others that were very qualified as well. All Commissioners met the two
finalists. Mr. Beeger would represent the Bend area, and Mr. Hudson would be
at large.
Mr. Lelack stated that he would share the decision with the other candidates
before Friday. The Planning Commission meets this week and then again at the
end of the month.
Chair Unger noted that Larry Fulkerson is doing a great job helping with the 911
levy and the MAC. He wants Mr. Lelack to remember this when he advises Mr.
Fulkerson that he was not picked for Planning Commissioner. Commissioner
DeBone noted that Mr. Fulkerson went from being neutral to an opponent on the
MAC, but actually tried to demonstrate reasonable regulations. Mr. Lelack stated
that other candidates were much more engaged in the process, and were
interested in the entire County and strictly land use. It was very close as all the
candidates were excellent.
Erik Kropp revisited the proposed Access to Justice appointment of Seth Johnson
of the Opportunity Foundation. The Board had suggested someone from
Neighbor Impact. Jeff Hall explained that the local Bar created this program as a
joint venture. The law library being moved to the public library was a good
move. The core group consists of Bend residents and local professionals, and
they wanted to include others to include the entire County.
They proposed the woman who runs the La Pine soup kitchen be involved, and
also wanted to address those who are closer to this issue and has a connection
with the local population. He has not met with Mr. Johnson, but knows that
David Rosen of Access to Justice feels that it is important to appoint Mr.
Johnson.
Commissioner Baney stated that the Opportunity Center is more for those who
are intellectually disadvantaged, and she sees this group as providing access due
to financial issues or to help navigating the system. If it was someone with a
developmental disability, they have advocates to help them. Other people don't
have funds or can't negotiate the system.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 14 of 16
Mr. Hall said that there is a variety of reasons why this happens. Some people do
not know they have a problem. Some know, but don't know what to do about it.
It can occur due to poverty, disability, or a lack of education or benefits.
Like Saving Grace, some need the services but can't or won't access them. Mr.
Johnson works for a certain group but that does not mean those people don't have
legal problems or have the ability to access legal help. Mr. Johnson is from
Redmond, and they want someone from Redmond on this group. It is important
to represent the entire County. The Court is in Bend but serves the entire County.
Commissioner Baney stated that Neighbor Impact is in Redmond as well, and is a
good place to do outreach. Commissioner DeBone said both serve the region.
They can look at this next time.
BANEY: Move appointment of Seth Johnson.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner DeBone said that the District Attorney is saying they need more
help. Mr. Hall confirmed that they are overwhelmed at the Courts and need more
judges. He doesn't know about anything specific at the D.A.'s Office, but they
are working on some new programs. He does not think the addition of another
Deputy D.A. would negatively impact the Courts.
The struggle is on Monday morning when they have to do screenings from the
weekend, and filings come in late. Some D.D.A.'s come in on Sunday to try to
get ahead of this issue. This is one area where an additional D.D.A. might help,
unless the D.A. is declining prosecution due to not having enough help. They
really need to have nine judges.
7. Adjourn.
Being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 15 of 16
APPROVED this Day of
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Alan Unger, Chair
2016 for the
Tammy Baney(ice Chair
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 16 of 16
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Sgt. Nathan Garibay
Date: May 11, 2016
Subject: Proposed Grant Application for the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Commissioner/County Administrator Approval:
Date:
The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office is requesting the Board of Commissioners' approval to submit a
grant application on behalf of the County. A summary of the grant opportunity follows.
Program: Deschutes County Emergency Management Program
The Sheriff's Office will utilize Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) to fund the
county's emergency management program.
The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office will be allocated funds pursuant to a successful grant application to
the Oregon Military Department, Office of Emergency Management. Deschutes County has not received
final allocations, but has developed a budget off of expected allocations. The funds will be used to pay half
of the salary for the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Manager and related program.
The rest of the program (50%) will come from Sheriff's Office funds.
The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Emergency Services Manager is responsible for all planning,
coordination and oversight for the Emergency Services functions mandated to the Sheriff's Office by
Oregon Revised Statute and Deschutes County Code.
An Emergency Services Manager must address four specific areas: Exercises; Plans; Training; and Public
Education. Some of the activities required of the Emergency Services Manager include either creating or
updating the county -wide Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the Threats and Hazards Identification and Risk
Assessment, and a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Additionally, the Emergency Services Manager must
participate in certain training requirements, such as participating in an annual EMPG workshop and in a state
level multi-year training and exercise plan workshop.
Funding Agency: Oregon Office of Emergency Management, Emergency Management Performance
Program. On March 25, 2016, OEM issued a state-wide notice that the application period is open until
May 13, 2016.
Due Date: Application: May 13, 2016
Amount: No greater than $141,320
Matching Funds: No less than $141,320
Duration: July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017
Background: If the County is awarded the funds, OEM will issue a formal grant document which
will be presented to the Board/County Administrator for signature.
Reporting: Sgt. Garibay, the Deschutes County Emergency Manager, will be responsible for
submitting quarterly reports to the Office of Emergency Management.
Please contact Sgt. Garibay at 541-617-3303 if you have questions concerning this request.
FY 2014-15 Discretionary Grant Applications - Updated 112612016
N
N U
C C
m
D c L C
O N U o
�iC c fa N .
C N N E 2 CE. o0 U U N m 7 mE LC E 'C N O Q> O 15
=' ,••, o m N o N 47
LN C No U coo c 0Nc° c =E-JL Um ›"'pW am
UO
U; :-
�O44:C NO 00 O aO) U° 0 NUW CO 0 U m i U O N
O @ C > 0 U N U N 6 E L U O. - d N OU E C> U1N U
v=�WaC C U C oUm U CUU
� ico >Qc-T 07wO
9-<'• : c o o c UmQ nF-c W SS0 o a 0 oEmN
11 c.mD,23 U cmQ h >TWa.Og o c) oZOmmmO)oZcL0'- a
m o oi'aw o a) 0 c o_ m cp ofr a m c)m 0m mm m c 5 c E 0 CO co
y)3 nEacm o m m`E m o c TE a) O 2 y J LL N m t o n. own > in0 0 0 -ca
ai (1)) a) .49m1-m0_cN>°'N oa„, a) o ceU. o LL 0 cc c r E -a) o > a) co .c c
to
QzS6coUpUo N
,r. > V. - 10 _ o U O> NJoaU O- 'O 0 N 0 a)
442 Em.Um °) o 2,vc m a> rc 5m>0c E 5 U N 5= a m t o caca coN p.o .-
'm.('1-1-1-n:OUJWW0c'02LLJLLJO_00_c0TLLLL (nr-Jcn>-0)i 0S6nNn.>-a
t0'0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000`n
4:?; O 0 O O O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
'O'O.0 O O 0O O O co 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 2;
OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O6 O 0 0
IR r0.O.Cfl O 1W O O 69 0 W90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 6A to
- lain, O r M "Cr N a N N N O 0 0) 0) 00 0) CO 0) O O N O N 0 w) O 0115„,..) 0 16) N to O O O
gvi*,N, N��N r NrNr� 1,1 V. NN rO Nrrr NN rr N r CV Nrr
1- .'b4_49' E9 69 to 69 to 69 U) 0* 60 69 69 to E9 69 63 E9 69 69 69 EA Eo E9 49 03 to v) 64 69 E9 69 69
O O. O -O 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Q O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4
N 0Ef7,69 63 69 E9 to Efl 69 63 69 69 100 01CCD 69 O 100 )Of) 69 63 Eo 69V3 6a 69 CD O N O NEA 0O U-3 E9 E9 6A 49 69 f!3 69 63 f9 69 fA E9 to
64 69 ea49 69 EOE* 69 63
C .,
0 0
O O
T.
O 69
6A
0
O O
CD
10
Is.
0*
69
07,) O O O O O O o 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 O O
110,0-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
046'"0'00000000000040) 00000000 co 00000000)0 N- 0*) V O0 0') 0') 000 000
Cii :O -E9410 O O 6o O 694 069 6969 co 6969 OO O O 69 O CO 69 69 69 69 69 69 M M C) CD M MOM OM M 69 69 69
O
6A
'O"?`.:; 0; 069 69 V9 69 09 01 10 41 CD 0 f9 fA E9 T- �� M M 66-0>C0 LOCO O
63 EA 694969 f9 f964 69 fo 49
rN. E9 E9 EA
j.0 O O LO O O 4 0 0 0 O O 0 O 4 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 4 O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 O O 4 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 4 O O 4 O 0 O O O 0 O O O
T,Q;O-O 000000000000 SS 00000000 CO 000000 MC9 O OD CO 07 O M Coco V 6900 NCO
U-,'O'E9 O 1O 4 O690E90069 Efl 690")69 69 0) O CD 69 tfi O OO 64 ea 69 64 U369 M 0) CD a) 0•) OD O co OM o0 to EA Efl r 070
:09 to fA M E W6 M 1000 to 09 CD WMtO MO0014 OMM CV 1,...
E9 69 69 6A t3} E9 Cfl 69 fA 69 E9 E9 Ofl E9 E9 69 EA 49 f9 69 E9 69 *- to
69 69
--10'17`O O O O O O O co co co O O O O O O O 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O
;'O`OO O O 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 RR
L'k 000 00000000000 00040 0000 (fl 000000 d' co OI - 'd' MOM t- V MOOD P 0'-
U 40.11 ,64 0 10 0 069 4 t9 (0 o 69 69 69 co 63 69 O O O O 6o 4 co 44 69 69 69 E9 E9 o') M co O 0*) Cr) O CO CO 0') CO) EA (9 6 4 r r
O: --,%O In 69 CO V' 0b� CO 10 to OO 10 CO WM1O 09 O10W COMM NN
C >:..;'; - 64 69 69 60 69 6A 69 CA 69 r 6o r 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 63 K-3 69 6 9 cc 69
r.? ... ,.. 0-
69
10;.0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OD O O O O O
,T -ca O O O O O O 0 O 4 0 0 O 0 0 0 4 q 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 CO O 4 CD CD 0
'00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-O o 10 O O O O O 10 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O O 0
Oto 10 V' 1010000') N 1010 CO q 0010100!) 000000000001) co_ 100010000000 co_ 010 O NO
.041) N 69:CV CV- N N N 10(4 CV 4104 N N 04000) 100404 N C0 10
'£!9 ea ea 69 69 to 69 63 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Eo E9 69 69 69 60 69 69 69 69 E9 69 69 69
in:10 10 00 10 6 00 00 10
3 ,r
.0 'O O N N O O O
Cou,t4 cu cu cu cu
'a) CO r N N O 0 0
>n n �nnrnrnrnrn
10 00 10 00 00 10 00 CO CO (O CO 40 CO CO (0 (O CO (0 CO 00 CO CO OO OO CO (0 (0 CO CO (O OO (0 (O O
00 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (`4 N N N
Fr n r I`r (� to I.n i0 14) 1n to (n V' M M M 0') Off) 0') 0 ) M M 0*) M o”) M o) co M M 0`7 co M
O O O O O O N N N N N N N r r r rr r r r r r r r r r r r r r
.= rrrc�vvvv�vv'vvvv<_ '3. t vvv
r r 1- 1-- rrr r 000 N N N N 0) M 01 0) CO M M 09 C• •3' V' V'rt V V'V V ,r ,T '3' ,T ,r 'a' V V
C3 C3
>->-rrz>-z>-r>->->->->->->->-r>-z>->-r>-r>- >->-r>->->-r>->-rr>-z
N
U
N_
5
O C
OEs .1-"""a.
O a)
V @ 0
C
p O O T m
O
O.m c Er ` 0
0. N _!
'
U
c O o N CO
x U w ; dg m a Q
.00 LL ( p N a) c C
F2 6 U O C O C E VQ
.�W N C ...
co N
o i n- N O o _mpa. . 0 ,-
co(a c0o °) N c c
> L z 45 ¢oN - >.
c`
UCN O N(E 0 T U
C 03 Z.. dmQi c moo~E LL C O N
nExo v O aLLN i E ,...co n dR mov >EE3Oz=
cozN5 cc N co c m >OE
c
•ca_m Eo.Q>>
c co U o oa)Tcmo-a6. E
irnan < 112 o'o``mooam-C,.
°°EcQ 44ycy m!Ii�o o.c0a- 0 N C7 0 )o ' o¢ O U 0n -r) mmy m E 0
0•Q o m S c •... 201- cc m o N eZ (a
o 3 nmom E. c rna or c`iV
To m ro^C m 6 a> U'6 >o o-om E a) 32> a)m d m m> ,
o�YoovaNa-c�r? ci>c�•Em
mc 0m4m0 cm•�•m-10L>c..cc,co >NCD ,,�m
ai naai o o a) 0 ic CO C C1 Lo. 00 0 (a 0 o (a a) u o U 0 co a) ° •- 2d a) m: o a
k'-Jm0-0J00�Taaca.muJ-QDOn0.>-0J(ncnc0maozr-c00)0*0) -1000)00) 0
I-- co
C0
r -i
0
LA
0
W
0
to
Ca
4+
O 0 0 0 0 0 O
I
Q O O Q O O O
O G1 O O O O6
O O O Q O O Q
Q t11 t -i 111 Cr 111 t!1
Ari t.P) .^i' N e i Ii r.": N
i 1 1
@L'ri nq i!)
tnZ
,Q
:C
-AV. as
,- ,- V
I- O
1.-0.-<
LL., t0
0 r N
0
O O Q
O O M
:'Q m
' Q a -I N
i
vi
- 5,168.00 Q3
-5,667.00 Q4
- 15,718.00 Total Spent
-$718.00 Remaining Balance
aJ
u
CU
0.
co
tII
c
t!! (12C
0 ri N fr) cy•O
- N C7 ra C7 C7 a- ce
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O o d kn trn tri to
O tl) M t0 W c-1 OQ
Q c -i r t,0 l0 N N
>4t.n rr ' m 1 r) M e -I
CO
a.
C
.e.
2015-16 Allocation
-5,166.00 Q3
-5,668.00 Q4
-15,217.00 Total Spent
-$217.00 Remaining Balance
Remaining Balance
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst
Date: May 4, 2016
Subject: Economic Development Loan Program
The Board of Commissioners has recently indicated a desire to review and possibly update the Deschutes
County Economic Development Loan Program. The program was created by resolution in 2010 (see
accompanying document) and that document does not address some issues that have arisen as the
program has evolved over time, including:
Family Wage Job: Since 2013, loan agreements have defined "family wage" as "a position with a starting
salary that is equal to or greater than the average pay of all covered employment and wages for Deschutes
County as reported in the Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS)" — currently approximately
$36,000 per year.
Multiple Loans: At least two loans have been approved for companies that had received and fulfilled the
conditions of an earlier loan.
Benefits: Loans for jobs that pay less than a family wage have sometimes been approved, particularly
when the associated benefit package was generous.
Loan Basis: Loans are considered based on an amount of $2,000 per job created. The Board has
occasionally approved loans based on $1,000 per job, particularly when the pay is lower than family wage
as defined above.
Loan Limits: Loans are generally limited to $50,000. EDCO recently raised the question of possibly
increasing that limit when circumstances warrant it.
Geographic Distribution: EDCO has expanded economic development efforts in La Pine and Sisters.
The majority of loans have been made within the cities of Bend and Redmond with one loan made in
Sisters and none in La Pine to date.
Leveraging: Loan recipients are not currently required to demonstrate that economic development funds
will be used to leverage other funds.
These topics and any others related to the County's Economic Development Loan Program that the Board
wishes to consider are scheduled for discussion during the May 11, 2016 work session. Please let me
know if you have questions or would like to receive additional information in advance of that meeting.
REVIE
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGC FN
A Resolution Establishing Fund 105 as the
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-038
Economic Development Fund
WHEREAS, Deschutes County faces historically high levels of unemployment and
economic distress; and
WHEREAS, business recruitment and retention, and in particular job creation, are high-
level priorities for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board"); and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County budgets certain monies in Fund 105, which has
historically been known as the "Business Loan Fund;" and
WHEREAS, the Board wishes to repurpose those funds in Fund 105 and use them for the
above -stated priority of job creation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
DESCHUTES COUNTY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. Fund 105 shall henceforth be known as the Economic Development Fund.
2. Monies currently in Fund 105 and other monies that may be transferred to Fund 105 at the
sole discretion of the Deschutes County Budget Committee and the Board shall be used only
for the purposes described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
DATED this /O12 day of
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Page 1 of 3
)(111.—te--(47-
2010.
n
DENTIS R. LUKE, Chair
ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair
TAMMY B , Coul.issioner
Resolution No. 2010-038
EXHIBIT A
Fund 105, to be known at the Economic Development Fund, shall be used for the
exclusive purpose of job -creating business recruitment, retention and expansion, using
the following criteria and procedures. Fund disbursements may take the form of low-
interest loans, forgivable loans or grants, however, all disbursements shall be tied directly
to the creation or retention of jobs in Deschutes County. Fund 105 shall not be used for
investment purposes or to cover the start-up costs of a new business venture.
Criteria
1. For purposes of this resolution, "relocation" means the move of an existing
business from outside of Deschutes County into Deschutes County.
2. Business "retention" means the keeping of a business in Deschutes County that
has verifiable, bona fide plans to move outside of Deschutes County and to take
jobs that are currently provided by that business in Deschutes County to one or
more areas outside of the County.
3. Business "expansion" means the verifiable, bona fide plans of an existing
business in Deschutes County to expand its operation in such a way that the result
is the creation of regular, full-time jobs that did not exist prior to the expansion.
4. For purposes of Fund 105, relocation or retention expenses include a business'
costs of moving equipment, furnishings and personal business property to or
within Deschutes County, but shall not include the costs of moving the personal
household goods of any employee or potential employee to or within Deschutes
County. Relocation expenses may also include: 1. short-term rent relief in a
business' new location; and 2. the costs associated with the recruitment of new
staff, including, but not limited to, advertising or travel allowances.
5. For purposes of Fund 105, expansion expenses include a business' costs of
building or leasing new space necessary to provide for newly created jobs, the
lease or purchase of new equipment or personal business property necessary to
accommodate newly created jobs, and/or the costs associated with recruitment or
training of new staff.
6. The Board of Commissioners may, in its sole discretion, approve other uses of
Fund 105 if they are consistent with the uses listed above.
Procedure
1. Deschutes County contracts with Economic Development for Central Oregon
(EDCO) for economic development strategic planning, counsel and support.
EDCO is engaged directly in the recruitment of new traded -sector businesses to
the County.
Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. 2010-038.
2. All requests for disbursements from the Economic Development fund shall be
made by Deschutes County pursuant to a written request to the County by EDCO.
All such requests shall conform to the criteria above.
3. EDCO shall determine whether a disbursement from Fund 105 will be structured
as a low-interest loan, a forgivable loan or a grant. In all cases, disbursements
from the fund shall be tied directly to the creation of jobs. For forgivable loans,
all agreements between EDCO/County and the recipient business shall include a
"clawback" provision requiring the repayment of some or the entire loan for the
failure to create an agreed-upon number of jobs by an agreed-upon date.
4. A forgivable loan shall generally not exceed an amount equivalent to $2,000 per
newly created job. Deschutes County reserves the right to waive this limit in its
sole discretion after considering EDCO's recommendation.
5. EDCO shall be responsible for tracking the number of jobs created pursuant to a
loan, forgivable loan or grant and for reporting to Deschutes County not less than
semi-annually on the performance of loan and grant recipients.
6. Interest rates on low-interest loans shall be determined by Deschutes County in
consultation with EDCO. Loan administration and collection shall be the
responsibility of Deschutes County, which reserves the right to subcontract such
responsibility to a third party.
Page 3 of 3
Resolution No. 2010-038
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
Discretionary Grant Program
Note: In mid-April, Stephanie Alvstad of J Bar J Youth Services contacted each of the
Commissioners requesting a waiver for site plan review fees required to add a multi-purpose
room to the boys' ranch building for cold -weather activities. As the Board does not waive
building/land use fees, Ms. Alvstad was encouraged to pursue a discretionary grant to offset the
cost as an alternative.
Board Meeting Date: May 11, 2016
Organization: J Bar J Youth Services
Project Name: Ranch Addition
Project Period: May 23, 2016 — August 31, 2016
Amount of Request: $2,285
Previous Grants:
7/1/1999
7/1/2000
7/18/2001
6/14/2002
9/28/2004
12/19/2006
Approved:
Declined:
Michelob Classic sponsorship
Oregon High Desert Classic
Table for fundraiser
Homeless program
Installation of Electricity and Water to add 70 horse stalls
Today's Date:
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005
1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR
Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202
Website: www.deschutes.ore
DESCHUTES COUNTY
DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
IProject Name: I 'a -ear cram ‘s-V....54.m4). MAL -1-101, I
Project Beginning Date: ./.7.,3) I Project End Date: f 1
Amount Requested: *2_ze,s Date Funds Needed: I 5 [2_5/ 1 ip
Name of Applicant Organization:I ZTyou--hrk Sero icas
Address:i (9jj5 profytt9,i -RA
City & Zip Coded 'ex, ryA. CQ I Tax ID #: 1 TS–Otol 7 6250 I
Contact Name(s):1 5tephaille, A kr 5-1-049.— Telephone #: I '3e 14 DI 1
I Email Address: I y 51-04 bo,r-3
Fax #: I 541 3eci
On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions:
1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and
activities.
2. Describe the proposed project or activity.
3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity.
4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community.
5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit.
6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching
funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*.
7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future.
Attach:
Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status.
* Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget.
Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program Appflcatiori
5-3'3016 3 Bar J Youth Services
1. The mission ofi Bar J Youth Services is to provide innovative options for at -risk children, youth and
their families toward self-sufficiency and personal responsibilityJBar ] facilitates positive change for at -
risk youthvvithmkxdisdnc±proQmanns:theJBarJ8oysRanch,Anademyat0stars,CascmdeYouthond
Family Center, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Oregon, the Learning Center, and Safe Families for
Children of Central Oregon. J Bar 3 Youth Services is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors of
currently 8community professionals. Some significant activities over the Iast 2 years:
a. In 2014, we partnered with a coalition of churches to establish Safe Families for Children of
Central Oregon, an affiliate of a national program that provides support and mentoring for
families. The target audience for this program is families that are temporarily not able to care
for their children; they can place them with a host family voluntarily for a limited period of time.
The goal is to reduce the demand for child welfare services and to preserve and empower
families.
b. The .1 Bar .1Boys Ranch increased their capacity to serve more youth in the fall of 2015. We
received a new state contract and license to lease the Deschutes County Juvenile Pod 300 for 12
boys. This is a highly respected contracted program for Oregon Youth Authority placements. The
additional beds wili increase access to our programs.
c. Cascade Youth & Family Center established a social venture called Tag It Forward -a mobile
coffee van to provide employment training and experience for homeless youth. We also added
the Independent Living Program, serving current and former foster youth on their journey
towards independence.
2. Our request is for $2,285 to cover the cost of site plan review. J Bar JBoy's Ranch badding amulti-
purpose rommfortheodolescentbmynmt1heranch.C)urbovscurrentlyhaveadin|n8000m,butno|ivinQ
room, or multi-purpose room to do some indoor activities when the weather getscold. We have a
concrete slab at the front of the boys ranch building and plan to turn that into the multipurpose room.
We have a contractor who has donated some time, an architect that has donated some time ($4,000 so
faM,and wehad msmall budget ($4S,0O0)tnadd the room. However, we later discovered through the
architect that we would need to increase the budget by 25% for accessibility issues (state and local
rules), thus we had to add approximately $15,000 to our budget. We are trying to secure donations
beyond the architect's donation (and some labor to be donated by the contractor ($2,000), to be able to
complete the project.
3. The site plan is ready to be turned in to the Deschutes County planning department for reviewWe
hope to turn it in this month by May 23. The review process takes 8-10 weeks so it should be completed
bvJuly 31st. Once the site plan review is approved we can start the work on the addition of the room in
August, completing it by September, ready for the cold months so the boys have additional living space.
4. The Deschutes County Discretionary funding for this project will allow J Bar J Youth Services to
5. The specific group that will primarily be affected will be the boys at the J Bar J Boys ranch.
Approximately 1/3 of the youth at the ranch are local. The additional space will allow for better
separation of youth and increased room for indoor activities, creating a more stable living environment.
With less conflict, we anticipate positive impacts for the surrounding neighborhood and community —
fewer referrals to law enforcement and fewer youth running away from the program.
6. Grant funding will be used to pay the Deschutes County Site Plan review fee of $2,285 for our addition
of a multipurpose room. Donations thus far include the architect donation of $4,000, and the contractor
labor donation of $2,000. The rest will be paid for by donations from our fundraiser the Oregon High
Desert Horse Show.
7. This is a one-time request. It is not an ongoing activity.
Thank you for your consideration!
E
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or. us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
From: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
Date: May 3, 2016
Re: Appeal of Caldera Springs Destination Resort Expansion, 247 -15 -000464 -CU
Before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) is an appeal filed by Central Oregon
Landwatch (Landwatch) in response to the Deschutes County Hearings Officer's (HO) approval
of the above -referenced land use application.
BACKGROUND
Pine Forest Development received HO approval (Attachment 1) to expand the existing Caldera
Springs Destination Resort by adding 614 acres of land which will include 395 single-family
dwellings, up to 95 overnight lodging units, recreation facilities and resort core amenities. Pine
Forest also received approval to modify the Caldera Springs Conceptual Master Plan and ratio
of single-family residences to overnight lodging units from 2:1 to 2.5:1.
LANDWATCH APPEAL
Landwatch appeals the HO decision for the following reasons (Attachment 2):
1. Landwatch argues the appeal fee of $5,395 is unreasonable, unsupportable, and
constitutes a constitutional violation. Additionally, Landwatch requests the County waive
the appeal fee.
2. The Pine Forest proposal should be reviewed as a separate destination resort, rather
than as an expansion of the existing Caldera Springs Destination Resort.
3. Pine Forest should not be allowed to rely upon the existing 150 overnight units within the
original Caldera Springs for the expansion approval. Additionally, Landwatch argues
that Caldera only has 38 overnight units rather than 150 units.
4. Pine Forest has not established that there is adequate domestic water supply or
wastewater treatment capacity.
5. The HO inappropriately approved uses and resort amenities that would be subject to
future refinement by Pine Forest, rather than requiring Pine Forest to provide detailed
plans that should be reviewed now.
6. The HO inappropriately approved open space areas that would be subject to future
refinement by Pine Forest, rather than requiring Pine Forest to provide detailed plans
that should be reviewed now.
Quality Services Perforated with Pride
Because Landwatch argues the primary issues are of state law, Landwatch requests the Board
not hear the appeal. Should the Board decide to hear the appeal, Landwatch argues it should
not be burdened with the extra cost of a de novo review'.
150 -DAY LAND USE CLOCK
The HO decision was issued on day 141 of the 150 -day land use clock. The Landwatch appeal
was submitted on day 153. The applicant indicated to staff that it is inclined to toll the clock if
the Board decides to hear the appeal on the record. However, as of the date of this memo, the
applicant has not officially tolled the clock or indicated how long the clock would be tolled.
Additionally, the applicant has not indicated whether it would toll the clock if the Board decides
to hear the appeal via limited de novo or full de novo.
BOARD OPTIONS
Attachment 3 contains two versions of Order No. 2016-022. 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 staff. 2
Reason to hear:
The Board may want to take testimony and make interpretative issues relating to the
application. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) will be obligated to defer to the
Board's interpretation if they are at least plausible. The Board may want to reinforce or
refute some or all of the Hearing Officer's findings/interpretations prior to LUBA review.
Reason not to hear:
The Hearings Officer's decision is reasoned, well written and could be supported as the
record exists today on appeal.
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes the HO decision is reasoned, well written and is supported by the evidence in the
record. For this reason, staff recommends the Board not hear the appeal. Should the Board
agree to hear the appeal, staff notes there has been significant public interest in this project.
Attachments:
1. Hearings Officer's decision
2. Landwatch appeal
3. Order No. 2016-022
1 Staff notes that the appeal fees are the same regardless of the format of the appeal hearing — on the
record, limited de novo or full de novo.
2 DCC 22.32.035(B) and (D)
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P 0. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cddi
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 29, 2016
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner
RE: Appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15-
000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A)
BACKGROUND
In approximately 1976, applicant's predecessor constructed a small structure on the property,
referred to as the "bathhouse," that had a sink, toilet, shower, and laundry facilities inside and a
faucet and sink outside.
In 2009 and 2010, the applicant built several structures on the subject property, including the
existing dock, freestanding decks, walkways, garage, and an addition to the "bathhouse"
consisting of a bedroom and attached decking (effectively creating the bunkhouse). The
applicant also placed eight cubic yards of gravel on the driveway.
In 2013, the county received code violation complaints concerning construction and use of
improvements on the subject property without necessary permits and approvals: 247 -13205 -CE
(septic system); 247 -13206 -CE (work without building permits); and 247 -C13207 -CE (work
without land use approval). The applicant submitted the subject land use applications seeking
after -the -fact authorization/permits.
The Hearings Officer issued a decision on December 9, 2015 finding that the proposal does not
comply with all applicable regulations. Specifically, the "bathhouse" was found to have been
unlawfully established while PL -5 was the active zoning code, aboveground decks were found
to be not allowed in the 100 -foot river setback, and the dock was found not to comply with a
number of regulations. On December 22, 2015, the applicant appealed the decision to the
BOCC.
The Board conducted a de novo public hearing on March 30, 2016. The written record closed
on April 20, 2016. Staff has developed this memo and a decision matrix to help the Board
engage with the key decision points in this matter.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
11. Key Issues
This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes.
Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus.
M1 - Can new above -grade decks be constructed within 100' of a river?
Issue Summary: The applicant constructed two connected raised decks within 100 feet of the
Deschutes River. DCC 18.96.100(B) requires, "All structures, buildings or similar permanent
fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a
minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles from the ordinary high water mark."
Applicant: Applicant's decks fall under the definition of "landscaping" pursuant to the
Deschutes County Code, and are not structures. Landscaping is not regulated in the Flood Plain
Zone, so the decks should be allowed outright as an accessory use to the primary use of the
subject property.
Applicant has also offered to lower the decks so that they are at -grade with the ground, should it
be required as a condition of approval.
Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer has found the inclusion of "decks" in the definition of
"landscaping" does not mean that decks are not also "structures" that are subject to provisions
such as the river setback in this section.
The applicant has not identified, nor has the Hearings Officer found, any provision in FP Zone or
elsewhere in Title 18 that would permit the free-standing decks to be located within the 100 -foot
river setback simply because they are "river -dependent" — i.e., facilitating river viewing. And as
the staff report correctly notes, the purpose of the 100 -foot river setback is to prevent
construction of structures — other than docks and piers — in close proximity to the river and
potentially within riparian areas and wetlands.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that the decks are structures under the DCC 18.04.030
definition:
"Structure" means something constructed or built having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to,
the ground or another structure."
Staff believes that the decks have a fixed connection to the ground or are a "similar permanent
fixture". To the extent they also might also fall within an expanded definition of "landscaping"
the decks are not exempt them from the requirement to be set back from the river.
At one point, staff thought that placing the decks at -grade would allow them to comply with the
code. This is because the definitions of "yard" and "setback" require these areas to be
"unobstructed from the ground upward". However, upon further study of the relevant code
quoted above, neither "yard" nor "setback" is used in these sections. Rather, permanent fixtures
must be "set back" from the river, regardless of their relation to grade.
Therefore, staff believes the decks cannot be permitted within 100' of the Deschutes River.
M2 — Does the dock comply with river frontage standards?
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 2 of 10
Issue Summary: Dock construction is subject to the provision of DCC 18.96.080(G)(4). One
criterion requires that, "No individual boat dock or pier shall be allowed on any lot with less than
200 feet of river frontage." There is significant debate in the record if the property complies with
this requirement. This debate hinges on the methodology used for measuring frontage.
The river frontage is primarily a lineal feature. A straight-line measurement of the river frontage
comes to approximately 175 feet.
Staff and Hearings Officers have previously admitted "nook and cranny" surveys performed by
Scott Freshwaters, Surveyor, which capture the detailed frontage of a property. Mr.
Freshwaters "nook and cranny" survey of the subject property broke the frontage into 63
segments measuring a total of 196.82 feet. This is largely because of the unevenness of the
concrete riprap armoring the bank.
Sun Country Engineering & Surveying conducted an additional survey on September 16, 2015
with 183 segments totaling 209.5 feet of shoreline. The difference when compared to the
Freshwaters survey is accounted for in a letter from Tim Weishaupt, P.E. (Exhibit DD) and is
primarily attributed to ice -free conditions for the Sun Country survey.
Applicant: All real property is measured precisely, down to inches and degrees, and that
property descriptions can in fact be variable, particularly where the land borders a body of
water. The Subject Property should be measured no differently. If Applicant's property was not
adjacent to the Deschutes River, but instead another parcel of dry land, the only acceptable
measurement method for measuring those property lines would be the precise method
employed by Mr. Weishaupt. Further, other docks approved by the County in the past have
been approved using this same precise method of measurement to determine river frontage
measurements.
Hearings Officer: I find the appropriate measurement of a lot's river frontage is not its
cumulative length measured by every "nook and cranny" of the irregular shoreline as depicted
on the applicant's "Shoreline Survey." If that were the case, a property's frontage on the
Deschutes River, the level of which is highly regulated and has dramatic seasonal variations,
could be different depending on the time of measurement. I find it unlikely the drafters of Title 18
intended river frontage to be such a variable measurement. For these reasons, I find river
frontage should be measured by means of a recognized and objective demarcation — i.e., the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), defined in Section 18.04.030 as "the highest level on the
bank of shore of a lake, river or stream to which the water ordinarily recedes annually in
season." The applicant's submitted site plan depicts the OHWM on the subject property and
shows it is approximately 175 feet long.
Staff Comment: Staff believes the intent of the river frontage standard is to provide spacing
between docks and limit the overall density of docks on the Deschutes River. Because the river
frontage of the property is predominantly a linear feature, Staff believes the Sun Country survey,
consisting of segments that average just over 1 foot in length, circumvents the intent of the river
frontage standard. The "nook and cranny" survey increases the amount of "frontage" by about
20 percent. Since most properties on the Deschutes River have river frontages complicated by
wetlands or small-scale non-linear bank features, staff believes affirming this measurement
technique would effectively reduce the dock spacing and density well below the intended 200
feet.
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 3 of 10
While it might tempting to simply measure "frontage" from property line to property line, other
properties on river bends may have strongly convex or concave frontages that significantly
extend the river frontage of these property. Measuring these frontages with a single best -fit
curve would preserve the dock -to -dock spacing and density as intended by the code.
Staff recommends the board find that the intent of the river frontage standard is provide spacing
between docks and limit the overall density of docks on the Deschutes River. Staff
recommends that the Board find that, as a matter of policy and code interpretation, river
frontage for the purposes 18.96.080(G)(4) shall be measured as a single line or a single curve.
M3 — Does the dock comply with dock sauare footage standards?
Issue Summary: Dock construction is subject to the provision of DCC 18.96.080(G)(4). One
criterion requires that, "No individual boat dock or pier shall be more than 20 feet in length or
more than eight feet in width. The total surface area shall not exceed 160 square feet." This
section also specifies, "No walkway shall be more than four feet in width. The length of the
walkway shall be no more than the minimum required to allow access to a dock." Two
definitions are also relevant to this issue:
"Boat dock or pier, individual" means a personal use boating structure that is built over or floats
upon the water of a lake, river or stream, and that serves one property owner for mooring boats
or as a landing place for marine transport, and that has a surface area of 160 square feet or
less.
"Walkway" means a structure that is built over or floats upon the waters of a lake, river or
stream and that provides access to a boat dock or pier.
The submitted site plan shows the dock is 10.6 long, and 24.1 feet wide, for an area of 255.46
square feet.
Applicant: Applicant has demonstrated that while the structure referenced as the "dock" may
look like it is all one structure, it is actually two distinct structures, only one of which falls under
the definition of the term "dock" as it is defined in the Deschutes County Code. Pursuant to DCC
18.04.030, term "dock" is defined as" ... a structure that is over or floats upon the water... ".
Only 138 square feet of the structure meets the dock definition when the water level is at the
ordinary high water mark. The other portion is an at -grade walkway that provides safe access to
the dock, and was built on separate weight-bearing supports, though it is directly adjacent to the
dock portion, making it appear as though the two are connected.
Applicant has also offered to reduce the size of the dock and/or walkway as a condition of
approval should the BOCC require it.
Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer found that the property was not eligible for an individual
boat dock and did not provide detailed findings on this issue.
Staff Comment: If the dock is viewed as a single structure, it exceeds the width and square
footage allowance for an individual dock. If the dock is viewed as two structures, the "dock"
portion of the structure exceeds the width allowance for an individual dock. The "walkway"
exceeds the width allowance for a walkway approach to an individual dock. In either case the
dock structure does not conform to applicable standards.
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 4 of 10
The applicant has offered to reduce the size of the dock as a condition of approval. Even if the
Board finds that the dock complies with the river frontage standard under M3, above, staff
believes that a reduction in size of the dock cannot be conditioned at this point. Such a project
would involve work in the bed and banks of the Deschutes River that cannot be evaluated for
compliance with DCC 18.96.080(G), 18.120.050, and/or 18.128.270 without a detailed project
description and agency comments from ODFW, DSL, ACOE, and USFWS.
M4 — Does the dock comply with applicable fill -removal standards?
Issue Summary: Work in the Bed and Banks of the Deschutes River must comply with a
variety of criteria under DCC 18.128.270. The Hearings Officer found that 18.128.270(D)(2)(e)
was inadequately addressed in the Applicant's materials. This section requires, "That the
essential character, quality, and density of existing vegetation will be maintained. Additional
vegetation shall be required if necessary to protect aquatic life habitats, functions of the
ecosystem, wildlife values, aesthetic resources and to prevent erosion."
Applicant: Staff was unable to locate the applicant's briefing on this issue in the record.
Hearings Officer: Evidence in the record is sparse concerning the character, quality and
density of the vegetation that existed prior to construction. The aerial photos in the record do not
provide sufficient detail to assess the vegetation, although, as discussed above, the dock was
constructed at the terminus of the gravel driveway and adjacent to existing riprap. Photos of the
dock under construction appear to have been taken during the winter and as such do not depict
the nature of vegetation during the growing season when it likely is more abundant. For these
reasons, the Hearings Officer agrees with staffs conclusion that the record is inadequate from
which to find this criterion is satisfied.
Staff Comment: Relying on available aerial photography, Staff believes that preexisting
vegetation in the dock location was sparse reeds and rushes growing among the concrete
riprap. While the construction of the dock may have reduced available light to such plants, staff
believes the dock construction did not change the essential character, quality, and density of
existing vegetation at the site. Comments from ODWF and USWFS do not recommend
additional vegetation to protect aquatic life habitats, functions of the ecosystem, wildlife values,
aesthetic resources and to prevent erosion. Staff recommends the Board find the applicant has
complied with this criterion.
M5 — Was the bathhouse lawfully established?
Issue Summary: The applicant has requested verification of the Bath House as a non-
conforming use under DCC 18.120.010(B). In order to qualify as a non -conforming use, the
Bath House must have been lawfully established when it was constructed. This means that it
needed to comply with any applicable zoning code, PL -5 in this case, and building codes
effective in 1976.
The Hearings Officer found that the Bath House was not one of the authorized uses allowed in
the RR -1 zone under PL -5 and that the structure should have obtained building permits at that
time.
DCC 18.120.010(F)(3) requires that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrate that the
use was lawfully established.
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 5 of 10
Applicant: The HO misinterpreted PL -5 to only authorize two "accessory uses in the RR -1 Zone
- "not more than one private garage" and "home occupation." PL -5, RR -1 zone, does not
authorize accessory uses. It places limitations on specific accessory uses. If the Bath House
structure does not meet the description of any of the accessory uses listed under Section 3.160,
then it was unregulated by those provisions, and there were no limitations on that particular
accessory use in the RR -1 Zone.
The Hearings Officer also erred when she denied the verification of the Bath House as a non-
conforming use because the structure may have "potentially" required a building permit when it
was constructed, due to its size. Applicant argues that it is not appropriate for the Hearings
Officer to make concrete findings based on unconfirmed recollections of third party standards
that are not the laws of the State of Oregon or Deschutes County, and that it is not appropriate
to make concrete findings based on the potential that a structure may have required a building
permit, particularly when there is substantial evidence in the actual Record that proves
otherwise.
Applicant has submitted undisputed evidence to the Record in the form of letters from the prior
owner of the property, who also constructed the original Bath House. In his letter dated October
1, 2009, attached as Exhibit C to applicant's original Application dated March 6, 2016
("Application"), prior owner James Cate states that he checked with the County about building
permits for the Bath House in 1976, and was told that they were not necessary, as long as the
septic system to serve the Bath House was approved. There has been no evidence to the
contrary of Mr. Cate's written testimony submitted to date, nor has his testimony been
challenged or disputed in any way. Mr. Cate's first-hand account of the circumstances of the
legal construction of the Bath House and connected septic system is substantial evidence in the
Record, and is undisputed.
Hearings Officer: Hearings Officer Green denied applicant's request for verification of the Bath
House as a nonconforming use because the Bath House was not lawfully established at the
time it was constructed in 1976. Specifically, she found that the construction of the Bath House
was not legal under the applicable zoning code in 1976, PL -5, Rural Recreational Residential
Zone ("RR -1"), because the Bath House did not conform to any of the accessory use limitations
listed under 3.160 of PL -5. She also found that the Bath House structure "potentially" required a
building permit when it was constructed.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that Recreation Vehicle use of the property was an unregulated
use in 1976. This is because it is not mentioned in PL -5 and the County issued a septic permit
to support that use on the property in 1976.
Could the Bath House have been constructed in 1976 as an accessory structure to the RV use
of the property? Staff believes that this is unclear. Staff is unaware of other similar structures
from this time period. However, Mr. Cate testified that he confirmed with the County that
permits were not required to construct the structure and connect it the approved septic system
and this testimony is unrebutted. Staff believes that the preponderance of the evidence
suggests that the Bath House was lawfully established as an accessory to the RV use of the
property in 1976. Since overnight occupancy of structures on the property has not been lawfully
established, staff recommends a condition of any approval requiring:
1) Overnight occupancy of structures on the property is prohibited unless such use is
otherwise lawfully established.
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 6 of 10
The applicant has not asked to change the extent or nature of RV caing on the' property
norhavethevaokedt000tabishtheRVuneofthe property as
As such, RV
use of the property should be subject to DCC 18.116.095, Recreational Vehicle as a Temporary
Residence on an !ndividual Lot. Staif recommends a condition of any approval requiring:
2) Any recreational vehicle use of the property shall be conducted in accordance with DCC
18.1/5.09/I
Alternatively, the Board could find, consistent with the Hearings Officer, that the Bath House
was not a lawful use under PL -5. /n this nontaut, testimony by a prior owner of the property
suggesting that the County did not enforce then -applicable requirements is legally insufficient to
deem establishment of the Bath House awful.
M6 — Did the HO make aprocedural error bv referrinq to PL -5?
Issue Summary: The Hearings Officer needs to make a decision based on information
available on the record. The applicant objects that the Hearings Officer, in part, relied on the
text of PL -5, which was not introduced to the record during the open record period.
The Hearings Officer has long held that she may take notice of County Ordinances and Land
Use decisions without these materials being formally introduced to the record.
Applicant: At the time the Record Period closed for the Hearings Officer's proceedings for the
instant applications, on October 13, 2015. neither PL -5 nor the Uniform Building Code were a
part of the Record for the instant app|ioaUons, and the Record was not re -opened. Applicant
was not notified of the Record change, so had no chance to respond to the new evidence. The
Hearings Officer unfairly raised and then relied upon the new arguments and evidence to make
her C)acioion, without allowing Applicant to consider and respond to arguments raised for the
first time by the Hearings Officer. This is a violation of the DCC.
Staff Comment: To the extent Hearings Officer may have improperly taken notice of PL -5, that
zoning code is properly before the Board and that defeot, if any, is cured. The Uniform Building
Code in effect in 1976 has not been introduced into the record and cannot be (and is notb�ing\
naUedupon espe�ofthis record.
'
M7 — Can the bathhouse's expansion within the river setback be permitted?
Issue Summary: Under DCC 18.80.100(E) and 18.84.090(C). new structures and additions
must be set back 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Deschutes River. The
Bath Hose expansion oncurrad, in part, in the 100 -foot river setback. To the extent the Board
finds that the Bath House was lawfully established, it is unclear how the how that can expansion
can be approved under the non -conforming use code.
Expansions of non-oonfonnino structures are allowed in the "...front, side or rear yard setback
area..." under DCC 10.120.010(A)/3\. Both Staff and the HO concur that the river setback is
not a "...front, side or rear yard setback area..." and that expansions in the river setback are
governed by 18.120.030(D).
Expansion of "...an existina residential dwellina which is within 100 feet from the ordinary high
water mark along a stream..." is allowed under 18.120.030(D). It is undisputed in the record
247-15-000113-CxJ 24715-000114'CU.247-15-00011541UV 24715 -000116 -LM (24715-000070+A) Page 7 of 10
that neither the Bath House nor the Bunk House is a dwelling eligible for expansion under
18.120.030(D).
Applicant: The Bath House is a lawfully established nonconforming use that was not subject to
any setback provisions when it was constructed in 1976, and that the new addition "does not
project into the required setback area at any point." Therefore, the addition of the Bunk House
to the backside of the Bath House is permitted as an alteration or expansion of a non-
conforming use, which is not subject to river setback provisions.
Hearings Officer: Referring to 18.120.010(A)(3): "...this paragraph is not applicable because it
does not expressly refer to encroachment into the river setback, but rather only to the front, rear
and side setbacks — none of which is co -existent with the river setback."
Referring to 18.120.030(D): "The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that this
exception "provides the only pathway to expand structures in the 100 -foot river setback and is
only afforded to residential dwellings." Because I have found neither the original bathhouse nor
the bunkhouse is a dwelling, I find this exception is not available."
Staff Comment: Staff and the Hearings Officer read the non -conforming structure code to
disallow structural expansions in the 100 -foot river setback generally, but allow a specific
exception for dwellings under 18.120.030(D). Staff is concerned that the applicant's proposed
reading of the non -conforming use code is both textually implausible and would set a policy
weakening the significant riverfront/riparian protections that come from the 100 -foot river
setback. A text amendment is the appropriate venue for evaluating this sort of policy change.
M8 — Has the applicant demonstrated that the expansion will have no adverse impact on,
the neighborhood with regard to wastewater?
Issue Summary: DCC 18.120.010(E)(2) requires a finding that a non -conforming use alteration
alteration will have no greater adverse impact on the neighborhood. The HO declined to
evaluate potential wastewater impacts, finding that this was subject to DEQ regulation.
Todd Cleveland, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Supervisor, has testified that the
existing system is contaminating ground water and that increased use of the existing system
would increase the contamination. Mr. Cleveland has also testified that the existing system
should have been decommissioned in 1992, following an evaluation for residential development
of the property. He also testified that other nearby, similarly situated, septic systems have
typically degraded over time and fail to prevent groundwater contamination.
Applicant: There is proof that the on-site septic system was permitted when built and has been
used since that time. If the 1992 denial had intended to decommission the entire existing
system, it should have said so. The letter states absolutely nothing about entirely
decommissioning the existing system on the property, or denial of anything more than the
specific request to expand the existing system.
The Applicant has argued that the RV use of the septic system was a permitted use and that the
connection of the Bath House to the system is presumed lawful through Mr. Cate's unrebutted
testimony.
The septic system is used infrequently, and only during the 2-3 months out of the year that
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 8 of 10
applicant visits the property. The addition of the bedroom to the Bath House does not "change
the nature or extent of the use of the property" or on-site septic system or cause further adverse
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer found that the issue of the on-site septic system was
not before her, and declined to make findings on the issue.
The HO found the status and use of the septic system on the subject property — and in particular
whether or not it has been or can be approved for use in connection with the bunkhouse -- must
be evaluated and authorized by the Environmental Soils Division pursuant to the applicable
DEQ regulations. In other words, the Environmental Soils Division must determine whether the
addition of a bedroom to the bathhouse would result in an increase in flow to the septic system.
Deschutes County Environmental Soils: There is "no indication of prior use" in the history of
the on-site septic system, and that the 1992 denial for a request to expand the use of the
existing septic system for a year-round expanded residence was also a notice that the entire
existing system was to be decommissioned.
Staff Comment: Staff believes that the applicant has confused this issue by incorrectly
assuming that the septic system is a non -conforming land use subject to DCC 18.120. Staff
recommends that the Board find that the lawfulness of the installation, alteration, or continued
use of the system is not subject to Title 18 (except regarding some locational requirements),
and falls under DEQ regulation.
However, staff also believes that Hearings Officer incorrectly concluded any adverse impacts
stemming from changes to the use of the system are not subject to DCC 18.120.010(E)(2). The
proposed alteration of the non -conforming use includes the addition of living and sleeping areas
to the Bath House. If this addition results in unmitigated adverse wastewater impacts, this
application should be denied for failure to comply with 18.120.010(E)(2).
Increased use: The applicant has added a bedroom and neighbors have testified that guests
arriving in a passenger vehicle have stayed at the site. This results in use of the septic system
that is not associated with the RV use of the property. The addition of the bedroom has the
potential to increase the quantity of wastewater beyond the historic RV -only use of the property.
Adverse impact: Given the shallow groundwater in the vicinity, there is no septic system that
could completely avoid contamination of the groundwater (See Mr. Cleveland's testimony).
Increased use will result in increased contamination unless the septic treatment technology is
enhanced, if this enhancement is even feasible.
The applicant has not proposed use restrictions that would ensure there would be no increased
wastewater discharge. The applicant has not proposed to enhance the wastewater treatment
system to offset any increases in groundwater contamination. Therefore, staff believes the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the alteration of the Bath House to include a bedroom
will not adversely impact the neighborhood by increasing groundwater contamination. Staff
recommends the following conditions of any decision to ensure the use will not increase
groundwater contamination:
1) Overnight occupancy of structures on the property is prohibited unless such use is
otherwise lawfully established.
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 9 of 10
2) Any recreational vehicle use of the property shall be conducted in accordance with DCC
18.116.095.
Attachments
1. Decision matrix.
247 -15 -000113 -CU, 247 -15 -000114 -CU, 247-15-000115-NUV, 247 -15 -000116 -LM (247-15-000670-A) Page 10 of 10
0
0
0
tr)
>t
63'
t'a %
0
e 0
-0 00 0
0
0 0 0
• .0
.4' ,...• A
0 .0
0) a
0 0 0
0 s"" -0
0 5
.5.- o
ro
a)
.5. '''' 0
-OS A
0 er-•
0 S ...
0
1-) -F.: r.
;II 0.•0 0
.2.0
* le , 0
?..
0 ,0 0 0 .."'
..0 0
0 0 '• to
ii) t 0
o
m o 0%
... 0
o
00
00
0 c es
)..t ..5..., o
0. ....0
42. om 15 Z
t 5, e0
Es
0..
•.- m 1-6
0 A .'.
..', oo
$.5fc '
too
0 F.-
0 ,0
40
r:a t 0 0 CIt
0 0 tt
SO:,..V.° 0000
1.°46.,V).0
ttlt°e0T0-
g• ci ‘,..1.;)
- 4) .0 la '0
e `0- t'D
ge:As.,11
-0 m
Tis s 0 0 o
a*
s
• -
1)1%.1 -s
6.0t00
0 .0 m 0 -et tri 0 '•11
'S
)-$SueA.S
la 0
0)
c 0 m e 0 -0 •"0
e0-000 e
e e
-0
00,!as 00.t,0.0
'ec.-ca'5 0
Set41-c`
1.0
• 0.005.0
0 0 0)
00 IS 0 •-•-
1)."0:0‘...:111
0
‘4.!cir • ted )10
CO.E,'04
.. 11.
,0
,0 00'00 0075 So, 00 0
.0 C. 0 0).-• ° S
to o 0
00G0
z. crjn, .06 to 0 -
0 0
'91.00-
0 7
G
s
-0 0
a .....
-
0 4) 0 0
0
s a)
•-•
o to 0 la 0
17) 0 0
0 ••
al! 0. 0 f,
0 - o
m0.0 $4$0
- 0, G••
...- -„st) ;al „F,., 0 c2 .0. 0 to e Itts a>
°79.1.c.o...7.1)S
a> 7-• c 0- • 0 0 G (0'. °G A 0 0.*5
v. - -o 0
-6 0 0 .0 S 0 0 ‘..-_,
0 °'0_
A 0 -0
0 to -6.. m •.,-;;; c -to .0 , 7,..
0e00t,7.2-.Tp.0.-.05 T.,0°0ed,
4) 14
..-* • G 0 ••••• ).)
-0 e••• t . 0 . .
0.0 0 0 0
tg
..., 0 ......... 0 ..,
0 0,- (6.0"• 0)
°S ;. tI))).- t5 ( o0 i 0
0 (t) ‘... -0 0 ';• a)
••••• .,
t?) .6221!:1t0A.Z1..0.f0)
1••• -0
ols
's.',....51%.*...0cLf....
0,P a., 0 .0 .... 0 S 0.• 0
..c. -ii
Z Z- 43
m ".S..._
0.c, 1 o .....o % t 1 to
0- ° 0 0 0
•0
--- et +-
z--
• ot 0 a) a) 0 4.,'.'" 1:::. ...'0 .0 ... 46, 13
3 3;
•°- -5 '°.....-- (44) 'nc.) elre0 ea,••• IS ,•••• I., -(:)'t' ‘2.0.° e
.". e•'5.:' ..' 0) ',,' -0 0 0 6) 0.0 (.3 0 cl'
?••• 0 0)--„,* °,-- 0 0 G 0 4) "Z6. 4 0 C)..
4.).- 0 0 r
''' c3'
re • 0 ,..• .- ....
Z.
O
4
U
G
0 R > R 0
N
o d v GOO G w0'
7d y 0 U- J R
0� v5.C•t
A'Or.0 o ..
To % 0 0 °
p, L
'-' N 5. a+
TG N .Th -0 Nop vo
s 00 � •0
R O 1,-6.0 (`6 a
Op,o R 0 -CO �;^
G.O 0t✓6 d di•
1113yVE 7~
N,
.0 0 s•,.‘) R 0 O CO,
Jtit '.6.06e
0300
.d .i'
0)s°'No' p
01.',‘0`0 d d
s, Go N d d U ... N
i G J S 'N (L.!
(%'i6LR✓d•'S' GO'0`
lato07'6 c 0 3 e J
G7 . S O N 0'6
d
Oa ,�y U t - G•
` d 3 7 l d c N
y 0.
y d .0 O 7
ti)
°
R
9 d �N 0
c. 3'.....000,0 ° i
Z. J 0
R y O d --
r.
.*.o.) `.9
0 o cI
C6✓r Oed 7 : i
gip. z•173 i N w
'at t vmAGNGN ,7000- Q• 'Y.2° .dR y y d "0 i✓ .G r
d
G✓ 60 4,0 4✓045 R
N
oN o0,AO''
de° 0-ew7
o •ONTo r. 0NR yypL
OO . N w" 0 d vO
yvG 0 7 N d G. �N.yO-DO�vG
d�0✓ 9 E N rN ✓"Od
dN G 07 a . iRA10 .
yyO O y0t tSd NN JD,fLyo N°7N
i.
0N 0 ONGTJ °y-v0y i 7 '''G
w
ii
d N! v R O 0 9,� ot O
y R
RG'
00t'0 d4. N0) 70GR.
„G.,.0 dd ERO! 6°44.0 "'70° 0°
d�mmdd�dG✓ So. 0R
N>o1mQ °dcpmooE
Z
dRn, 7 woG ✓r N p °7�0fld dOs'A ✓ ' N d'd G R
'
thl% Z'dG.. Gyti
t Nomed7"".' r
GooTG co 2. d NQi;-6-00e9DiZd
0..c,e-.0d d0 ° NO E i�s'6.`
0 •6 "E.°. *-j,-- 90 7,../ N0
Z.OSVci, 0d)
Rr 3 0
N
0
G
T.
N
o O
'0dN G O
y G dU S ° G
0
JG3OR
1.6
O✓UDJo
NS✓NC
co
n
d$ N
*.5.yi NN;QrRG OR
d°0Rs s, G st
NG N 3 O N
J
U N d ✓dam N '°° d
GO @ d U CC d 70 . NR
dam' R3 S7,0i °'d.."O
y % N 7 ✓ 0
O'✓ w •°•yt i"°e. JO
Ntn 13> d G R
OG
.0dtnR
.0
't4)'5.51;
...0)
) oRR0,
°
G33.GRd
d° y. G ,d,0 ✓y u C y
y.
G G� ° ttl N N o
G7�oo b '. UGdd0.••G
d OG•is U 0••i
0V C
0.
ty1 .toTh s m 4 Gos Gttr
'yy
CL
d d N '-0-
N
✓ d
d L o N R k
•'6 s .R Z R U J a
s ✓
i N0NR Gr 0 O ..-
N ° N9 ✓
NNNO R ' NGwN✓7O"ONO�R OO 30 N d0 N0-�r.GHE '"�7d •, 3 ;', ry° NO 013D
Qi NNO-dGv i R U- . ON•G
0 TUs d G R G VN5 o N.
%
IdpqOO R S`J dGR_N C13 d R .00.0UrG y G 0 G d 3 N
pp
•‘.0.
.00,..'"c.
G
y
iR O00 ‘Z., OGOyNd0 G'
�
y✓>
°
.0 o iO 0. N N 3 0. G✓ 3G3 G,°
v.
s.°��a°'LSo 0,c G0'ti�Z%7mo`✓G0 00LC os
oRo-0,•GRLro
0N0-Nye
° R pNd ✓Z0
o 0 r3;a 3o'yO QQ;d0.0N0�•0-eE NC • o rsm�y�
omrnOO�N JJ"7'CZG
CC-
N i NTyNO�N '30 '."0.) O NP070 '.;^•- O GNN) Gd
d3G 0 ✓ N O .ryO G Oflyi0G0. U d d R ° O i O 6 7 O
•0. 0 0 90• O 'U ✓ O J 7
✓,,.OUG0GgcdONyN"O�;S:6it) NO0GNZ.Oodw4✓3�GR0ETo4
GO ? Nd 1.0 s
3Na aN c, -0 0>05 Nt"✓N
0N• 0 -NN oNt13 Jv�4t N y f9 NG@o NNd% s0•✓0G. G
o �oRo N�CjG0%ZN �'ooo. p-° 0 c d R G O G R
✓.G0°R'bs31Nv11. d f-"“
t9 rdG O @" i JNi 7
0'0,0oii 0•
.Go.Q°
Y• %,N063N OS0w"
w
r S
3%
tD
O 3
' 'N d G W .:+ Oy
N c.%0 -e
rV'O
.S y ✓yUs
lit
11,
'is. fC t 01 R 0
N
p A
O G O 0) 0
ryr G@y
•
°3G
N 0
0• 1.0 03r
)
3 O30 ;
omp
✓ .O G
o N .0. I) o3pis�N
�
0 G
y 0 Go � O cGr 0 0 C. 0 N 0-'5,
✓as eN a Rw -03 Nr NN
O 0 r. '01 Or9 7,1 0 Gp O p 01
N @'N @ n N A N
yR�6 d @ R i0 0.7'60 ? N @
C1O%✓ NQ•✓0 N
N �S
* 01 7 O O.
y N 0 0 T@ X N CP G A N7.,✓ C6 N'7
N O
GOZ�
:Af R
0 ¢•.0 N' fD G
iaG@i 0 '
N '7 .o G 0 O G O
....G v S'e 0 0 7, 0 40N
Ori T )0. •%D N G@ R °C6
V O
01 0 0 G 0 07 i @ p O•
YY
Gr Ar • O 0 @Oc
*-00o
G -S O No c ys'@ % 0`a 0o 0
✓ @ @ 1
O O ✓@ q1 p d N• N 0 7@ 015'°%°47)-
0
7 0' Q1 > O 7
tnO L $ °04,10°11 0 N 0 D 0, .-
st r p 000 O.0 iGGN 0G^"
d? 0 .Q N 0 ¢ p✓ i0 G V" �l6 'O � y 'p✓'@ O
o ROooP.NJ 00SS G Atv NCn@9
0 N t9 %^O •¢ r r N 0 O
)
•,. N U 74 -0 0 i+ 3-. -' G N U
.000 01 3 0 OS SAS*
,..,0° N
4i0 it N 0 •y•nyLr 0 %
c
ii V O s00%.-
0
� O d 0-
G Z
1 Official Grant Title:
Source of Grant Funds:
Funding Amount (include amount
per year if multiple years):
Required Matching Funds (if
applicable):
Application Due Date and
Submission Method:
FTE Required and Cost of FTE:
Staff Responsible:
1 Grant Administrator (if awarded):
Deschutes County Health Services
GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST
Central Oregon Diabetes Prevention Program
Regional Health Improvement Resource from the Central
Oregon Health Council
$499,997 for three years
ria
No due date, but will be submitted on May 11, 2016 via e-
mail
1.0 FTE for three years
Sarah Worthington, Health Educator 11
Tom Kuhn
Please answer the following questions:
1. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish:
The goal of the Central Oregon Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is to reduce the risk of
developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease in high-risk individuals in Central Oregon
through a coordinated intensive lifestyle intervention (ILS) that leads to weight loss and
increased physical activity. This project will be focused on regional coordination and
implementation of DPP, working in conjunction with partners who will be providing and
supporting this service.
2. What priorities in the Health Services Strategic Plan would this grant activity support?
Provide data to describe a documented health need that would be addressed and that is
consistent with the Strategic Plan.
Implementing a DPP is a goal in the 2015-16 DCHS Strategic Plan, and Diabetes is a
priority in the Central Oregon Regional Health Improvement Plan and implementing a DPP
is an identified strategy to address the Diabetes Prevention Goal to decrease the proportion
of adults and children at risk for developing type 2 diabetes.
3. Would this support core program activities and, if so, which one(s)? Are additional funds
needed to support these activities?
This project expands chronic disease prevention activities. It will be complimentary to work
that has been occurring with Healthy Communities and Living Well with Chronic Disease
self-management programs. Minimal funding would be needed to support activities.
4. Does this funding add new program activities? If so, what are the activities? Is it
appropriate to add these new activities at thistime?
This funding would allow DCHS to coordinate DPP programming in Central Oregon, with the
intent to increase participation by partner agencies and create a plan for sustainabilly. We
Rev. 9/18/2015
are currently conducting a one-year pilot DPP cohort. This funding will allow this program to I
be provided across the Central Oregon region.
5. Is there a science base to support delivering the activities and services listed? Please
describe that science base.
Yes. The National DPP was developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as a
randomized clinical trial to compare the relative effectiveness of an intensive lifestyle
intervention (ILS) in delaying the onset of diabetes in individuals at risk for the disease. The
initial trial of over 3000 individuals found that, compared with placebo, participation in the
DPP ILS reduced the incidence of diabetes by 58%. Those individuals who participated in
the original trial of DPP continued to have a lower inddence rate of diabetes in a 10 -year
follow-up study, demonstrating the lasting effects of this intervention in preventing or
delaying diabetes onset.
6. How long would the funding be available? If the funding is for less than three years, what is
the plan to transition the work, staffing and expenses after the funding ends?
We are applying for three years of funding. It is a goal of the program to identify a plan for
sustainability by the end of the funding period.
7. What is the application deadline? Do you anticipate any problems meeting this deadline?
No due date, but will be submitted on May 11, 2016 via e-mail.
8. Do you have the staffing to write a competitive proposal? If not, how will you contract for
these services?
Yes, the proposal has been written.
9. Are there any matching requirements?
No
10. What other partner organizations could potentially be applying? What is the plan to work
with them?
There are no other agencies applying for funding to implement DPP. All agencies in Central
Oregon who will be implementing DPP are partnering with us on this proposal, including La
Pine Community Health Center, Crook County Health Department, St. Charles Health
System, and Mosaic Medical Madras.
11. What are the potential political issues that could arise as a result of this application, funding,
and/or activity?
None that are anticipated. DPP is becoming a widely accepted intervention and is an
identified strategy in the Central Oregon Regional Health Improvement Plan.
12. What is the fiscal impact to the department if we are awarded this grant? Please attach
fiscal impact analysis form completed with Business Manager approval.
We have budgeted 10% of the total project for indirect costs, equaling $45,454. The budget
has been reviewed by Business program staff.
Rev. 9/18/2015
13. Will a contract be required if we are awarded this grant? If yes, is there sufficient time to
complete the contract process (estimated timeline: 4-6 weeks) prior to starting the work?
Yes, there will be a contract needed with Central Oregon Health Council. It is unknown at
this time when the funding will be awarded.
Jcuyte/ S
Department Director Signature
05/10/16
Date
Director to Attend Board Meeting? (check one) ❑ Yes ® No (Tom Kuhn will attend)
Contract Specialist Review:
Board Meeting Date: May 11, 2016
Time:
1:30PM
Grant Application Number:
Rev. 9/18/2015
For Immediate Release
CommunityMay 11, 2016
Development --,~~_~ ... ~ �~~~. .~""" ""~
Planning, Building Safety, Environmental Soils, Code Enforcenient
POBox GOO5.Bend, Oregon 877O8-6OO5
117 NW Lfayette Avenue
w^mw.uesohutoo,org/od
Contact: Nick Lelack
Community Development Director
541-385-1708
County Commissioners Vote to Rescind Marijuana Opt -Out
After lengthy deHberations, the Board of County Commissioners unanimous)y decided
Wednesday to rescind their decision to opt -out of the growing, processing and sale of marijuana
in unincorporated Deschutes County.
Now, County staff will draft and the Board will adopt new land use rules to regulate how
marijuana can be grown, processed and sold in rural Deschutes County. Land use and
development permit applications for medical and marijuana uses will be accepted after the new
rules are in effect.
"We deeply appreciate the time and energy that our planning commissioners, marijuana
advisory committee members and so many county residents have invested in an effort to help
us address this topic," said Deschutes County Chair, Alan Unger. "We've spent the past six
months listening to folks on both sides of this issue as we worked to assess what appropriate
regulations would look like for our unique reg/on."
Next Steps:
The Board wiHreview draft marijuana land use regulations on WednesdayMay 25th.
The draft regulations will be available online on ThursdayMay 19 after 5 p.m.
At their 10 a.m. business meeting on May 25th, the Commissioners will have the
opportunity to review and revise the draft regulations. If the Board supports the
regulations as drafted, or only have minimal changes, they will conduct the first reading
of the new rules.
The required second reading of the new regulations would occur at least two weeks later
on Wednesday, June 8 or the foliowing week.
The new regulations will take effect 90 days after their second reading. At that time, the
County will require existing medical marijuana growers to fully comply (unless exempt by
state law) with all new regulations within six months of the date that the new regulations
are adopted. However, existing medical growers will need to comply with lighting
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabi/ities to participate in all programs and activitiesThis
event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make
participation possible, or to request this information in an alternate format please
email ancessibVitv�>doochub*m.onzorcall /5480Y7c4747.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, Director
DATE: May 10, 2016
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments
The purpose of this work session agenda item is for the Board to deliberate toward appointing (2) new
members to the Deschutes County Planning Commission. The positions are for the Bend Area seat and At -
Large seat. These appointments would be through June 30, 2016, and then reappointed for full terms from
July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2020.
The Board previously decided to appoint current At -Large member Hugh Palcic to fill the remainder of
former -South County Commissioner James E. Criss' seat through June 30, 2017, though that appointment
has not yet occurred. The Board indicated its interest in making all Planning Commission appointments at
the same time.
Eligible candidates for the Bend Area and At -Large seats include unless otherwise noted:
Rowan Hollitz
Larry Fulkerson
Jim Beeger
Robert Ray (At -Large only)
Ty Rawlins
Paul Dickinson
Lisa Seales
David Olsen
Dr. Leslie Hudson
If possible, the appointments will be made prior to the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 26
in order for the new commissioners to participate in the second public hearing and recommendation on the
draft Planning Division Annual Report and Work Plan FY 2016-17.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Lobbyist Interviews: May 13th & 20th
Sample Questions
Scope, Capacity, and Accessibility
• What is the primary focus of your business? Does your firm provide other services in
addition to lobbying (campaign management, public relations, fundraising)?
• How many lobbyists does your firm employ? On average, how many clients are assigned to
each?
• How would the lobbyist(s) assigned to Deschutes County divide their time between Central
Oregon and Salem?
• How do you see your firm interacting with Deschutes County elected officials and staff.
Clients
• How many active clients do you expect to serve next session? Do you anticipate being
available to take on additional clients throughout the session?
• Do you represent out-of-state or national clients?
Approach
• What are your firm's areas of expertise or specialization?
• Describe your access to House and Senate leadership.
• Describe your most recent experience pro -actively influencing legislative outcomes.
• How will you use your influence to move the County agenda forward?
• What activities does your firm engage in during the interim?
Political Philosophy
• Does your firm have a reputation for being primarily Republican, Democrat, or Independent -
leaning?
• Does your firm make contributions to or organize fundraising events for political candidates.
• Describe your assessment of the politics during the 2016 session and how you view the 2017
session.
• How will you achieve success within the current political makeup of the legislature? How
might you alter your approach if the majority party changes during future elections?
Other
• Has your firm been accused of or investigated for any ethics violations of any kind —
however small?
0
c
▪ —
0
• a
c
cn
• Our 2017 Goa
SAFE COMMUNITIES
THY PEOPLE
IENT ECONOMY
<
WLU
X tX
SOURCE STEWARDSHIP
NATURAL
TOMER SE
QUALITY C
EFFECTIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT
W
0
C.�
cnW
LL
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
Continued collaborative efforts with partners
9-1-1: Collaboration with Bend Fire & Rescue - PulsePoint
9-1-1: Collaboration with local emergency managers - Deschutes Alerts
Fire/Fuels Reduction
Joint Training Exercises
V
V
'a
o c
v)
W
a� o
Qr. y=
W occdicioc CC
° °
F
ctsJ
Q(13
W
a)o
o;
SH M ENTS:
ACCOMPL
Increased number of veterans served
is Health accreditation
0—
CCS0
tg
a°;
4.4P UN
E
+•, o -a
U 0
v
1,41101,
woo
'OA
U.
"5"(D y>
.SZ
cv
Xog c
Ri
_ _
rim o
4 = v ;
u U 'z3
41
U 4-0
q3
O
U'
W.
tn
a)
ca i
0
O
m 4
O
O
O
o
o
Q.
'o
CtS •i
U
W
O =
a)
z E
to N
N
0.a. � Q
2
0
Q
■
M
r -I
N
ft
a)
N
N
N
N )
.0O
LS)
ta)
m
.0 v
O 0 c
N N j,
_ ttA
O
o
O O • O
•.—
(/)
_N
O V cu
N
CO
03
4-
a?
O
N
. 00
N
0
0.
E
R5
4I
as
E
c.
0
0
0
E
O
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
and Fire Strategy
Fire Protection: Launch of CO Cohesive Wild
Environmental
to
J
0
E
0
v
co
0
N
U
t1)
O
E (1)
E
N
a)
coQ
Water Conservation
0_
N
tQ
1ClaO
401.1 SI.N
"a
Co
Weill. ''
N
lida %
iiiii:lick 0
12 c.0
voii:a
i0•+
SHMENTS:
ACCOMPL
Expanded Hours/Open on Sundays
2
0
0
'Ct.;
V▪ )
o.
O
_ L
O
J t6
4,
O
C O
Z
ncreased Voter Registration
- 4)
.V
CD
i
O N
O N
O
-C 4)
4) 4
j
= O
CO CO
U N
4)
.0 O
• 4)
• CO
O
CO
N
N 4)
4) N
V co
c) 4)
co
()
r-
0 .-
N
= O
O I'
13 4) (1)
4)
CO 4) E
W v
Z
sago
1—
O -a
4) 4)
0
SHMENTS
ACCOMPL
Law Library transition to Deschutes Pub
9-1-1 Radio Project
A
. 0
O
G)
(1)
C6
Sam
03
CO
a)
SWI▪ M
N
O
c
0
cn
W
■ OPPORTUN
E
a)
cu
i
0
N
co
E
a)
R3
c
z
y expanding to
▪ E
4`E E
= o
▪ C)
• V
2 co
•
Q.
O
O
a)
c E
a o
W O
1,116—$.16 -ms
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., WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 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.
1. Approval of Emergency Management Performance Grant Application — Nathan
Garibay
2. Economic Development Loan Program Discussion — Judith Ure
3. Consideration of Discretionary Grant Request for J Bar J — Judith Ure
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissionersmeeting
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.harmsdeschutes.ora.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 1 of 2
4. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal — Caldera Springs Resort — Anthony
Raguine
5. Preparation for Deliberations: Dreifuss Land Use Case — Will Groves
6. Other Items
NOTE: The Board is conducting deliberations on land use issues related to
marijuana production, processing and related items on Monday, May 9 at
1:30 p.m. They may choose to continue that discussion at this meeting, if
appropriate and if time allows.
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.
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.
7. 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.harms(cr�.deschutes.orq.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Wednesday, May 11, 2016 Page 2 of 2