2017-141-Minutes for Meeting February 08,2017 Recorded 3/27/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-141
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissionsrs'Journal 03/27/2017 9:13:13 AM
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
Allen Conference Room
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson. Also present
were Tom Anderson, County Administrator, Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator, and David
Doyle, County Counsel. Attending for a portion of the meeting were Drew Moore and Kara
Palacio, District Attorney's Office; David Givans, Internal Auditor; and two citizens. No
representatives of the media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:32 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. 2017 OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN GRANT OPPORTUNITY: Drew Moore,
District Attorney's Office presented a grant opportunity for the District Attorney's Office
that has an application deadline of February 16, 2017. The grant award would be
$45,000 over three years and funding would be available starting October 1, 2017. The
funding would allow for creation of a Domestic Violence Investigator position, creation
of a High Risk Domestic Violence Team, and continuation of the Lethality Assessment
Protocol. The current case load is causing strain at the DA's office now and the funding
would increase the generating of evidence to help reduce workload.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 8, 2017 Page 1 of 5
The Board expressed their support of the position reclassification requests.
7. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2017-005: Chris Doty, Public Works Director
presented the recent version of the Resolution in support of a Transportation Funding
Package in the 2017 Legislative Session as directed at the morning's Business Meeting.
DEBONE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2017-005
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
BAN EY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
8. LETTER TO OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation
Planner presented the revised letter regarding the Sisters Eagle Airport. Community
Development Department staff will be present at this evening's ODA hearing. The
Board expressed approval of signature on the letter.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Approval of Minutes: Before the Board was consideration of minutes pulled
from this morning's Business Meeting.
DEBONE: Move approval of Minutes of the January 4, 2017 Work Session
and the Minutes of the January 25, 2017 Business Meeting.
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 8, 2017 Page 4 of 5
ADJOURN: Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
DATED this Day of 2017 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Tammy Baney, Cha r
4h'-Aw�
Anthony DeBone, Vice C hair
ATTEST: J \
Philip G. Herson, Commissioner
ecording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session February 8, 2017 Page 5 of 5
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://wvwv.deschutes.org/
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2017
Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend
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.
CALL TO ORDER
ACTION ITEMS
1. Consideration of 2017-18 CLG Grant Application - Matt Martin, Associate Planner
2. New FTE Request - 1.0 Building Safety Inspector III - Nick Lelack, Community
Development Director
3. CDD Reserve Fund Policy/Fee Adjustment Policy - Nick Lelack, Community
Development Director
4. Continued Discussion on the Kine Appeal - Widgi Lot Record - Will Groves, Senior
Planner
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.
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, February 8, 2017 Page 1 of 2
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific
guidelines, are open to the media.
ADJOURN
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.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetirigcalendar
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place 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.)
Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Wednesday, February 8, 2017 Page 2 of 2
F J
w
V
c
o
�
M
�
Cr
M
V�
V
w
Qj
2
o
Q
V
—
N
V
V
V
-o
v
v
ro
r
�
�
ro
a
w
John Hummel District Attorney
1164 NW Bond Street • Bend, Oregon 97703
(541) 388-6520 • Fax: (541) 330-4691
Grand Jury Fax: (541) 330-4698
www.dcda.us
2017 OVW GRANT OPPORTUNITY SUMMARY
1. Grant Title
a. US Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women "Improving Criminal Justice
Reponses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Stalking Grant Program"
i. Formerly known as the Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforcement of Protection Orders
Program
2. Submission Due Date
a. Applications are due on February 16, 2017 by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
i. Strongly encouraged to be submitted 48 hours prior
3. Funding Sought
a. The grant is for $450,000 over 3 years.
b. If awarded, the funding is scheduled to be available starting on October 1, 2017.
4. Project Summary
a. We are seeking funding to address the following three main target areas:
i. Create a Domestic Violence Investigator position to provide follow up investigations for
Domestic Violence cases occurring in Deschutes County.
ii. Create a High Risk Domestic Violence Team.
iii. Continue the Lethality Assessment Protocol currently funded by an OVW grant that is
scheduled to end in September of 2017.
5. Community Partners
a. Deschutes County
b. Deschutes County District Attorney's Office
c. Deschutes County Sheriffs Office
d. Bend Police Department
e. Redmond Police Department
f. Sunriver Police Department
g. Black Butte Police Department
h. Saving Grace
6. Action Sought from BOCC
a. Request approval to apply for the 2017 OVW Grant Opportunity with Deschutes County as the
applicant and the Deschutes County District Attorney's Office as the authorized representative.
b. Request approval for John Hummel and the Board Chair to sign documents necessary to apply
for the grant with legal approval.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of February 8, 2017
DATE: February 1, 2017
FROM: Matt Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of 2017-18 CLG Grant Application
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
SUMMARY: The purpose of this work session to is to provide an overview of the Certified
Local Government (CLG) Program and request support and authorization to apply for the
2017-18 CLG grant.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff is requesting and recommending BOCC support and authorization to apply for the 2017-
18 CLG Grant.
Community Development Department
,AAAAA X Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or,us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 1, 2017
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
RE: 2017-18 Certified Local Government Application/Permission to Proceed
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the Certified Local Government (CLG)
Program and request Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) support to apply for a $12,500.00 CLG
grant as required by Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA -20. The grant application deadline
is February 23`d. If approved, the grant funds will be distributed on April 1St with an expenditure
deadline of August 31, 2018.
OVERVIEW
Every twenty-four months, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) offers matching grants
to cities and counties that have been "certified" as historic preservation partners with both the state
and federal governments. Deschutes County is a CLG and thereby eligible for the grant. The Community
Development Department (CDD) wants to prepare, with the support of the BOCC and Historic
Landmarks Commission (HLC), an application for the 2017-18 grant cycle. CLG grants assist local
governments with their historic preservation programs on a non-competitive basis in order to ensure
that all localities benefit. The maximum award for each locality is $12,500.00 based on fund availability
and requires a 50/50 match of local funds or donated services/supplies. State and federal requirements
regulate the CLG grant, including project budget, project timeline, inspections and audits, reports and
billings, consultant/contractor standards, etc.
CDD has been the recipient and beneficiary of CLG grants for several years. Staff relies on the
professional input and direction of the HLC, an appointed body that provides technical expertise on
historic and cultural resources issues for the rural county and city of Sisters', to customize grant
proposals. A prospective project list was developed based on the goals, objectives, and actions outlined
in the Deschutes County & City of Sisters Historic Preservation 2015-2020 Strategic Plan along with
suggestions made by staff and the HLC. On February 6, 2017, the HLC will meet to discuss, refine, and
ultimately recommend projects for the Board's consideration from the following list:
SURVEY:
• Support survey of City of Sisters historic properties to update historic property inventory.
1 The Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission serves the historic preservation programs of unincorporated Deschutes
County and the City of Sisters.
Quality Services Perforined with Pride
• Support survey of Deschutes County historic properties that could be considered for Goal 5 list
of historic resources.
• Support updating records for Deschutes County Goal 5 Sites including new photos, site forms,
and similar.
PUBLIC EDUCATION:
Support Historic Preservation Month activities in 2017 and 2018.
Support updating historic record documentation including uploading of scanned images from
the Deschutes Historical Society to the county online DIAL program and providing additional
content on the Historic Preservation Story Map.
Coordinate educational opportunities including field trips, presentations, and similar. This could
be accomplished in part through the previously discussed regional historic preservation summit
with municipalities and partners within the county.
PLANNING, REVIEW, AND COMPLIANCE:
• Support update of County webpage for ease of navigation and provide additional content
pertaining to historic preservation standards and procedures.
• Support CLG grant management including staff time for documentation and reporting.
OTHER ACTIVITIES:
• Provide training for staff and commissioners including attendance at Oregon heritage
Conference, CLG workshops, and similar. Specific topic noted was National Register Process.
DATE:
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of February 8, 2017
FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
New FTE Request - 1.0 Building Safety Inspector III
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No
ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, CDD Director; Sherri Pinner, Management Analyst; Randy
Scheid, Building Official/Building Safety Director; Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official
SUMMARY: The purpose of this memorandum is to request approval to hire one (1) additional
FTE to meet the Community Development Department's (CDD) business demands: 1 Building
Safety Inspector III.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Please see attached memorandum from Nick Lelack dated February 8, 2017, titled "New FTE
Request - Building Safety Specialist III".
Community Development Department
Planning, Building Safety, Environmental Soils, Code Enforcement
PO Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
www.deschutes.orf,,/cd
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Nick Lelack, Director
Cc: Randy Scheid, Sherri Pinner
Date: February 8, 2017
Subject: New FTE request — 1.0 Building Safety Specialist III
The purpose of this memorandum is to request approval to hire one (1) additional FTE to meet the Community
Development Department's (CDD) business demands: 1 Building Safety Inspector III.
CDD is continuing to experience increased permit applications above projections developed during budget
preparations last spring. The Building Safety Division FY 2016-17 budget was approved with two (2) new FTE.
One position was filled to meet business demands. The second position was transferred to the Planning Division
with Board approval for two reasons:
(1) Redmond took over all Building program plan review and inspections, which initially reduced the need
for the second position; and
(2) To meet the Planning Division's increasing business volume demands.
However, since then:
• CDD has assumed jurisdiction over the building program in the City of Sisters. During the first six months of
2017, City of Sisters anticipates an estimated 50 — 75 single family home permits, a 22 unit apartment
complex, a 44 unit new hotel and a new Dairy Queen;
• Inspections completed during calendar year 2016 continued to increase, and resulted in a total increase of
30% over calendar year 2015;
• Average inspections completed per day during spring/summer of 2016 were 9.81, and the Building Division's
goal is not to exceed an average of 10 inspections per day, and;
• There is currently 1 FTE out on workman's comp with an unknown return date combined with several staff
transitioning into retirement over the next 2-4 years.
Specifically, CDD requests approval of the following:
1. 1.0 FTE building safety inspector III to assist with increased inspection volume. During FY 16, CDD
experienced a 12.94% increase in structural permit applications over FY 15. Additionally, average stops per
day increased 19.69% and inspections per day increased 21.14% over FY 15.
2
Volume
FY 15
FY 16
Increase
Increase
Building Permit Analysis
Structural, NEW SFD & Manufactun
1,206
1,362
156
12.94%
Inspection Analysis
Inspections completed *
30,041
39,052
9,011
30.00%
Average Stops per Day **
46.48
55.63
9.15
19.69%
Inspections per Day
89.13
107.97
18.84
21.14%
* Calendar year
** FY 15 = 5.0 fte; FY 16 = 7.0 fte
2
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of February 8, 2017
DATE: February 1, 2017
FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
CDD Reserve Fund Policy/Fee Adjustment Policy
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No
ATTENDANCE: Nick Lelack, CDD Director; Sherri Pinner, Management Analyst
SUMMARY: County Internal Auditor David Givans recently completed and internal audit of
CDD systems and software, titled, "CDD - Review of Selected Business Software Processes".
This audit is scheduled for review by the County's Audit Committee on March 9, 2017. CDD is
initiating discussions with the Board of County Commissioners prior to March 9th because staff
is in the process of preparing the department budget due on February 23, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Please see attached Memorandum from Nick Lelack dated February 8, 2017.
rlwm L unity Development Department
Planning, `.,wilding Sate.ty, Environ rne ntai Soils, Code Enforcement,
110 Box 6005, Bernd, Oregon 977018-60105
11.7 NLN Lafayette Avenue
www,deschutes.wg/cd
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Nick Lelack, Director
Cc: Sherri Pinner
Date: February 8, 2017
Subject: Reserve Fund Policy
County Internal Auditor David Givans recently completed an internal audit of CDD systems and software, titled,
"CDD -Review of Selected Business Software Processes." This audit is scheduled for review by the County's Audit
Committee on March 9, 2017. CDD is initiating discussions with the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
prior to March 9 because staff is in the process of preparing the department budget due on February 23.
Two recommendations included in the audit are to establish financial policies pertaining to:
1. Reserve fund policy, and
2. Fee adjustment policy.
Please find attached draft reserve fund and fee setting policies as a starting point for the work session
conversation.
Staff seeks Board input/direction on the following:
1. What should the target, minimum, and maximum time frames of CUD operations should the reserve
funds cover?
2. How should the reserve funds be established?
3. What should be the time frame to build the reserve funds?
4. Does the Board support establishing a CDD Fee Adjustment policy on which to base annual fee
adjustment proposals, recognizing that the Board may adopt fees different from those proposed by the
department?
5. Are there any recommended revisions to the draft CDD Fee Adjustment Policy or Reserve Fund Policy?
D Reserve Fund
The purpose of the reserve fund policy is to provide a source of funds to:
1. Provide long term financial stability, including during economic cycles address emergencies;
2. Provide a consistent level of services during various economic cycles;
3. Provide funds to cover temporary, short-term, or seasonal (4-6 month revenue shortfalls or resource
demands (i.e., seasonal help);
4. Provide resources to implement Board priority long range planning or other projects or services if not
budgeted; and,
5. Provide funds for technology or facility enhancements, if necessary,
eackclround
CDD began utilizing financial support from reserve funds and general funds in Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08).
• Over the two year time period FY 08 — FY 09, $2,677,135 was transferred out of the CDD Operating
Reserve Fund to support administration, GIS, code enforcement, electrical, environmental health on site
and current planning divisions.
• During the same two year time period, $2,322,303 was transferred out of the Building Safety Reserve
Fund to support the Building Safety Division.
• County General Fund support for CDD's operations, excluding long range planning, totaled $4,027,011
beginning in FY 09 and ending in FY 13.
• The long range planning division received County General Fund support in the amount of $2,842,889
over a nine year time period, FY 08 to FY 16.
• Reserve fund transfers and general fund support over the nine year time period totaled $11,869,338.
At the close of FY 17, CDD will have a combined reserve fund total of $3,057,325 available for operations.
Draft Reserve Fund Policy Summary: Target Minimum Maximum
The draft proposed CDD Reserve Fund Policy is based on prior financial support discussed above and Capital
Accounting Partner's Dan Edds recommendations, and in consultation with County Internal Auditor David Givans
and Finance Director Wayne Lowery.
A summary of the policy includes the following:
• A target reserve fund balance of 18 months of operating expenditures.
• A maximum reserve fund balance of 24 months of operating expenditures
• A minimum reserve fund balance of 12 months of operating expenditures.
• Publish reserve fund balances on a quarterly basis.
• If fund balances are above or below the recommended limits, a recommendation and associated action
will be presented to the County Administrator and Board of County Commissioners.
Using FY 17 budget as an example, these amounts would be:
• Target fund balance: $9,270,083
• Minimum fund balance: $6,180,055
• Maximum fund balance: $12,360,110
The current reserve fund balances are $3,057,325.
How should the reserve funds be fully established?
The current reserve fund balances have been established over the past three years. The initial allocations were
carry overs from the last General Fund subsidy to CDD for operations combined with significantly increased
permit volumes. Since the initial allocations, the reserve funds have largely increased due to:
• CDD's conservative permit/financial revenue forecasts;
• Gradual staffing increases to meet service demands combined with hiring new staff equal to the
services demanded (i.e., assistant planners to process routine planning applications) and hiring
temporary, contract, and on-call staff;
• Increasingly efficient operations; and,
• Minimal fee increases.
CDD recommends growing reserve funds by:
• Continuing to conservatively project permit volumes, revenues, and staff increases;
• Continuing to increase efficiencies;
• Continuing to utilize temporary, contract, and on-call staff as needed and allowed by law; and
• Increasing fees by the amount necessary to generate the reserve fund targets established by the Board
and during the applicable time frame (discussed below).
Whotshould he the time frorne ire +which to build the reserve unds?
In general, the current reserve funds cover CDD operations over an estimated 6 months. Specifically, the current
reserve funds cover:
CDD operations over an estimated 6 months;
Building Safety Division operations an estimated 8 months; and
• Electrical operations over 0 months.
CDD recommends growing the reserve funds to the target levels decided above over 5 years to gradually
increase fees necessary to cover the costs, particularly as the fee increases during the first 3 years will be
required to offset departmental costs necessary to fund the PERS increases.
If the Board supports a 5 -year reserve fund buildup, staff will develop financial analyses to determine the fee
increases required to meet the targets established above.
CDD Fee Adjustment Policy
CDD proposes to establish a Fee Adjustment Policy to ensure the department is fully accounting for all of its
costs, collecting adequate revenues to cover costs, and build or maintain adequate reserves.
The Community Development Department aims to be fully fee -supported. A downturn in the economy for the
tirne period FY 08 through FY 16 resulted in extensive staffing and other cost reductions. For example, staffing
levels were reduced from 73.6 full time equivalents (FTE) in FY 08 to 36.0 FTE by FY 16.
Draft f=ee Adjustment PolesS't�rr�nlcrrY
A summary of the draft CDD recommended Fee Adjustment Policy consists of the following:
• The actual cost of services provided, primarily consisting of:
o Staffing levels/resources and corresponding annual labor, retirement, and health increases;
o Indirect charges to other County departments;
o Vehicles;
o Technology/equipment; and,
o Training.
• Reserve Fund balances, projections, and policies.
• Projected business volumes.
• Operational efficiencies.
• Regulatory changes, primarily at the state level.
• Annual Consumer Price Index.
• Annual stakeholder input.
In addition, CDD proposes to conduct a cost analysis every 3-5 years to ensure full accountability of costs to
provide services and collection of annual revenues.
Staff seeks Board input/direction on the following:
1. Does the Board support establishing a CDD Fee Adjustment policy on which to base annual fee
adjustment proposals, recognizing that the Board may adopt fees different from those proposed by the
department?
2. Are there any revisions to the draft CDD Fee Adjustment Policy?
In
Title: CDD Reserve Fund Policy (Funds 300 - 302)
Division: Administrative
Approved By: Nick Lelack
Director
............................... .........._ _
Signature
Date:._.—______-
_.___ --.... -..................... Ori mal Date: 01/01/17
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this reserve fund policy is to ensure the long term financial stability and
ongoing operations of the department and to provide a source of internal funds for
organizational priorities. It is intended to create reserves to address emergencies,
temporary revenue shortfalls, and technology enhancements and to provide stability
during economic cycles allowing a consistent level of service to Deschutes County
residents. This policy will be used in conjunction with County Administrative Policy No.
F-14.
POLICY:
Reserve funds will be established and maintained to ensure adequate cash flow and the
continued and consistent delivery of Community Development services to address
emergencies, temporary revenue shortfalls and to provide stability during economic
cycles.
Fund 300 — CDD Reserve is used to account for surplus revenues generated by the
Community Development Department, exclusive of building safety and electrical
program end of year surplus revenue, which by law, must be accounted for separately.
The CDD Reserve will benefit our administrative, GIS, code enforcement, environmental
health on site, current planning and long range planning divisions, including any
identified board priorities and goals. Building safety and electrical divisions have
separate reserve funds (Funds 301 and 302) as required by ORS 455.210 and ORS
479.845.
Fund 301 — Building Program Reserve will be established and maintained, as required
by ORS 455.210, to ensure adequate cash flow and the continued delivery of building
safety services to address emergencies, temporary revenue shortfalls and to provide
stability during economic cycles. The fund is used to account for surplus revenues
generated by the Building Safety Division, which by law, must be accounted for
separately, Reserve Fund 301 is to be used by the building safety program only.
Fund 302 - Electrical Program Reserve will be established and maintained, as required
by ORS 479.845, to ensure adequate cash flow and the continued delivery of electrical
services to address emergencies, temporary revenue shortfalls and to provide stability
during economic cycles. The fund is used to account for surplus revenues generated by
the Electrical Division, which by law, must be accounted for separately. Reserve Fund
302 is to be used by the electrical program only.
The target operating reserve fund balance for each Fund is equal to eighteen months of
average operating expenditures. The target minimum operating reserve fund balance is
equal to twelve months of average operating expenditures and the target maximum
operating fund balance is twenty four months of average operating expenditures.
i Target Minimum Maximum
Reserve Fund 18 months 12 _months 24 months
Average operating expenditures include all recurring; predictable expenditures such as
personnel services, materials and services .and vehicle replacement, in addition to any
board projects and,priorities identified to be to luded inti alcrItation.
Each reserve fund"will belunded with an annual contribution to be analyzed and
identified during the process of prep�arino th annual apprating budget and fee setting
process. Reserve fund contributions will' ia,analyzed and reconciled at fiscal year end.
It is the Department's intent to build "and maintain reserves through a transparent
,process. An increase in reserve fund balance can be accomplished by a number of
"actions. Actions include, but are not limited to, increasing fees over a multiyear time
period; a decrease in expenditures and corresponding services or any combination of
actions. Once target'or maximum reserve fund balance has been met, actions such as
skip an annual fee increase can assist in managing revenues.
USE AND MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE FUNDS:
CDD's operating fund (Fund 295) will be analyzed on a monthly basis in an effort to
monitor the financial health of each division and the department. In addition to analyzing
the department's financial position, the department also analyzes internal performance
measures, customer satisfaction surveys, market trends, and permit volumes in an effort
to identify anomalies and/or ongoing trends.
At such time the analysis reveals a consistent decrease in financial position or a
negative ongoing trend, the department will initiate a recommendation and associated
action to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and County Administrator.
The recommendation and associated action could include actions ranging from a
request to use reserve funds to revising operations or resources within the department,
or any appropriate combination of changes that create a financially stable and
operationally sound department.
The department will publish quarterly reports on reserve levels, identifying the upper and
lower limits as well as fund balance. As long as the actual fund balance is within the
range of the upper and lower limits, no action is required. If the actual fund balance
goes either above or below these limits, then a recommendation and associated action
will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and County Administrator.
7
A
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Title: Fee Setting Policy
Division: Administrative
The purpose of this policy is to ensure Community Development is fully accounting for all
of its costs and collecting adequate revenues to reimburse the department for its
expenses.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE:
Annually, the Community Development Department will propose service fee adjustments
to cover the actual cost of services provided and reserve fund projections and policies.
The primary factors affecting fee adjustments include, but are not limited to, identified
board priorities and goals, business volumes and corresponding staffing levels,
operational efficiencies, annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), and annual labor
increases.
Every three to five years, the Community Development Department will prepare a cost
analysis to ensure full accountability of costs to provide services and collection of
adequate revenues.
The analysis will use a driver based costing model to calculate the costs of a specific
service. Driver based costing seeks to understand cost at an operational level. Factors
included in a driver based costing model include the cost of each staff positon
contributing time, effort and energy toward the service.
1. Step 1: Data collection includes staff discussions to identify positions that provide
and support direct services. It also includes collecting departmental budget and
expenditure information to identify the salary and benefits for each positon,
identifying materials and supplies expenditures and any departmental and
countywide overhead.
a. Determine whether department reserve balances need to be increased based
on existing balances, projections, and reserve policies. If so, include the
amount of the budgeted reserves transfer. If not, do not include this amount
2. Step 2: Building the cost structure includes gathering time estimates for direct
processes; assigning indirect and annual process time; calculating fully loaded hourly
rates and the cost of service; and gathering data related to volume.
3. Step 3: Calculate the full cost of services. This step calculates the cost of service for
each direct service. To calculate the full cost of service, the cost of indirect services
is allocated to each direct service based on each services proportion of labor spent
processing each permit and application, By summing the direct and allocated
indirect costs and multiplying that by the activity dda, a total cost of service is
calculated for an individual service.
4. Step 4: Compare the cost of the service to the revenue generated by the fee
charged. Prepare an internal for changes,to:fpes, if any, and
discuss with County Administrator, Board of County Commissibners and other
interested parties.
5. Step 5. Present proposed f&adjustments fo stakeholder groups, including the
methodology used, and i�ivite comments on the, rgposed adjustments to share with
County Administration and the, Board :
6. Step 6: Propos ;adoption of feo djustrr? tits tf�r�ugil tl � County's fee setting
process.
Ln m 1-4
0)
00
m n 'A
<') 0
00
00
m
m
N r -Z'
N
C�
('4 N
d'
kD
to n q
00
00
Fq
C-4 rq 4,
('T
tn
y
a)
0)
m
m
a
C�
M
C,C�
Q0
Q
CP
E
2
Ln
fv
h
ro
W
Z
kD
to
r
LL
H
'A
M
til
lC>
C5
rs
U')
U')
0)
0)
Ql
dl
ti
Ln
Ln
Ln
0
to
lO
O
N
UO
00
00
tP
m
0)
C11
00
m
ff�
C�
ly�
rl)
ro
�D
a)
U)
11
w
N
LA
r -I
ln
yr
Ln
m
r -i
0)
00
1-
0
r"
rn
0
1�
w
0a
m
M
N
1-1
0
C?
N
It
ai
al
C5 0)
H
0
0
m
A
lc�
rl
Ci
lll�
CIZ
>
Ln �t c)
a
m
IT
m U) 0
C)
a)
00
1-1 11 0
C�
It
c
m ry� c�
CD
C)f,
It ul
0
CO
Zi
LL
U )
CJ
ro
tk
no
0)
to
t'O
W
r:
0 CY)
0)
m
cc
no
0.1
r{iO,
0.
00
O
>-'Tj
no
>
hLn
fd1 cA
l31
03
C
LL
m
C:
I
LY:
w
In
U-
C1h
ro
vi
al
E
m
kli
fu
EE
u
C:
2
2
2
2
0 "-A
U-
C
LL
Qj
ID
01
no.1
c-
IV
0
I-
U- t�
1-
I..- E
N
(D N h Ln m m
rD
tl 00
tY
14
N
a-+ rn
v0 N
w H
h
K
N
E ry
ko
M' E
`A
lk®
E
m
�
W#
<q
�"' N
H
N
ON
C lD m Ol m
N
U. LO lD (n M
tD
00
co N
co ro
3
u
d
Ln
p
Ln h
,0
ci
>
O'00
4 ~
C+
0 n
v
W tko
� 6
H Ln ei' Ln Ln O
0
i0
Lnm LD in ` C
cl
8�0
bb
cc
tl1
U
yy tt H 00 N L6 Ln
W
00
C7
haw
w
f-
ALn
N
D tD
W
0�8 iD
in
d 6P)
Ab O p
f^ E
a's h m O It* m
ua
Uw
E MH
F- E
C rrq
C .-1
C h N c -t 0 LD l0
00
cp
000
ro +J
H 1�It b11
-o
W � m
n ct
N rq
LD LD
CO
(D N h Ln m m
kD
.
D� C o
m O rn v1 iD U)
14
m h m N "t lD
P«
C7
@ m rrl Q V Lt fV
N
Q) L
u
N It m It tt N
p 04 t , to IT .-i tt
.-i
m
�
F .-i
<q
0 W
N
ON
C lD m Ol m
N
U. LO lD (n M
tD
c°a
w
3
u
to w d1
:c
Ln h
,0
ci
>
H v
N
W tko
� 6
H Ln ei' Ln Ln O
0
Lnm LD in ` C
cl
fti
tD d' rrl M M w
cc
tl1
U
yy tt H 00 N L6 Ln
W
00
C7
6
tn
m
if�tl
G
C
a's h m O It* m
ua
m N 00 h Ln Ln
r m h � ll
r,4 0 00 W
N
m
C .-1
C h N c -t 0 LD l0
00
cp
U.
® rn .-+ m tr c5 m
r�
M
v
d
h
ro +J
H 1�It b11
-o
W � m
n ct
N rq
LD LD
CO
00
m
.
D� C o
M
c ai
LL 111
C7
h
LL. ko
Q) L
u
M
m
�
:c
;c
9
rya
H w
bb
c°a
w
3
� °
to w d1
m
Ln h
ro V N
m
C
r
U.
m+
G
c
y
A7
h
9
iri
01
�a
6®
dA
n1
CC
C
N
y
LL.4�-
@J
bD
0
O
t0'
t0 C rt
C
Gp
0
tou
tD
0) b4
o
a
d
a
d
w
O
c u.r m
ti
®
c
,a
u w
x
Luz
m
W
cj l7 u -j
X
Lu
ro +J
H 1�It b11
-o
W � m
n ct
N rq
LD LD
CO
00
m
.
D� C o
c ai
LL 111
Ci
LL. ko
Q) L
u
a
m
�
:c
;c
9
rya
H w
bb
c°a
w
3
� °
to w d1
m
Ln h
ro V N
W
00
m
o
c ai
Ci
p N
a
V.
LO
?00ce
CA
a
I.
�..
j
... ...... .... , ;� v
r
.
C
(U
1
�/�pp�4
�Vi
§
g
s
00
`I
i.6
$
g
f m
ko i
o
i
bb
eNi
U
cu
�
c
C601,
Ln
j
I
00
j
mi
Ln
I
1
I
1 3 �
W
�
pip+....
'�
pgQy
+
ryVcs
Q
in
&
!�
:,:
I
\
00
tn
&
»
8
00
4 -fl,
8
C5
vi-
6 6
&
\
\
m
Ln7 § m m
Al"
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT V
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of February . 2017
FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Determination of Whether to Hear the Kine Appeal of a Hearings Officer's Decision. File No.
247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-0000027-A) (Property Within the Widgi Creek Resort Community)
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No
ATTENDANCE: Groves, Legal
SUMMARY: Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Larry
Kine. The appeal is submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County Hearings
Officer's decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating the lot of record
status of the subject property. The Board will need to decide whether or not to hear this
appeal, in accordance with Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.32. Staff has prepared
alternate draft orders accepting or declining a Board hearing of this appeal.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the Board not hear this appeal.
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Order Denyin eview of Hearings Officer's
Decision in File No 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17- * ORDER NO. 2017-003
000027-A)
*
WHEREAS, Appella'hit, Larry Kine, appealed the Hearings Officer's decision in application number
247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-000027-A); and
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.32 allows the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) discretion on whether to hear Vppeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board has given lie consideration as to whether to review this application on appeal;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS IONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
Section 1. That the Board will not hea the appeal of application 247 -16 -000408 -LR (247-17-
000027-A).
Section 2. The appellant shall be granted a re n of some of the appeal fees, according to County
procedures.
Dated this of , 2017 BOARI)k OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCjUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Page 1 of 1- ORDER NO. 2017-003
TAMMY BANE, Chair
ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair
PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Commissioner
t .
f7
Community Development Department
Pl nninrg Division Building Safety Division l±nvironmental Soils Division
P,O, Bow 6005 1 # 7 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Phone: (541 ) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http:ffi�Aurrr.deschutes,orcJ/cd
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 23, 2017
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner
RE: Determination of whether to hear the Kine appeal of a Hearings Officer's
decision. File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR
Before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is an appeal filed by Larry Kine. The
appeal is submitted in response to a January 6, 2017 Deschutes County Hearings Officer's
decision that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating the lot of record status of
the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Larry Kine, requested Lot of Record Verification for ten (10) areas located within
the property identified on Assessor's map 18-11 Tax Lot 2001, within the Widgi Creek Resort
Community.
A Lot of Record Verification is an application that seeks to demonstrate that the configuration of
identified lots or parcels was the result of lawful actions. This requires an analysis of the deed
history of a property.
The subject property was conveyed from the Bureau of Land Management into private
ownership in 1984. This conveyance referred to a BLM document entitled "Dependent
Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22 and 23 and Survey" ("Dependent Resurvey") dated
January 12, 1984. The Dependent Resurvey mapped Parcels A, B, C, and D and these
"parcels" are used to describe the land subject to the 1984 Federal conveyance.
In order to find that these "parcels" were Lots of Record', the Hearings Officer would need to
find that they met the DCC 18.04.030 requirements that the "parcels" "...conformed to all
1 Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as:
A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all
zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was
created, and which was created by any of the following means:
1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92;
2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and
recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk;
zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or
parcel was created...", and that they were created by one of the means identified in the Lot of
Record definition sections (A)(1-5).
The Hearings Officer found that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act_ of 1976 (FLPMA)
allows the BLM to create and convey lots that "a subsequent owner could use and convey".
However, FLPMA does not preempt local requirements and, specifically, Section 718 of the
FLPMA "places the burden of compliance" with state and local land use regulations on the
grantee.
Next, the Hearings Officer found:
I concur with the Hearings Officer in Thompson, and with the applicant, that the
BLM has the authority to create units of land and convey them without regard to
the Oregon Revised Statutes and the Deschutes County Code. Those units of
land are lawful; they can be used and conveyed by the grantee. But that only
sets the stage for deciding whether those units of land are "lots of record" that the
Deschutes County Code recognizes as developable.
The applicant argued that the "parcels" were created in accordance with Lot of Record section
(A)(2), "By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County
Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk'. The Hearings Officer found that
the "Dependent resurvey" was not a filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor nor was it
recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk.
Next, the Hearings Officer found that the "parcels" did not conform "...to all zoning and
subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was
created...". The Hearings Officer explained:
In 1984 the parcel was zoned FU3 under PL -15 with a minimum lot area of 20
acres. At least one "parcel" — `A' is less than 20 acres; thus the division into four
parcels did not meet the zoning standards at the time. Further, as staff notes, PL -
14 the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance adopted in 1981 required:
3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a
separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if
recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument
contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless
the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat,
4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County
Record of Plats; or
5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot
or parcel.
B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized
as a lot of record.
C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record:
1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change
or for the convenience of the assessor.
2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way.
3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed
subject to DCC 18.04.030(B).
4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest.
Section 2.010. SCOPE OF REGULATION. (1) Before a plat of any
subdivision or the map of any partition may be made and recorded, the
person proposing the subdivision or the partition, or his authorized agent
or representative, shall make an application in writing to the County
Planning Department for approval of the proposed subdivision or partition
in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by this
ordinance.
The Dependent Resurvey was not applied for or approved in accordance with the
requirements and procedures established by PL -14, and thus did not conform to
all "subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or
parcel was created". (Bold in original)
The applicant argues that the four parcels were subsequently left as 10 "remainder" parcels as
the result of subdivision of the Widgi Creek Resort community. However, since the four
"parcels" are not Lots of Record, the Hearings Officer found that later subdivision of adjacent
land does not leave "remainder" lots from the "parcels".
The Hearings Officer concluded:
...the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the prerequisite to lot of
record status: conformance with all zoning and subdivision and partitioning
requirements had been met given that the County had such provisions in effect at
the time of the BLM dependent survey, the survey did not conform to those
requirements, and at least one of the parcels may be below the minimum lot size
at the time.
II. APPEAL
On January 13, 2017 Larry Kine appealed the decision to the BOCC.
The notice of appeal describes several assignment of error and argues the BOCC should hear
this appeal de novo. Please see the attached Notice of Appeal, pages 1 and 2 for details.
Staff notes that Lot of record determinations are not subject to the 150 day deadline for final
decision. (DCC Section 22.20.040)
III. HEARING AN APPEAL
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(B)(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;
2. The notice of appeal; and
3. Recommendations of Staff (See: DCC 22.32.035(8) and (D)).
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff notes that the Hearing Officer's conclusion does not mean that that the subject property is
not comprised of some number of Lots of Record. Rather, Staff believes that it means that the
"Dependent Resurvey" and Federal conveyance are not relevant to the Lot of Record status of
the subject property, which rests on older deed conveyances. However, an analysis of older
deed conveyances was not provided with this application, appears to require extensive
research, would likely reach different conclusions, and, thus, would require a new Lot of Record
Verification application.
Staff recommends the BOCC not hear this appeal. The Hearings Officer decision is consistent
with the prior Hearing Officer's decision, the plain language of FLPMA, and the plain language
of DCC 18.04.030 "Lot of Record" definition.
Attachments:
1. Hearing Officer's decision
2. Notice of Intent to Appeal
3. Draft Orders
HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION
FILE NUMBER:
247 -16 -000408 -LR
SUBJECT:
Lot of Record Verification for property identified on Assessor's Map
18-11 Tax Lot 2001
APPLICANT:
Larry Kine
1133 N.W. Wall Street, Suite 1
Bend, Oregon 97701
PROPERTY OWNER;
BHelm, LLC
18707 S.W. Century Drive
Bend, Oregon 97701
LOCATION:
The subject does not have an assigned address. It is shown on
Assessor's Map 18-11 as Tax Lot 2001.
STAFF:
William Groves, Sr. Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER:
Dan R. Olsen
SUMMARY OF DECISION:
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance
Chapter 17.08, Definitions And Interpretation Of Language
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.04, Introduction and Definitions
Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications
Oregon Revised Statues
Chapter 92 — Subdivisions and Partitions
BASIC FINDINGS:
A. Location. The subject property is identified as Tax Lot 2001 on Deschutes County
Assessor's Map 18-11-00.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation. The subject property is zoned Resort Community (RC)
and Seventh Mountain Widgi Creek Resort (SMWCR) District, and is within the
Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone associated with Century Drive. The
property is designated Resort Community on the Deschutes County comprehensive plan
map.
I
C. Lot of Record. In File Nos. 247 -14 -000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP, 247 -14 -000397 -
LM, portions of the subject property were identified to contain two legal lots of record.
Legal Lot 1: That portion of Tax Lot 2001 on Assessor's Map 18-11-00 that is east of
the Cascade Lakes Highway (also known as Century Drive), and south and west of
Seventh Mountain Drive; Tax Lot 3600 on map 18-11-22A; Tract A in the Seventh
Mountain Golf Village Subdivision; Tax Lot 1800 on map 18-11-22DA; Tract B in the
Elkai Woods Townhomes Phase I Subdivision that is west and north of Elkai Woods
Townhomes Phase I, 11, and IV Subdivisions, and west of Elkai Woods Townhomes
Phase V; and "Replat of Lots 21 thru 28 and Common Areas 6 & 7 Elkai Woods
Townhomes Phase III", that is north of the Points West Subdivision, north of Tax Lot
9000 on map 18-11-22C, and east of Tax Lot 1701 on map 18-11-22C. The staff report
states this legal lot is approximately 40 acres in size.
Legal Lot 2: That portion of Tax Lot 2001 on Assessor's Map 18-11-00 that was left as
a remainder lot following platting of the Seventh Mountain Golf Village Subdivision and
that is surrounded by Tract A. Tract B, and Lots 77-85 and 87-107 of that subdivision.
The staff report states this legal lot is approximate 26 acres in size.
D. Site Description. The subject property consists of the Widgi Creek Resort Community
golf course, club house, restaurant, golf maintenance facilities, and sewer pump station.
E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is located within Widgi
Creek which consists of a mixture of residential and recreational facilities, including
single-family detached and attached dwellings, a golf course, club house, tennis courts,
pool, and private roads, bicycle paths and golf cart paths.
To the south, the Seventh Mountain development consists of approximately 240
condominium units as well as resort facilities including conference facilities, two pools, a
restaurant, and an ice skating rink.
Widgi Creek abuts Cascade Lakes Highway on the north and the Deschutes River
canyon on the south. The Deschutes National Forest (DNF) surrounds Widgi Creek and
Seventh Mountain.
F. Land Use History. The Seventh Mountain resort was established prior to the county's
adoption of land use regulations. The Seventh MountainNVidgi Creek/Elkai Woods
developments have a long land use history dating back to at least 1983 when Widgi
Creek received its original land use approval (Z-83-7, MP -83-1, CU -83-107). The
following land use permits and approvals are applicable to Tax Lot 2001:
MC8922
Modification Of Conditions For The Golf Course At The Inn Of The Seventh
Mountain
MC9021
Modification Of Conditions For The Expansion To The Inn
MC9014.
Modification Of Conditions For The Inn Of The Seventh Mountain's Subdivision
Plat
.__ .,
PA908
.
Extension Of City Sewer Line To Inn
TP90735
Tentative Plat For 107 Lots At The Inn Of The Seventh Mountain
MC9018
Modification Of Conditions To Allow A Sales Office For New Lots At The Inn of
The Seventh Mountain
MC9424
Modification Of Conditional Use Permit
V9112
Variance To Sign Code Permit
S9137
Sign For Seventh Mt. Golf Village
SP9121
Clubhouse Site Plan
S9136
Sign For Se venth Mountain Golf Village
AD9428 :.:Ad
For Widgi Creek
'.SP9445_-_
Minor Alteration For Sales Off ice At Restaurant..
AD9516
Declaratory Ruling For Status Of Widgi Creek/Seventh Mountain Golf Village,
And Condo Site
FP951
Financial Segregation
MP9519
Partition To Divide Remainder Lot At Widgi Creek/Seventh Mountain Golf
Village
SP9672
Site Plan Review For Golf Course Clubhouse
SP9674
I.Site Plan Review For Amenities Complex For The Elkai Woods Townhome
Development Within In Widgi Creek PUD
TP96857
Tentative Plat/Master Plan For 86 Townhouse Lots--Elkai Woods
SP961 t7 .
Site Plan For 8 Townhouse Units--Phase 1 Elkai Woods
SP965 __
.. Site Plan Approval For Improvements To Maintenance Facility.
FPA9714
Final Plat Approval For Elkai Woods Townhomes At Widgi Creek
FPA9749
Final Plat Review For Phase li Elkai Woods
SP9731
Site Plan Review For Elkai Woods Phase II
SP9752
Site Plan For Permanent Restrooms To Replace Temporary Restrooms For
Golf Course
SP9857
Site Plan For Phase III Of Elkai Woods At Widgi Creek ..
SP9842
Site Plan For E1kalAmenities Buildings
FPA997
Final Plat Review For Elkai Woods Phase I II
FPA0011 .
.Final Plat Review Of TP-96-857
LM05110
Landscape Management Site Plan For Sign.;
SP0534
Site Plan For New Storage Building For Widgi Creek Golf Course
LL0842
Lot Line Adjustment
SP0915
Site Plan Review For Addition To Storage Building
G: Procedural History: This application was submitted on July 12, 2016. An incomplete
letter was sent August 9, 2016. This application was accepted by the county as complete
on August 29, 2016. Lot of record determinations are not subject to the 150 day
deadline for final decision. DCC Section 22.20.040.
The hearing was conducted on October 11, 2016. At the outset, I provided the
statutorily required notices and outlined the hearing process. I indicated that I had no
conflicts of interest, had received no ex parte contacts and had not conducted a site visit.
I asked for but received no objections to my hearing this matter nor did I receive any
procedural objections.
A continuance was requested and the record remained open for submittals until
5:00 p.m. on October 25, for rebuttal submittals until 5:00 p.m. on November 1, and for
final applicant rebuttal until 5:00 p.m. on November 8, 2016. There was a concern that
3
the applicant's rebuttal had not been received timely. Staff confirmed by email dated
November 9, and copied to all counsel of record, that there was an error in the time
stamp and the material had, in fact, been received timely by fax. There was no further
objection and the rebuttal is received.
H. Proposal. The applicant has requested Lot of Record Verification for ten (10) areas
located within the property identified on Assessor's map 18-11 Tax Lot 2001.
C. Public Notice and Comments. The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of
the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property
located within 250 feet of the boundaries of Tax Lot 2001. In addition, notice of the public
hearing was published in the Bend "Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was
posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign.
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as:
A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which
conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect
on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the
following means:
1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92;
2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes
County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk,
3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction,
containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in
Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date
of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal
description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal
descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat;
4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the
Deschutes County Record of Plats; or
5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving
a remainder lot or parcel.
B. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record:
1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an
assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor.
2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of
way.
3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or
parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 98.04.030(B).
4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest.
Section 18.04 contains the following additional definitions:
""Lot means a unit of land created by a subdivision of land."
"Parcel means a unit of land created by a partitioning of land."
"Partition means an act of partitioning land or an area or tract of land partitioned as
defined under `partition land"'.
"Partition land means to divide land into two or three parcels within a calendar year" with
exceptions.
"Partition plat means the final map describing parcels created by partition and other
writing as specified in the subdivision and partition ordinance containing all other
descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information
concerning a major or minor partition."
"Plat means a final map or diagram concerning a subdivision or partition, Includes a
subdivision plat."
"Subdivide lands means to divide land into four or more lots within a calendar year."
"Subdivision means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land
subdivided."
"Subdivision plat means the final map and other writing containing all the descriptions,
locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information concerning a
subdivision."
Chapter 17 contains similar, but not exactly the same, definitions for these terms.
Finally, ORS 92.010 provides the following definitions:
(4) "Lot" means a single unit of land that is created by a subdivision of land....
(6) "Parcel' means a single unit of land that is created by a partition of land...
(7) "Partition" means either an act of partitioning land or an area or tract of land
partitioned.
(8) "Partition plat" includes a final map and other writing containing all the
descriptions, locations, specifications, provisions and information concerning a
partition.
(9) "Partitioning land" means dividing land to create not more than three parcels
of land within a calendar year, but does not include:...
(10) "Plat" includes a final subdivision plat, replat or partition plat...
(16) "Subdivide land" means to divide land to create four or more lots within a
calendar year.
(17) "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of
land subdivided.
(18) "Subdivision plat" includes a final map and other writing containing all the
descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information
concerning a subdivision.
DCC Section 17.08.030 and ORS 92.010 (3) (a) each state that: "Lawfully Established Unit of
Land" means:
1. A lot or parcel created pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190, or the provisions
of this code; or
2. Another unit of land created:
5
A. In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning, and
subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or
B. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable
planning, zoning or subdivision or partition ordinances or regulation
The area at issue consists of the property shown with the notation "not in plat" on the Seventh
Mountain Golf Village subdivision plat dated September 19, 1990. The property was conveyed
by land patent from the Bureau of Land Management dated October 9, 1984. The area is shown
on the "Dependent Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22 and 23 and Survey" dated January 12,
1984.
Before proceeding to the merits it is necessary to address some disagreement and confusion
about what the applicant is alleging.
The application contends that Tracts A, B, C and D were lots of record when they were created.
It alleges that the BLM satisfied all laws applicable to it in 1984 and that the 1984 "Dependent
Resurvey" subdivided the property into four parcels. Thus, Section 18.04.030 A. 2 was satisfied.
The application also contends that the land patent satisfied Section 18.04.030 A. 3. Finally, the
application contends that "even if' those tracts were not lots of record in 1984, the area shown
as "not in plat" in the 1990 Golf Village plat consists of 10 lots of record under18.04.030 A.5.
In his October 25, letter, Mr. Koback, counsel for the applicant, states that the applicant is not
taking the position that Parcels A -D met the lot of record requirements in 1984 "when they were
created, although they may very well have." He states that the applicant no longer is asserting
that the 1984 Dependent Resurvey qualifies as a subdivision in compliance with ORS Chapter
92 that was recorded with the county clerk. He argues that the 1984 Dependent Resurvey,
however, was a subdivision that created 14 lots and four parcels. These are "lawfully
established units of land" and that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) allows the BLM to create and convey lots that "a subsequent owner could use and
convey". He then alleges, as did the application, that "the developer [apparently via the Seventh
Mountain Golf Village Plat dated September 18, 1990] complied with all applicable regulations
and further divided the Parcels A, B, C and D leaving remainder tracts that were not part of the
new subdivision." Those are "lawfully created units of land" that qualify as lots of record
"remainder tracts" pursuant to DCC 18.04.030 A.5.
In his November 8, final argument, Mr. Koback first states that the applicant does not request
that I find that the four parcels are lots of record. But then he states, "because the four tracts
conveyed were lots of record, the remainder 10 parcels qualified as lots of record because they
resulted from the further subdivision of Tracts A, B, C and D." He states that "it is obvious that
the applicant's position is that the Resurvey created four legal lots of record, not 10 legal lots of
record." He asserts the 10 lots were "separate legal lots and parcels." The 10 parcels were
created when the four lots of record were further subdivided under local regulations."
Although he does not again reference "lawfully created units of land" he asserts that the FLPMA
permits the BLM to "create parcels of any size and convey them". The four tracts were created
by a subdivision and "were rezoned to permit the further subdivision that occurred in 1985,"
There is nothing in the record indicating that anything happened to this property in 1985, so I
assume he is referring to the 1984 Dependent Resurvey and/or the 1984 patent or the 1990
Golf Village plat. He cites DCC 18.04.035 (5) presumably in relation to his argument in the
October 25, letter that the 14 lots must be recognized as lots of record under that provision
because they "were remainder tracts that were not part of the new subdivision." Neither the
October 25 or November 8 letter asserts that the patent created lots of record.
By letter dated November 1, Mr. McGean argued that these letters re -characterize the
application to obtain a different determination, i.e. that the areas are "lawful units of land" rather
than lots of record. He objected that this requires a modification of application.
I disagree. The application listed 18.04.030 5 as a basis for establishing the 10 alleged lots of
record. The staff report listed Section 17.08.030 as an applicable criterion. Although the
applicant has shifted the focus of his arguments, the key criterion and the result sought remains
the same. This shift in focus does not rise to the level of a modification as defined in DCC
122.20.020.
Having so concluded, however, it must be noted that I find the applicant's arguments confusing
and difficult to follow. Some of this may be use of the various terms. For example, it is not clear
what is meant by the "new subdivision" or the 1985 subdivision. It appears to jump back and
forth from lawfully established units, to lots or parcels, and as to whether the 4 parcels are lots
of record. The applicant has the burden of clearly articulating its reasoning. Accordingly, my
decision is based on my best understanding of the applicant's position in relation to the facts as
applied to the standards.
The applicant relies heavily on the preemption analysis and conclusions in the Thompson lot of
record determination, LR -07-02 (2008). In that case, the BLM owned 'lots" 1-4. It transferred
"lots 3 and 4" to Crown Pacific in 1999. Crown sold the property to Thompson. Thompson
argued that the transfer created a lot of record because it was transferred pursuant to the
FLPMA. The Hearings Officer concluded that the transfer did not follow the partitioning
provisions of ORS 92. Further the property transferred did not meet the county's minimum lot
size of 80 acres. The Hearings Officer concluded that, "the resulting lot or parcel appears to
have been created and sold in compliance with the FLPMA and without interference from the
state or Deschutes County." In short, the FLPMA preempted state and local law to the extent
that the conveyance to Crown Pacific was lawful. He stressed, however, that the effect of
federal preemption terminated in 1999 when the conveyance to Crown was complete. Further,
Section 718 of the FLPMA "places the burden of compliance" with state and local land use
regulations on the grantee.
At this point the facts and the arguments in this appeal, diverge significantly from Thompson.
There was no allegation that the BLM created a subdivision. The Hearings Officer did not
address the definition of 'lawfully established unit of land". The applicant did not argue that the
property met the DCC definition of a lot of record. Further, although two "lots" were transferred,
it does not appear that the applicant argued that they were separate lots. The decision only
references "lot" singular. Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer concluded that, "Although the BLM
actually did partition the lot from a larger parcel, that partition was not accomplished in
compliance with ORS Chapter 92. The lot was not created through a subdivision of land."
Accordingly, it "does not qualify as a lot of record" under the DCC. Arguably, this analysis is
dicta in that the applicant did not argue this point. But it appears to have been important to the
Hearings Officer's decision. He, in effect, concluded that although the BLM had the authority to
convey the lots and the applicant was entitled to use them, to be a "lot of record" the property
must either meet the definition in DCC 18.040.030 or, in that case, the specific lot of record
provision in the F-1 zone, notwithstanding the FLPMA.
I concur with the Hearings Officer in Thompson, and with the applicant, that the BLM has the
authority to create units of land and convey them without regard to the Oregon Revised Statutes
and the Deschutes County Code. Those units of land are lawful; they can be used and
conveyed by the grantee. But that only sets the stage for deciding whether those units of land
are "lots of record" that the Deschutes County Code recognizes as developable. Because I do
not clearly understand where exactly the applicant ended up on each standard, I will address
each.
1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.
ORS 92.010 states that "Partitioning land" means dividing land to create not more than
three parcels of land within a calendar year". No one is arguing that fewer than 4 parcels or lots
were created so this criterion is not applicable.
2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and
recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk.
ORS 92.010 states "Subdivision plat means the final map and other writing containing all
the descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information concerning a
subdivision." Subdivision means either an act of subdividing land or an area or a tract of land
subdivided. Subdivide lands means "to divide land into four or more lots within a calendar year."
I agree with the applicant that the Dependent Survey constitutes a subdivision under this
definition, or perhaps recognition of a prior subdivision. It describes what the BLM calls "parcels"
and "lots". The definition of subdivision in the Glossary of BLM Surveying and Mapping Terms
includes: "subdivision of a section into ... lots". The scope of this subdivision is unclear, however.
The field notes state that the Depended Resurvey accomplished "a resurvey of a portion of the
subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 22 and 23, the resurvey of Century Drive Market
Road and a metes -and -bounds survey" of certain parcels in Sections 14, 14, 22 and 23."
(Emphasis added). The Document is entitled Dependent Resurvey, Subdivision of Sections 22
and 23, and Surrey. As staff notes, it appears, therefore, that BLM actually "subdivided" only
Sections 22 and 23. Sections 14 and 15 either were subdivided previously or not subdivided at
all. The effect of this is unclear as it appears that all of the Section 14 and 15 'lots" described in
the resurvey are in the right of way, except lot 2 of Section 14 and lot 1 of Section 15.
Ultimately, however, I do not need to decide if the Dependent Resurvey created multiple lots.
The applicant asserts only that it created four parcels of land to convey. I agree that the
apparent intent was to enable BLM to convey at least these four parcels, either separately or to
one grantee. The latter is what occurred.
Nevertheless, to create lots of record, the subdivision must have been recorded with the
surveyor and clerk. This was not done. As discussed in Thompson, this is not an issue of
federal preemption. The FLPMA extends only to the creation of lots or parcels for conveyance
and use. It does not address and certainly does not purport to require that local governments
deem those lots developable or grant them any special status under local development codes.
3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a
separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of
the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance.
The land patent conveys the property by separate reference to each of the four parcels.
There is an issue as to whether the land patent "created" any parcels. As staff notes, the
Dependent Resurvey only explicitly references the "subdivision" of land in relation to Sections
22 and 23. If that is the extent of the BLM subdivision, then presumably the areas in Sections 14
and 15 were created by the patent. But the applicant, other than a brief mention, in its
application narrative, does not further assert that this standard is relevant, perhaps because it
would appear to recognize at most one lot of record since the subdivision was not recorded as
provided in DCC 18.04 A.(3). Accordingly, I find that the applicant has failed to meet its burden
under this standard.
Finally, before turning to (5), as staff notes the Lot of Record definition, at the outset, requires
that the lot or parcel conform to "all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in
effect on the date the lot or parcel was created". In 1984 the parcel was zoned FU3 under PL -15
with a minimum lot area of 20 acres. At least one "parcel" — 'A' is less than 20 acres; thus the
division into four parcels did not meet the zoning standards at the time. Further, as staff notes,
PL -14 the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance adopted in 1981 required:
Section 2.010. SCOPE OF REGULATION. (1) Before a plat of any
subdivision or the map of any partition may be made and recorded, the
person proposing the subdivision or the partition, or his authorized agent
or representative, shall make an application in writing to the County
Planning Department for approval of the proposed subdivision or partition
in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by this
ordinance.
The Dependent Resurvey was not applied for or approved in accordance with the requirements
and procedures established by PL -14, and thus did not conform to all "subdivision or partition
requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created".
So, to summarize, at the time of recording the Golf Village subdivision, the owner had four units
of land that were lawful in the sense that the conveyance from the BLM was lawful and the
grantee could own and use them. They may be "lawfully established units of land" pursuant to
DCC Section 17.08.030 B. But they are not "lots of record" as discussed above. They appear to
have no legal status in the context of land use, i.e. whether they are separately developable
parcels without regard to other code standards. See e.g. Kishpaugh v Clackamas County, 24 Or
LUBA 164 (1992)
4. Subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel.
In his November 8, final argument, Mr. Koback states that there is no claim that the 1985
subdivision violated any local regulation. "The result of the subdivision was the creation of 10
parcels that all were derived from the four lots of record the BLM conveyed." First, I can find no
evidence of a 1985 subdivision, so assume the reference is to the 1990 Golf Village plat.
Second, as I have found above, the four BLM parcels are lawful, but are not lots of record. The
applicant appears to argue that the Golf Village subdivision divided these four lots of record into
10 lots and that each is recognized as a lot of record under DCC 18.04.030 A. 5. The applicant
does not clearly articulate how this occurred.
It is not clear how the Golf Village subdivision could create lots that explicitly are marked.
"Not In Plat". Subdivision lots are created by inclusion in a plat. The plat does not label them as
"lots" or "parcels" and shows their "boundaries" only by dashed section lines. There appears to
be no reference to the BLM parcels on the plat. See DCC 18.04.030 B. 2 (section or township
lines do not create lot of record.) It is at least as likely that this means that listing these as one
"not in plat" area effectively consolidated those lawful parcels into one. See e.g. Weyerhauser
Real Estate Dev Co v Polk County, LUBA No. 2011-022 (2011)
As regards DCC 18.04.030 A. 5, note that it is written in the singular, "leaving 'a'
remainder lot or parcel." So at most, it would recognize only one lot of record consisting of all of
the "not in plat" areas. The only guidance I found on this provision is in Decision 247-15-
000633-A (2016) at page 6, in which the Board of Commissioners seems to state that this
provision recognizes only remainders created prior to "modern day" subdivisions. This is
consistent with my understanding of "modern" subdivision provisions, only those portions in the
plat become lots.
.9
Finally, as discussed above, the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating the
prerequisite to lot of record status: conformance with all zoning and subdivision and partitioning
requirements had been met given that the County had such provisions in effect at the time of
the BLM dependent survey, the survey did not conform to those requirements and at least one
of the parcels may be below the minimum lot size at the time.
IV. CONCLUSION
The applicant has not met its burden of establishing that the area at issue constitutes a
lot of record, or multiple lots of record as defined by the Deschutes County Code. The
application is DENIED.
Dan R. Olsen, Hearings Officer
Dated this 4th day of January, 2017 Mailed this 6th day of January, 2017
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY
APPEALED BY A PARTY OF INTEREST AS PROVIDED IN THE DESCHUTES COUNTY
CODE.
10
J }
Community Development Department
. r
Planning Division Building Weiy Division Envi
Jim and Jan Guettier
Mary Myers
60568 Elkai Woods Dr
60829 Currant Way
Bend, OR 97702
._Bend, OR 97702
Charles Hammill
Robert Selder
60656 Golf Village Loop
60512 Elkai Woods Dr
Bend, OR 97702 _: -
Bend, OR 97702
Cheryl and Dennis Cone
Thomas Clifford
60572 Elkai Woods Drive
60757 Golf Village Loop
Bend, OR 97702
Bend, OR 97702
'�\- V R 2M---1q� - t va2l - A
Community Development Department
gyp^� r FAlanning DMsion 8WW1 tig Safoty tfivlsion Env1mnrmnta1Soils lltvisi®n
6 Y
4
P.O.. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette. Avenue Bend; Oregon 97708-6005.
Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax:. (541) 3B5-1764
http ://wvvw, d e s c h ute s, o r g/c d
EVERY NO f iCEi OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal.
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating
the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. 11 the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request
;�r de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as
provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22.
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color
areas shall also be provided.
It is the resporsit3111ty of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code.
The Notica of Appenl on the reverse side of this form must Include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of
the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCG Section
22.32.010) ..r whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues.
Appellant's Name (print)::_ .Larry Kine Phone: (�
i 133 N,W, Wall Street; Suite 1 Bend; Oregon 97701
Mailing Address,,, : _.._ Citylstate/Zlp:
Land Use Appiication Being Agojo L 247 -16 -000408 -LR
w
Properly p 2001 Deschutes Co. Assessor's Map 18-11=00
ascr iplion: Towns ri R� Section, Tax L.Uk.
Appellanf's'Signature:
EXCEPT AS. -'PR f ED.0 SECTION 22.32.424, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE
TRANSCRIPT OF...Y IHS ING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNINC ,CIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD).
APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE
CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR
ON -TME -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
V
(over)„
,df 10/15
Qeasatity Services Perfonned zvith Pride
Notice of Appeal
A. Background.
The applicant is appealing the hearings officer's decision in File No. 247 -16 -000408 -LR, denying
applic.nt's request for Lot of Record Verification on 10 parcels of property identified in his
application. Each parcel was once part of four tracts of land created in 1984, by the BLM for the
purpose of exchanging with a private owner so they could be developed into a resort. The BLM
complied with all laws and regulations required of it to create and convey those four tracts and
then, did so in 1984 in a federal land patent.
After l-->>gthy local process, the Seventh Mountain Golf Village was approved by the county and
a plat was recorded creating over 100 lots. The plat left 10 remainder parcels that were part of the
four tracts conveyed by BLM, but were not included in the plat for the resort,
Two of the parcels included in the application had already been declared to be lots of record by a
Ccanty hearings officer in File No. 247 -14 -000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP, 247 -14 -000397 -LM.
Bast rl upon that decision, the applicant applied to have other remainder parcels that resulted from
the same process determined to be lots of record.
B. Assignments of Error.
The applicant asserts that the hearings officer erred in the following ways:
The heG rings officer erred in concluding that the four tracts created by the BLM do not qualify as
lots of record under DCC 18.04.030 and then concluding that the remainder parcels do not qualify
as lots cf record under DCC 18.04.030.A.5.
Th:� hearings officer erred in rejecting the alternative argument that even if the four tracts were not
lots of record under DCC 18.04.030, they were lawfully created parcels that could be further
divided, and when they were divided, leaving remainder parcels, those parcels qualify as lots of
record.
The hearings officer further erred in apparently concluding, contrary to a prior hearing officer
decision, that under DCC 18.04.030, if a subdivision of surrounding property leaves more than
one relrainder parcel, only one of those parcels, even though there are no distinguishing features,
can qualify as a lot of record under DCC 18.04.030.A.5.
C. Reasons the Board Should rear Appeal.
The Board of County Commissioners should hear this appeal because it involves an important
interpretation of the lot of record provisions in the County Development Code to property that is
or was owned by the federal government. This matter raises significant questions over what local
provisions the federal government must comply with to create individual parcels of land that
constitute lots of record that can be conveyed to private ownership as such.
It is also important to reconcile two inconsistent hearings officer decisions, In File No, 247 -14-
000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP and 247 -14 -000397 -LM, the hearings officer concluded that two
parcels that were formerly part of the tracts the BLM created in 1984 and conveyed to private
ownership were legal lots of record, That hearings officer did not go into detail as to the basis for
her decision, but she had to have concluded one of two things: (1) that the four tracts the BLM
created were lots of record and thus, the resulting remainder parcels (atter the golf village plat
recorded) were also lots of record lots; or, (2) that the four BLM tracts did not have to be lots of
recod themselves, but that they were lawfully created parcels and that the remainder parcels
resulting from the plat recording were lots of record, Either way, her decision would apply to all
ten (10) of the parcels included in the current application.
The Hearings officer decision in this matter, if allowed to stand, would de. facto reverse a prior final
dec:;ion. He concluded that even if DCC 18.04.030.A.5. applied and could be used to declare a lot
of reccrd, only one parcel could ever qualify. But, the prior hearings officer already declared that
two of the parcels were legal lots of record. That decision was not appealed and is final. The
Board sro zld review this matter because such review is likely to result in a more uniform and
consistent application of the County's lot of record provisions.
li. Request for De Novo Hearing.
The applicant requests that any appeal hearing before the Board be de novo. The applicant believes
that the Board will benefit from receiving additional material relevant to how the BLM creates
parcels of land for conveyance to private ownership, the requirements that apply to the BLM in
that process and the reasoning behind the hearings officer's conclusions on the two lots of record
in File No. 247 -14 -000395 -TP, 247 -14 -000396 -SP and 247 -14 -000397 -LM.
2
Health Services Position Reclassification Requests (Feb. 8, 2017)
Requests:
1. Reclassification of an open position from an Administrative Supervisor II (Grade 1) to a Human
Resources Analyst (Grade K).
2. Reclassification of an open position from an Administrative Supervisor I (Grade H) to an
Administrative Analyst (Grade J).
Background
In FY 2009, the Public Health and Behavioral Health Departments merged to create the Health Services
Department. At the time of the merger, each department had separate administrative staff, such as
fiscal services, billing, front office and medical records. Since that time, the department has undertaken
efforts to integrate these services. The results are that a smaller percentage of staff in the department is
dedicated to administrative services than at the time of the merger. This chart represents those
changes in staff.
During this same time, the Administrative Services Division sought to adjust the services and functions
provided to meet changing demands. While some of the changes sought to meet the expanded
demands of a growing department, the primary focus has been to identify existing staff or hire new staff
with the skills to meet new compliance requirements, automation of some functions, community
collaboration and expanded outcome- and metric -based reporting requirements. This chart identifies
the staff changes (in FTE) within Administrative Services by function.
Line Staff
Admin Staff
Total
Admin %
FY 2009
130.60 FTE
32.85 FTE
163.45 FTE
20.1%
FY 2017
219.05 FTE
40.70 FTE
259.75 FTE
15.7%
Change FY09-FY17
+88.55 FTE
+7.85 FTE '
+96.40 FTE
+1.50
Change %
67.8%
23.9%
59.0%
Compliance
FY 2017 + CCBHC
240.05 FTE
48.70 FTE
288.75 FTE
16.9%
Change FY09-FY17+CCBHC
+109.45 FTE
+15.85 FTE
+125.30 FTE
2.00
Change %
53.8%
48.2%
76.7%
+3.00
During this same time, the Administrative Services Division sought to adjust the services and functions
provided to meet changing demands. While some of the changes sought to meet the expanded
demands of a growing department, the primary focus has been to identify existing staff or hire new staff
with the skills to meet new compliance requirements, automation of some functions, community
collaboration and expanded outcome- and metric -based reporting requirements. This chart identifies
the staff changes (in FTE) within Administrative Services by function.
FY 2009
FY 2017
Change
Medical Records
5.50
4.00
-1.50
Fiscal Services
5.50
4.00
-1.50
Billing
4.85
5.20
+0.35
Front Office
14.00
15.50
+1.50
Management
2.00
3.00
+1.00
Compliance
1.00
3.00
+3.00
Data Analytics
0.00
1.00
+1.00
Quality Improvement
0.00
2.00
+2.00
Electronic Health Records
0.00
3.00
+3.00
TOTAL
32.85
40.70
+8.85
With the department's selection to participate in the CCBHC pilot, eight limited duration positions will
be added to Administrative Services for a two-year period. These positons include the following:
• 1 Senior Accounting Technician (Fiscal Services)
• 2 Patient Account Specialist II's (Billing)
• 1 Health Services Administrative Specialist I (Front Office)
• 1 Administrative Assistant (in support of Management)
• 1 Quality Improvement Specialist (Compliance)
• 1 Management Analyst (Data Analytics)
• 1 Administrative Analyst (EHR)
Human Resources Analyst
As the department grows, the time expended on personnel -related matters has also grown. This has
placed a greater demand on the Health Services Department, as well the Human Resources Department.
Currently, the Health Services Department represents 28.1% of all Deschutes County staff. With the
addition of the 29 positions from CCBHC, Health Services will be 30.2% of Deschutes County staff. Being
a large department, staffing changes are numerous. These changes require extensive time with Human
Resources, as well as Health Services staff. The following chart highlights the volume of staffing changes
over the last three years.
Functional Role
This position would serve as the primary contact with the Human Resources Department regarding
personnel -related matters. In this capacity this position would serve as a resource for Health Services
managers and supervisors in addressing hiring new employees, supervision and addressing personnel
matters. Additionally, this position would work closely with Human Resources regarding these matters,
county policy and other personnel -related activities in the department.
In January 2016, the department began work on a workforce development plan. Through the use of a
Workforce Development Committee, and in collaboration with the Human Resources Department, the
department has examined current processes and practices, identified challenges and developed changes
and improvements. This has been undertaken in ten primary topic areas:
• Recruitment and Selection
• Orientation and Onboarding
• Interns, Temporary Employees and Volunteers
• Credentialing and Licensure
CY 2014
CY 2015
CY 2016
New Employees
59
46
30
Terminations
51
35
38
Promotions/Demotions
14
13
18
Reclassifications
2
25
1
Other Status Changes
2
24
9
TOTAL
128
143
96
Functional Role
This position would serve as the primary contact with the Human Resources Department regarding
personnel -related matters. In this capacity this position would serve as a resource for Health Services
managers and supervisors in addressing hiring new employees, supervision and addressing personnel
matters. Additionally, this position would work closely with Human Resources regarding these matters,
county policy and other personnel -related activities in the department.
In January 2016, the department began work on a workforce development plan. Through the use of a
Workforce Development Committee, and in collaboration with the Human Resources Department, the
department has examined current processes and practices, identified challenges and developed changes
and improvements. This has been undertaken in ten primary topic areas:
• Recruitment and Selection
• Orientation and Onboarding
• Interns, Temporary Employees and Volunteers
• Credentialing and Licensure
• Outside Employment
• Bilingual Services and Health Interpreter Certification
• Training and Career Development
• Core Competencies
• Employee Evaluations
• Separation
This position, in coordination with the Human Resources Department, would be responsible for the
development and maintenance of the department's workforce development plan. Additionally, this
position would plan and lead the monthly welcome week activities for new employees, develop and
guide the department's training and career development efforts, manage the department's online
learning management system (Relias).
Resources for Position
In April 2016, the supervisor of the Billing Team (Michelle Nichols) and another member of the team
(Kacy Burgess) accepted different positions within the department. These two positions were not
replaced immediately. Instead, Nicole Chunestudy, a member of the EHR Team, was assigned
supervisory responsibility of the Billing Team for six months during which she completed an extensive
review of Billing Team processes and allocation of work duties. Arielle Samuel, a member of the Billing
Team, was named a lead during this time and tasked with overseeing work responsibilities and serving
as the department's billing "expert." Through this process, the team was able to optimize 185 hours per
month through electronic remittances, reallocation of duties and process improvements. Also during
this time, the Billing Team was identified by OCHIN, the electronic health records vendor, as one of only
four clients to achieve 99%+ claim submission accuracy out of more than 200 clients in the collaborative.
At the conclusion of the six month period, Chunestudy returned to her EHR role, and Arielle Samuel was
reassigned as the supervisor of the Billing Team.
This Administrative Supervisor II position previously held by Michelle Nichols is in the FY 2017 budget,
but has remained unfilled. This request is to reclassify that FTE to a Human Resources Analyst. Based on
FY 2017 salary and benefits, funding this position would require $97,128 (salary = $61,916, benefits =
$35,212) for a full year.
FY 2017 Financial Impact:
*This position was included in FY 2017 budget at step 4
**Assumes April 1, 2017 start date at step 1
Salary
Benefits
Total
FY 2017 Budget*
$60,720
$34,307
$95,326
FY 2017 Actual
$0
$0
$0
Budget Available
$60,720
$34,307
$95,326
FY 2017 HR Analyst need**
$15,479
$8,803
$24,282
FY 2017 Unspent
$45,241
$25,504
$71,044
*This position was included in FY 2017 budget at step 4
**Assumes April 1, 2017 start date at step 1
Administrative Analyst
Ray Wingert, an employee in the Information Technology Department, has been working with the
Health Services Department in developing and providing reports. This began when the department
relied on Accuterm, a system largely developed by the Information Technology Department and more
specifically by Wingert. When the department converted to an electronic health record system, Wingert
continued providing technical support in the development and running of reports. Located in the Health
Services Department, Wingert identified 825 hours in 2016 spent exclusively on Health Services work.
Half of the internal service charges paid to the IT Department are based on IT time allocated in support
of Health Services. This includes Wingert's hours (as will the FY 2018 internal service charges). On
January 31, 2017, Wingert retired from Deschutes County. Although IT will refill this FTE, it will not be
for the services Wingert provided. As a result, the Health Services Department is losing this function.
Functional Role
This position would provide technical support to the Health Services Department in support Epic, the
electronic health records system operated by OCHIN. This is primarily through the building and running
of reports in the system. Additionally, this position would provide similar support to other programs not
using the Epic system, such as WIC, Environmental Health and Communicable Disease. This position will
also be asked to analyze and report regularly on the contents of these reports.
There is a growing need for more sophisticated data analytics in the Health Services Department for
grants, state reporting and CCO requirements. The addition of Jenny Faith, Epidemiologist, in February
2016, was the first time the department had a position dedicated to data analytics. The department has
relied on others within the department with acumen for collecting and analyzing data and reporting on
it. However, the demands in size, scope and sophistication for this work is growing. The Health Services
Department would like to hire an Administrative Analyst to address both of these needs.
Resources for Position
The department recently received the resignation of Shirley Overman, an Administrative Supervisor I
who oversaw the Public Health front office. Overman had been on an extended leave since July 1, 2017.
When the leave began, Johnny Mooney, the Administrative Supervisor I responsible for the Behavioral
Health front office, assumed responsibility for Overman's team. Instead of refilling Overman's position,
the department would like to use this FTE to fill Wingert's role and meet the department's data analytic
needs. Mooney will continue to supervise all front office staff. Based on FY 2017 salary and benefits,
funding this position would require $92,640 (salary = $59,060, benefits = $33,580) for a full year.
FY 2017 Financial Impact:
*This position was included in FY 2017 budget at step 5 (8 mo.) and step 6 (4 mo.)
**Assumes April 1, 2017 start date at step 1
Salary
Benefits
Total
FY 2017 Budget*
$58,645
$33,561
$92,206
FY 2017 Actual
$9,393
$5,375
$14,768
Budget Available
$49,252
$28,186
$77,438
FY 2017 Admin Analyst need**
$14,765
$8,395
$23,160
FY 2017 Unspent
$34,487
$19,791
$54,278
*This position was included in FY 2017 budget at step 5 (8 mo.) and step 6 (4 mo.)
**Assumes April 1, 2017 start date at step 1
Administrative Services Organizational Structure
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
A Resolution in support of a Transportation
Funding Package in the 2017 Legislative Session
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-005
WHEREAS, the need for increased funding to address transportation maintenance, operations, capital
construction and safety exists within every City and County in Central Oregon; and
WHEREAS, significant growth in traffic volume has exacerbated congestion and the need for safety and
capacity improvements on the state highway systems connecting our communities; and
WHEREAS, capital investment in transportation infrastructure results in additional system capacity to
accommodate economic development; and
WHEREAS, deferred and forgone transportation system maintenance results in long term cost
increases; and
WHEREAS, legislative adjustments in transportation funding are infrequent and the buying power of
prior adjustments in revenue are eventually eroded via inflation; and
WHEREAS, local funding options are complex and difficult to gain voter approval, yet the State
Highway Fund mechanism is established and preferred by industry stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, considerable investment in safety and congestion improvement to US 97 is necessary to
sustain the economy and transportation needs of our region as well as provide a redundant and resilient system
necessary to assist Oregon in recovery from a Cascadia event or other disaster; and
WHEREAS, as representatives of central and eastern Oregon, our legislative delegation has
demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of the urban, rural, and statewide transportation need and the
associated balance of the impact of funding mechanisms to their constituents; and
WHEREAS, the Cities and Counties of Central Oregon recognize that increased funding to meet these
needs may require the consideration of new revenue sources; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION, DESCHUTES COUNTY,
OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. The signatories to this Resolution strongly support development of a Transportation Funding
Package in the 2017 Legislative Session to generate needed revenue to invest in the maintenance, operation,
capital construction, and safety of our transportation systems.
Page 1 of 2 — Resolution 2017-005