2016-484-Minutes for Meeting September 19,2016 Recorded 9/30/2016DESCH
TES COUNTY OFFICIAL
UBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
YJ 201648iNANCY
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 09/30/2016 04:18:39 PM
1101111111111111111
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 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 Nick Lelack, Will Groves and Matt Martin, Community
Development; Ed Keith, County Forester; Whitney Hale, Public Information
Officer; Judith Ure, Administration; representatives of the Oregon Department of
Forestry and the La Pine Basin Joint Chiefs; and approximately ten other citizens.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
The Board discussed one issue under `other items' first due to audience attendance.
This discussion is shown as the first entry under `other items'.
1. Grant Request for La Pine Basin Joint Chiefs Project (Year 2 of 3).
Ed Keith explained who the Joint Chiefs are, and the nature of the request for
funding. It is an effort involving all agencies. The grant program is for three
years, but a request for funding has to be submitted to the federal agencies each
year. They are just now getting funding from last year's request, but it is time
to submit for the second year.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 1 of 10
The treatment plan and maps are being revised as part of the second year's
effort. Natural Resources Conversation is requesting the County's portion.
DEBONE: Move approval of again joining this effort for this year.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
2. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forestland Classification Status and
Other Updates.
Kristen Dodd and Mike Shaw of the Oregon Department of Forestry came
before the Board. Mr. Shaw explained some of the projects now going on with
the ODF. He recapped the fire season and forestland reclassification efforts.
He said he replaced George Fonte about a year ago, has a forestry degree and
has worked in this field privately and for various public agencies his entire
career, in all parts of the State.
He noted that this was a relatively benign fire season, when compared to the last
few years. They are at about 80% of the ten-year average statewide. Many
fires are due to lightning strikes, and those are at about 62% of average in
Central Oregon. However, there were higher than normal numbers of human -
caused fires. A rash of fires this summer has been attributed to arson, and an
interagency task force is addressing this issue.
Chair Unger asked about their policy regarding prescribed burns. Mr. Shaw
said that his agency typically works with private lands. There is some risk
during these fires, but it helps to get fuel levels down to where it is manageable.
There is a time and place for this to occur, but it does give some mixed
messages to the public. It is more complicated when it involves private
properties. Chair Unger said they support this also, but there are smoke
management problems to address as well. Commissioner Baney stated that it is
important to know which agency the public should contact with questions, and
to give consistent media messages.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 2 of 10
Kristen Dodd provided an update on forestland classification project. About
two years ago, the Forestland Classification Committee convened to work
through this. They had regular meetings to examine the lands within the
County to determine if which lands meet the definition of forestland or grazing,
or are exempt, and update the data layer that they maintain to determine who is
eligible for fire protection and at what level. This is controversial, which is one
reason why it was not addressed for a long time.
She referred to the preliminary information and the newest information (a copy
is attached for reference). This applies to private lands within the ODF
District. Some areas that were timber are not classified that way now. The
landscape has changed over time.
The assessment rates are different for timber and grazing. Through edits and
changes, they are essentially looking at 3,350 acres being added to the lands to
be protected. Some lands were removed and others were added. Some were in
different ownership previously. Some acreage in the west side of Bend may be
removed. The new total is about 144,000 acres.
Commissioner Baney asked if it was worth the effort to get to this number. Ms.
Dodd said that it matters to those who wanted to be included and those who no
longer need to pay. The classification process is now on hold while they move
their District boundaries, which are being broadened. The old boundaries used
to be administratively -based between the offices in Sisters and Prineville, and
were not meant to be an indicator of the protection of the lands. This will
change only the assessment factors of some. The protection remains the same.
The classification line came in just north of Bend, and specific boundaries in
Bend are shown on one of the handouts. This area used to be at the city limits,
which will now be adjusted due to changes in the city's boundaries. The final
map shows the southeast side of Bend where boundaries have also changed, but
where there is a higher level of fire danger.
This effort cleans up administrative and jurisdictional boundaries for protection.
They will take this to the Oregon Board of Forestry so the Administrative Rule
can be changed, and hope to have this in place by next fire season. They are
also working on the same type of project in Crook County and parts of
Jefferson County. Public meetings in Deschutes County would occur next year
with other work to get it integrated.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 3 of 10
Commissioner Baney asked if the tax statement mailing for this year could be
utilized to inform property owners. Ms. Dodd said that letters would go from
the ODF to all affected landowners. There were also a series of public meetings
for each area, but attendance was less than they had hoped.
Commissioner DeBone asked how they determine what timberland is. Ms.
Dodd said they look at what might be produced from the trees, and do not count
junipers. Junipers fall more under the grazing lands category.
Mr. Shaw added that this work had not been done for a long time since it was
somewhat political. People often do not understand what the ODF hopes to
accomplish. It is frustrating to take it slowly, but that helps to avoid future
problems and misunderstandings. They want to make this as fair as possible.
The public can interact, object or ask for clarification.
Mr. Shaw said there are some pending personnel changes within the ODF. The
State Forester is retiring and a new one has been selected. Also, Ms. Dodd is
relocating to The Dalles to fill a vacancy there so there will be a vacancy in
Prineville. She will still help with the forestland classification program in
Crook County and assist the new person. There is a new interagency dispatch
center in Redmond that they hope is activated by next fire season, which will be
a great help to the various federal agencies and the public.
3. Health Services Position Upgrade Request.
Dave Inbody, Behavioral Health Deputy Director, and Christopher Weiler, the
new Health Services Operations Manager, came before the Board. The
Department recently had the senior accounting technician and the business
manager leave to join different County departments. One critical issue is that
the department has almost doubled in financial and reporting types of work
during the past seven years. Much of this is budgeting work that should not
necessarily have to be handled at the management level.
A position was identified that would fill this workload void. The request is for a
staff accountant who can handle the day-to-day work and deal with budgeting.
They experimented with using account technicians, but some of this work is not
suitable for that position.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 4 of 10
The difference in cost is about $16,000. However, they have underspent this
fund thus far this year. Mr. Anderson stated that this is not an added position
but an upgrade. He wanted the Board to know the type of work that needs to be
handled and the requirement for additional expertise.
Commissioner Baney feels they have been running very lean, but it is important
to have oversight and do things right. Mr. Weiler will be responsible for much
of the budget work, and Mr. Inbody will oversee the process. The new person
will be heavily involved in how this goes together and will work with Finance
on a daily level.
Mr. Weiler added this is a fiduciary responsibility. He wants to be proactive
and make sure there are internal controls in place and that all the compliance
and oversight happens as it should.
BANEY: Move approval as presented.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
4. Discussion and Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2016-040,
Declining Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding the
Shepherd Church Application.
Will Groves explained that the Hearings Officer has granted approval, but there
is a request for appeal from Central Oregon Landwatch. Chair Unger feels that
the issues as stated need to be addressed in another way. The County has done
all it can.
BANEY: Move signature of Order No. 2016-040.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 5 of 10
5. Discussion of Bend UGB Expansion Ordinances.
Matt Martin spoke about the progress on this project since the joint hearing on
August 25. The City Council has conducted a first reading and made a few
small changes, and will conduct the second reading and adoption on September
21. The County ordinances will be before the Commissioners the following
week, with an emergency clause to tie into the timeline of the City for effective
dates. The Board agreed that it makes sense to synchronize the dates.
Brian Rankin of the City explained the minor changes. (These are detailed on a
handout, attached.) Mr. Martin said these do not affect the boundaries or any
aspect of the County's ordinances.
Chair Unger asked what the next steps are for the City. Mr. Rankin stated that
he hopes the focus will be on preparing to implement the plan. This will
involve most of the departments. There are many other issues before the City
other than the annexation, and procedures need to be developed. Some of this
work involves transportation, redevelopment and infrastructure.
6. Lottery Grant Fund Request.
• Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council — CET Governance Legislative
Concept, for $1,000
Judith Ure explained the grant application is for funding to assist COIC to be
able to pursue a governance change. Chair Unger indicated he would cover this
request from his lottery funds if needed.
Commissioner DeBone said that he wonders if the citizens are up to speed on
what this entails. He is not sure all are supportive of mass transit efforts or that
it is really needed here. He does not see the benefit for La Pine.
Chair Unger replied they would work through this with different messaging.
There are requirements and opportunities, and he would like to see one system
working under the authority of all local governments and not just handled by
one city.
BANEY: Move that $1,000 be allocated from Chair Unger's portion of the
fund.
DEBONE: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 6 of 10
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
7. Other Items.
This discussion occurred at the beginning of the meeting.
Tom Anderson explained that the Sisters Airport discussion has been delayed
because of other issues being handled by the Airport, the City, and the
Department of Aviation. The process needs clarification. It starts with the
State, and it is premature for the County to be involved. Anyone wishing to be
kept informed of the process should let Community Development know so they
can be added to the contact list. It is unknown when the Board will be asked to
be involved or when they might have to make decisions on specific land use
issues.
Chair Unger said that the County might have to make these decisions at some
point, so cannot compromise the position of the Board by speaking with the
Airport representatives or property owners ex parte. Regarding code issues or
other land use concerns, County CDD staff should be contacted.
Baney said the County does not have the ability to determine who applies for
what. The Department of Aviation portion of this issue comes first.
A citizen spoke up to say they do not know what the process is and realizes
there are ways that this should be handled. He is worried that some decisions
will be made without public involvement or predetermine what happens
afterwards.
Commissioners DeBone pointed out that the County only has jurisdiction on
areas outside of the City limits.
Nick Lelack presented a draft letter outlining the Board's positon relating to
marijuana -related land use issues in the County areas outside the city limits.
Commissioners Baney said that she did not get a strong positive response from
legislators she contacted who are involved with the Joint Interim Committee on
Marijuana Legalization and/or proposed legislation.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 7 of 10
Mr. Lelack said the Committee is meeting on Friday in Salem and some County
people will attend to explain the County's process. They hope to show how
Deschutes County arrived at where this is today. He referred to the draft letter
(a copy of which is attached for reference).
There have been panel discussions and one Committee member, a grower,
indicated displeasure with the County's notification process.
Commissioner Baney stated that the letter contains a lot of information and
maybe needs to be easier to read. She wants an addition of information showing
who was involved in the County process and where there was consensus. Mr.
Lelack stated that Clackamas County requires land use action for this use on EFU
lands, but only Deschutes County requires notice. The history is different here
because EFU is not the same as it is in other counties.
Commissioner Baney indicated that a neighbor objecting does not mean an
automatic denial, but there are more risks involved. Chair Unger said that the
growers are worried about too many people knowing what they are doing.
Commissioner Baney said that the impacts to various areas are real and the
people who are complaining were a part of the process.
Mr. Lelack said that the Jackson County ordinances prohibiting growing in RR -
10 was appealed, and LUBA decided in favor of Jackson County. Commissioner
DeBone wants to shed light on the industry. Growers cannot have it both ways,
with some aspects of it being very public but with other factors kept hidden.
Commissioner Baney asked if someone who does not even live near the property
could be prohibited from appealing. Mr. Lelack said that they can't prohibit this,
but can issue an administrative decision in this regard and see if someone
appeals. Perhaps a few cases can be called up for the Board to address question,
or to clarify something that needs more discussion.
Commissioner DeBone said that reasonable regulations won't be considered
reasonable by some. Chair Unger wants to be mindful of the recipients of the
letter and wants it clear that not all EFU is the same.
BANEY: Move that the letter be approved in concept, and they will
determine how to get signatures.
DEBONE: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 8 of 10
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner Baney said that Representative Buehler asked her who the
County's lobbyist contact is. Mr. Anderson said it is Courtney Johnston of
Pac/West, and indicated that Judith Ure can also help with this kind of question.
There is a joint meeting with the Redmond City Council on September 20. The
Board had no questions about the agenda.
Chair Unger stated that he got into a debate with some Redmond business
leaders, who asked if there is any dissatisfaction with how the Fair & Expo or the
County Fair is working with the business community and the City. It appears
that some of the business leaders there need to be educated on these things.
Commissioner Baney said there were some issues with traffic at the Fair and
some contestants couldn't get in.
Commissioner DeBone said there is a Rodeo Board and Fair Board that don't
seem to work well together. Chair Unger wants to speak with some of the
individuals to find out if there is a basis for their complaints. The Chamber
doesn't try to work with them that much. Mr. Anderson said that he sees the City
Manager quite a bit and has never heard of any problems, so it must be just the
business owners with concerns. He'd like to know if this is a carry-over from
years ago or some current problem.
Erik Kropp said the County is launching the Human Resources Director selection
process and is targeting conducting interviews in early November.
Commissioners Baney and DeBone indicated they would like to participate;
however, Commissioner Baney has a conflicting meeting with a housing group.
Chair Unger has an Upper Deschutes Watershed Council retreat to attend during
the dates discussed.
At 3:10 p.m., the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h),
pending or threatened litigation. No decisions were made.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 9 of 10
Commissioner Baney indicated she would be out of the office on October 17.
Commissioner DeBone will be out of the office on October 26 and November 21,
28 and 30. Departments will be advised accordingly.
8. Adjourn.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
APPROVED this o - Day of
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
(67Diuttduu 6.7;4t,
Recording Secretary
2016 for the
CLL._ ttv r ---
Alan Unger, Chair
Tammy Baney, Vi Chair
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 10 of 10
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 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. Grant Request for La Pine Basin Joint Chiefs Project (Year 2 of 3) — Ed Keith
2. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forestland Classification Status and Other
Updates — Ed Keith; ODF: Mike Shaw, Kristen Dodd
3. Health Services Position Upgrade Request — David Inbody
4. Discussion and Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2016-040,
Declining Review of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding the Shepherd
Church Application — Will Groves
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting
rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County 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(deschutes.orq.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, September 19, 2016
Page 1 of 2
5. Discussion of Bend UGB Expansion Ordinances — Peter Gutowsky & Matt
Martin
6. Lottery Grant Fund Request — Judith Ure
• Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council — CET Governance Legislative
Concept, for $1,000
7. Other Items
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners
wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
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.
8. 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. Ifyou 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.harmsna deschutes.orq.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, September 19, 2016 Page 2 of 2
Current Forest Land Classification
jiff
Ei s�
.
.%.log • Air r/ ��!
ii rte:
r %t
Legend
1.7e,
COD Current District Boundary
Current Classification Line
Timber
Grazing
US Bureau of Land Management
Oregon Dept of State Lands
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Private
State of Oregon
US Forest Service
6.1
:i
0 1 2
Ea
7, rr
di .
Pr/
23
4 6 8
Mlles
'Ws product Is for Informational purposes and may not have been
prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying 11,
purposes. Users of th,s information should review cr consult the
primary data and Information sources to ascertain the usability of
the Information.
Proposed Forest Land Classification
illjoise.
ii i IIIITCOD Proposed District Boundary
tt: : 1 -*::-A US Bureau of Land Management
54:T -x, Oregon Dept of State Lands
1 Oregon Parks and Recreation
Os/
Private
State of Oregon
US Forest Service
Land Class
Exempt
Timber
Grazing
linliumm ammo win on-stommxtumm
0 1 2
4 6
This product is for Informational purposes and may not haVe been
prepared for, or be suitable for leeal, engineering or surveying for
purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the
primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability or
the information.
West Bend Current vs Proposed District Boundary
Legend
)'i ®°COD Current District Boundary
"3 p�
®COD Proposed District Boundary
` City Limits
Oregon Dept of State Lands
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Private
_ 1 US Forest Service
Roads_Statewide_odf RT
PDMclass
- Federal or State highway
® Paved
All weather
- Dirt
Hiking trail
City
Highway exit
9,j:T-:moi.
lid ___ _ _- _.-,,\
r®
--®tom
144.
4.1
VI
Thls product Is for Informational purposes and may not have been
prepared fob or be sellable for -legal, engineering or sinveying
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 purposes. Users of this lerormalion should review or consult the
NI ' M ' Miles p lin rydata Info ti r est asce lain the usability of
the Information. N
Southeast Bend Current vs Proposed District Boundary
.
_AI t -. 1 -, •4 ---, --, -
.,_ ...,—
.111, 1
,„-
7,1•••••••4
! ‘t1--.1. 1p.
-.. t.
•• -• e)
Legend
OD Current District Boundaiy
!covg 9COD Proposed District Boundary
• City Limits
US Bureau of Land Management
i 4ittl Oregon Dept of State Lands
I 1 Oregon Parks and Recreation
ElPrivate
US Forest Service
-`%.Roads_Statewide_odf RT
\- ...,
ditt -_.., PDMclass
`--"---\„ - Dirt
City
--I,
— All weather
—
......., Federal or State highway
Paved
I)1,
wi it
r
• ,•,
• - ./-"
,
A t pend ,
•
(.6 3 5.* t' • • -
"I i - •
7:1
J 1
—2-1"
•
El EV
This product is for Informational purposes and may, not have 6een
prepared for, or besuitabte forked, enstneerine, or surveying
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 purposes. Users or this information should rivIew or consult lhe
Miles primary data and Information sources troascertain the usability of
the infonnatien. INI
Health Services Reaue$t to RefiII Senior Accounting Technician Position
with a Staff Accountant Position
Request to Board of County Commissioners on September 19, 2016
Request: Tami Ewing, a Senior Accounting Technician in the Health Services Department submitted a
resignation notice effective September 16, 2016. In an effort to better address the fiscal needs of the
department, this is a request to post for a Staff Accountant instead of refilling the Senior Account
Technician position.
Background 1. In 2013, the Business Operations Manager position in Health Services was split into two
positions, a Business Manager and an Operations Manager. It was acknowledged that the duties
assigned to the Business Operations Manager were too extensive for one employee.
2. During budget preparation by the Health Services Department for both FY 2016 and FY 2017,
Business Manager Sherri Pinner indicated that due to the growing scope and complexity of
Health Services fiscal management a need existed to add a Staff Accountant -level employee to
the Fiscal Team. An absence of identified funding for this position resulted in it not being
included in either budgetary request. As a result, Pinner assumed many of the duties that a Staff
Accountant would assume.
3. In May 2016, the Health Services Department implemented an organizational change that
established three Deputy Directors. Although the Deputy Director position already existed for
the Behavioral Health Division, it was necessary to create this position in the Public Health and
Administrative Services Divisions. These positions were created by converting two manager-
levelpositionsin1oDeputyDirectors.FortheAdnninistnativeServiuesDiviaion,Dave|nbod&the
Operations Manager, was named the Deputy Director.
4. In June 2016, Sherri Pinner, the Business Manager in the Health Services Department accepted a
position in the Community Development Department. This position was refilled in August 2016
by Chris Weiler, Operations Manager, who assumed responsibility for fiscal functions previously
the responsibility of the Business Manager, as well as many of the Operations Manager duties
previously held bx|nbody.
5. The Fiscal Team currently consists of three members, one Senior Accounting Technician and two
Accounting Technicians. Since Pinner's departure, efforts were made to transfer some of the
Staff Accountant -level duties she was doing to the members of the Fiscal Team. Many of these
duties were beyond the scope of work for an Accounting Technician or Senior Accounting
Technician. This was expressed by the Fiscal Team, most notably Tami Ewing, the Senior
Accounting Technician. Inquiries made in terms of a reclassification for Ewing were denied due
to the class and compensation study currently being conducted countywide.
6. September 2016, Tami Ewing resigned from her position noting one of the primary reasons her
working outside of the scope of her position.
Justification for hiring a Staff Accountant instead of a Senior Accountant
1. Financial Expertise Required — The Health Services Department is the most complex
department organizationally and financially. Fiscal responsibility for this department requires a
professional understanding of accounting practices, instead of a technical knowledge of
recordkeeping. A Staff Accountant requires a Bachelor's Degree in Business with an emphasis in
Accounting with three to five years of professional experience in accounting. A Senior
Accounting Technician requires a High School diploma with five years of recordkeeping
experience or two years of business or accounting course work.
2. Broader Position Responsibility — In addition to the growing need for fiscal support, the
department also requires someone in the position with a strong understanding of grants and
contracts that have fiscal implications. This employee will need to not only understand revenue
and expenses, but also how departmental operations may be altered by the changing healthcare
funding environment.
3. New Financial System Requires Different SkiIIs — Historically, this position was responsible for
processing financial transactions and maintaining spreadsheets. With the implementation of the
Tyler Munis financial system, the needs for this position will have greater emphasis on systems
designs, process improvement and analysis.
4. Greater Emphasis on Compliance and Reporting — The introduction of Public Health
Modernization and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHC) will require greater
ability for the Health Services Department to provide financial data for compliance and
reporting purposes. This position will be assuming a greater role in meeting these growing
requirements.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora
AGENDA REOUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board WORK SESSION of 9/19/16
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: September 15, 2016
FROM: Will Groves Community Development Department
388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of whether to hear an appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision decision determining that
the proposed chuch complies with all applicable regulations. File Nos. 247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -
AD.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Central Oregon
LandWatch. The appeal is submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's
decision that a proposed Church in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone complies with all applicable
regulations. The applicants, John and Stephanie Shepherd, requested approval to use the property
as a church. The Hearings Officer issued a decision on September 1, 2016 finding that the proposal
complies with all applicable regulations. On September 13, 2016 Central Oregon LandWatch
appealed the decision to the BOCC.
The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision under ORS 215 expires on December 23,
2016.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board not hear this appeal.
ATTENDANCE: Will Groves
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
CDD, Legal
Community Development Department
Planning DivisionBuilding Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
,
P0. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www,co.deschutes.or,usicddi
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 15, 2015
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner
RE: Determination of whether to hear the Central Oregon LancNVatch appeal of a
Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -AD
At present, before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Central
Oregon LandWatch. The appeal is submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings
Officer's decision that a proposed Church in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone complies with all
applicable regulations.
BACKGROUND
The applicants, John and Stephanie Shepherd, requested approval to use the property as a
church. Church use of the property would include:
• Weekly services, primarily conducted in the existing dwelling
Church related events, specifically weddings, conducted outside the existing dwelling
and restricted to mid-May through mid-October;
Wedding receptions and/or wedding ceremonies outside the existing dwelling and
restricted to mid-May through mid-October
Other over -flow church events conducted outside the existing dwelling
Family and marriage counseling
Church functions allowed by ORS 215.441
The Hearings Officer issued a decision on September 1, 2016 finding that the application
complies with all applicable regulations. On September 13, 2016 Central Oregon LandWatch
appealed the decision to the BOCC.
The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision under ORS 215 expires on December
23, 2016.
APPEAL
The notice of appeal describes several assignment of error. These are summarized below.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
A. DCC 22.22.15; Deschutes County may not approve any application/or land use
development on this property that is in violation of two existing conditions of
approval. The record demonstrates the applicant is in direct violation of two specific
conditions of approval of the dwelling in conjunction with farm use.
B. ORS 215.130(7)(a); Hearings officer erred by ignoring that a use abandoned for
fifteen years may not be resumed unless the resumed use conforms with current
ordinances and regulations. Use of the farm dwelling as the dwelling of one
principally engaged in farm use may not be resumed after a decade and a half of
interruption or abandonment unless the applicant demonstrates that the use complies
with current regulations for farm dwellings. There is unrefuted evidence in the record,
including the applicants own admission, that the applicant abandoned use of the land for
farm use for fifteen years.
C. ORS 215.441; statute applies only to nonresidential places of worship. Even if the
county were not prohibited from approving the requested use given the ongoing
violations of the subject property's conditions of approval, the requested use could not
be approved because ORS 215.441 applies only to nonresidential churches, and the
proposed use is for a residential church.
D. DCC 18. 88. 040; a church is a prohibited use in the winter range portions of the
county's Wildlife Area Combining Zone including the Metolius Deer Winter Range.
The Hearings Officer misapplied the applicable law in finding that a church may be
allowed in the Metolius Deer Winter Range when churches are expressly prohibited in
county winter ranges.
The appellant requests that, "Given that the primary issues are of state law, we believe it is most
appropriate for the County Board not to hear the appeal. ...If the County Board decides to hear
the appeal, Appellant requests that the hearing be conducted de novo under DCC 22.32.027."
If the BOCC decides to hear the appeal, the review shall be on the record unless the BOCC
decides to hear the appeal de novo. The BOCC may hear this matter de novo if it finds the
substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo review and it
does not appear that the request is necessitated by failure of the appellant to present evidence
that was available at the time of the previous review. The BOCC may also choose as de novo
review when, in its sole judgment, a de novo hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate
a significant policy issue relevant to the proposed land use action (DCC 22.32.027(B)(2)(c) and
(d)).
The BOCC may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed
in the notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on the notice of
appeal (DCC 22.32.027(6)(4)).
If the BOCC decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the
county, then the BOCC 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 BOCC's decision to decline review. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the
BOCC may consider only:
1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer;
File Nos. 247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -AD Page 2 of 3
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendations of Staff (See: DCC 22.32.035(B) and (D)).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the BOCC not hear this appeal. The appellant has requested that the BOCC
not hear this appeal. The primary issues include complex legal and constitutional matters.
Attachments
1. Hearing Officer's decision
2. Notice of Intent to Appeal
3. Draft Order to not hear this matter
File Nos. 247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -AD Page 3 of 3
Commun
Development Department
Nanning, Building Safety, Crwironmental Soib Code Enfor<ement
mOBox 6uus Bend, o,eoone77o8-G0oS
1z7mvvLafayette Avenue
wwo*.mescmutes,orgicd
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board ofCommissioners
FROM: Matthew Martin, ACP, Associate Panner
DATE: September 12, 2016
SUBJECT: Work Session on 9/18/16 RE: City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
OVERVIEW
The City of Bend proposes an amendment to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to add 2,380 acres for
needed housing, employment opportunitiesand other urban uses. The work session on Augus19 prepares the
Board of County Commissioners (Board) for the deliberations on County ordinances related to the proposal
presented by the City.1
BACKGROUND
Ajoint public hearing of the Board and the Bend City Council was held on August25. The public hearing was
closed that day and wrtten record remained open until September 2. Written comments submitted at the
public hearing and through September 2 are part of the County record and provided to the Board for
consideration (see attached).
On September 7, the Bend City Council unanimously approved and conducted first reading of Ordinance 2271
including minor policy changes made since the hearing in response to testimony and consideration by City of
Bend staff and consultants. None of these changes impact the proposed UGB boundary.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE
The City of Bend's UGB expansion requires Deschutes County to amend its Comprehensive Plan and Title 19,
w
Ordinance Nos, 2O16'O2Oand O21repeal Ordinance Nos. 2009- 001 and 002adopted by the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners in February 2009because the 2016 UGB expansion requires
substantially different amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan
Map, and Bend Urban Area Zoning than the City of Bend's 2009 proposal.
Ordinance Nos. 2016-022 and 023 recognize the City of Bend's current UGB amendment in the County's
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map and delete obsolete zoning references in Title 19
pertaining to urban unincorporated zones.
1A complete copy of the City of Bend UGB proposal, totaling approximately 1,800 pages can be downtoaded from the City's
weboitechttp://vm^mvbandorue0ndexaopx?oane=129U
NEXT STEPS
The City Council is scheduled to consider second reading of Ordinance 2271 on September 21. If approved that
day, the Board is scheduled to consider adopting Ordinance Nos. 2016-020, 021, 022, and 023 on September 26.
Staff has drafted the ordinances with emergency clauses. The benefit of adoption by emergency is the effective
date coincides with the City of Bend's ordinance.
Attachments:
Public Comments Submitted 8/25/16 through 9/2/16
2
Memorandum
September 1, 2016
To:
Bend City Council
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
Cc: Remand File
From: Bend UGB Project Team
Re: Recommended Revisions to Adoption Ordinance 2271 and Exhibits
INTRODUCTION
The memorandum provides a brief update of minor changes to elements of the UGB adoption
package (Ordinance 2271) and outlines the project team's recommendation on minor policy
changes for the City Council to consider at its September 7th, 2016 meeting. These changes
and policy recommendations are offered in response to testimony and consideration by the
UGB staff and consulting team.
REVISIONS TO FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO TESTIMONY
The project team has evaluated testimony, written and oral, submitted since the UGB Steering
Committee's April 21, 2016 meeting, most of which was submitted after Ordinance 2271 was
posted on July 21, 2016. All written testimony submitted into the record prior to the close of the
written record by 5:00 pm on August 29, 2016 was posted to the City's project website —
www.bendoreaon.qov/benduab. The team prepared additional written findings responding to
substantive comments and entered those into the record on August 29, 2016. This evidence,
and responses to testimony have been added to the Findings (See Section 13 of Findings).
Staff is happy to answer any further questions from the Council during the September 7th
meeting, and recommends these new findings be adopted by the City Council.
REVISIONS THAT ARE CLARIFICATIONS AND ERRATA
Staff made minor editorial changes to a handful of documents and Ordinance 2271 for the sake
of accuracy and consistency. None of these represent a change in the substance or policy
direction associated with the UGB. These changes are already incorporated into the exhibits in
Ordinance 2271. The types of changes include consistent references to the new Bend
Comprehensive Plan (instead of the now outdated term Bend General Plan), correcting table
references, figure numbering, and removing duplication, updating references to ORS and OARs
for consistency, and incorporating the correct and adopted version of the Bend Development
Code with respect to codes which are not the subject of the UGB (i.e. Marijuana regulations).
Staff recommends these minor changes be adopted by the City Council.
Page 1 of 3
3. Amend Policy 11-73 as follows based on written testimony from TAC member Sid
Synder:
o "Bat habitat should shall be mapped and potentially added to the City of
Bend's Goal 5 Inventory. An Environmental. Social. Economic and Energy
(ESEE) analysis shall be conducted to determine the sianificance of the
resource and a management plan shall be provided as appropriate to
protect the resource.
habitat ar
value.,,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council discuss each of the types of revisions (findings, clarifications
and errata, policy) and provide guidance to staff. Staff recommends the modifications to
Ordinance 2271 described above, subject to direction from the City Council. The new findings
provide responses to testimony, which are helpful explanations and also create a stronger
record if the ordinance is the subject of future legal action. Minor corrections described in the
memorandum are recommended to remove any confusion, create consistency, and generally
improve the ordinance. Staff also recommends the policy amendments above in response to
testimony. These minor changes will make the intent of the new policies easier to understand
and administer by future staff and City Councils. None of the recommended changes have
impacts on other elements of the UGB proposal and ordinance.
Recommended Revisions to Adoption Ordinance 2271 and Exhibits Page 3 of 3
c o 0 0 0 0 0
e 0 ;;0000000
O 'O ;to^;fO�;So (o (o (o (o (o co (o
Q(pc'�L,TT,'':':e
; OldioC.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W N-MfAV' N N N N N N N
5,°4-33' : ,t+. c' 1-
kN, =:01 N N 0( N Cl N N
N N
0 0
0 0
0 0
100
0
vi
ari
o O
0 0
eo v
a N
N N
4.9
d
i0
0
O
CD
CD
•E
� m
E d
E re
0
cocci
_ c
m (a
10- m
LJI
L
a-401.20.4twor/
morrilin
Th1.
-I'll h
d.1
I *I "I I
Deschutes County
Marijuana Grow Impacts
1;
.60,.• Put. Sa•