Loading...
2018-34-Minutes for Meeting December 06,2017 Recorded 1/25/2018Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-34 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 01/25/2018 7:38:37 AM .�< `4'':':•r.`.,``... II I I I'I' II'll II I II I I �I I I I'll 2018-34 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 BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Wednesday, December 6, 2017 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Ross, Board Executive Secretary. One representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: William Kuhn, presented his concerns of Fire Fuel Reduction on 30 acres for tax lot #300. Mr. Kuhn noted the neighboring property is up for sale and has concerns regarding previous inaction of his neighbors. Mr. Kuhn presented two estimates for fire fuels reduction. Mr. Kuhn requested help prior to the sale of that property and presented the realtors description of the home and property. Commissioner Baney suggested the Assessor and Community Development Department review the property sale flyer. Commissioner Baney also spoke on fuels reduction requirements and the responsibilities Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 1 of 7 of the property owner and suggested a meeting with the County Forester. County Administrator Anderson and the Board suggested County staff meet with Mr. Kuhn regarding these concerns. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Henderson asked to pull Item 6 for further review. HENDERSON: Move approval of Consent Agenda, minus Item #6. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Letter of Reappointment to Bruce Barrett, Deschutes County Budget Committees for a term through December 31, 2020 2. Consideration of Letter of Reappointment to John Moore, Spring River Special Road District for a term through June 30, 2020 3. Approval of Minutes of the October 16, 2017 Work Session 4. Approval of Minutes of the October 23, 2017 Business Meeting 5. Approval of Minutes of the October 23, 2017 Work Session 6. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2017 Business Meeting 7. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2017 Work Session Longevity Awards: Commissioner Baney asked to add an item to the agenda at this time. Commissioner Baney presented Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator who has served Deschutes County for 10 years a plaque thanking him for his service. Commissioner Baney presented Judith Ure, Management Analyst who has served Deschutes County for 15 years a plaque thanking her for her service. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 2 of 7 ACTION ITEMS 8. Solid Waste Advisory Committee Appointments: Brant Kucera, Jake Obrist, Gillian Ochner, Bill Duerden, Jared Black, Smith Reese, Jerry Andress, Rick Williams, Catherine Morrow, Brad Baily, Erwin Swetnam, and Mike Riley County Administrator Anderson reviewed the process of the formation and work of this committee that will begin this month. The committee will be examining the current solid waste operations as well as options for the future beyond the life of Knott Landfill. A consultant has been hired that will work along with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Board. The Board explained the process and need of the work as well as the backgrounds of the committee members that are being appointed. HENDERSON: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 9. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2017-719, Sheriffs Office Vehicle Purchase Peter Martin, Automotive Supervisor and Captain Paul Garrison, Sheriff s Office addressed the Sheriff s Office request for authorization to purchase 16 vehicles - 12 through Document No. 2017-719. The purchase has been included in the budget. The old vehicles will be auctioned. The Board inquired on the competitive process. Mr. Martin noted there was a process wherein three bids were received. Commissioner Henderson noted the contract and document summary states 12 vehicles to purchase. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 3 of 7 10. Consideration to Authorize County Administrator's Signature on PCC Schlosser Economic Development Loan Conversion Judith Ure, Management Analyst, Jon Stark, EDCO, and Trevor Drew, Director of Operations of PCC Schlosser were present with a request to convert an economic development loan and reviewed the terms of the loan. Economic Development of Central Oregon has reviewed and confirmed the jobs have been created and retained. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 11. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2017-730, an Amendment to Document No. 2016-521, an Intergovernmental Agreement Between Oregon Department of Transportation, City of La Pine, and Deschutes County for the US97: Sunriver Interchange — OR 31 Project Cody Smith, County Engineer presented the item for consideration. Mr. Smith reviewed the agreement's amendment and scope of work. Mike Darling, ODOT Project Manager was present to review safety improvements. HENDERSON: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 12. First Quarter 2018 Performance Measure Update Judith Ure, Management Analyst reported the 2018 performance measures are based on the new goals and objectives as adopted last year. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: John Hummel, District Attorney addressed safe communities and reducing crime. Mr. Hummel reviewed the metric on the Driving Under Influence conviction rate using cases over the last two years. Mr. Hummel spoke on the need for additional Drug Recognition Experts in the county. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 4 of 7 HEALTH SERVICES: Nancy Tyler, Health Services addressed the goal of healthy people by promoting well-being through behavioral health and community support programs and gave an overview of the rental assistance foundations program. There are 30 slots allotted for funding and they currently have 21 people in the program receiving funding. ROAD DEPARTMENT: Chris Doty, Public Works Director addressed the goal of economic vitality and spoke on the pavement project. A five year plan is reviewed for the pavement plan. FINANCE DEPARTMENT: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director and Treasurer addressed the goal of service delivery including the updates in software systems implemented for efficiency related to financial functions. The budget process for fiscal year 2019 will begin soon. CLERK'S OFFICE: Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk addressed the goal to support every time standard for customer service and service not only in the Clerk's Office but the County campus as well. 13. DELIBERATION: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department and Adam Smith, Assistant County Legal Counsel presented this item regarding deliberations for amendments to the Wildlife Combining Zone. In the packet today were copies of the written testimony received. Mr. Gutowsky summarized the five options of text amendments as included in the staff report. Mr. Smith gave explanations on the existing language and the amendments as well as federal religious land use provisions. Commissioner Henderson inquired on other wildlife combining zones and whether they allow churches. Mr. Gutowsky spoke on the big game habitat map, winter deer range, sage grouse designated areas, and deer migration corridor. There are certain parameters and provisions that would allow churches outside of the three major habitat areas. Commissioner Henderson noted whatever the Board decides will probably be appealed and wonders what the process should be. Mr. Gutowsky is asking the Board to deliberate and identify a preferred option. Staff would then prepare findings and return to the Board within a week or two. Commissioner DeBone likes the idea to protect the animal activity and opportunities for deer, elk, and antelope and the word church may not be appropriate in the language and maybe striking the word church. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Baney commented on her opposition to the decision of Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) and spoke on their interpretation of our County Code. Commissioner Baney would want us to allow the religious activity and the challenge to the Code for clarity on all property. The impacts of incidental activity that is not congregational activities and looks for site plan impacts to wildlife. The desire is to not allow large scale outdoor activities and finding a balance. Commissioner Henderson visited the Shephard's Field site. He is frustrated that an appeal on this legislative issue can undermine the will of the local decision makers. Commissioner Henderson agrees the word church should be eliminated. Commissioner Baney noted in practical application there is a way to do this to allow for activities and also brings an essence of life to that property. Commissioner Baney spoke on testimony received. Commissioner DeBone spoke on public safety regarding events and services provided that will be documented in our findings. Mr. Smith commented on the five options and the only ones that cross off the word church are option 1 and option 4. Commissioner Baney inquired on LUBA's interpretation of our County Code. Mr. Gutowsky summarized that LUBA's decision determined that churches are prohibited in the wildlife combining zone. Commissioner Henderson suggested to eliminate the word church and spoke on outside activities and is not inclined to try to craft more restrictions. Commissioner Baney noted in terms of this we need to put side bars where if there was an application for a large activity in a wildlife combining zone there is a responsibility to mitigate impact. Mr. Gutowsky and Mr. Smith spoke on testimony and Planning Commission recommendations. Commissioner Baney noted she will make a decision based on the best interest and not based on the potential of a law suit. She agrees with Commissioner Henderson that allowing church activities should not be prohibited. Commissioner DeBone spoke on Exclusive Farm Use wildlife combining zone properties and the importance to review and figure out an appropriate review of land use. Commissioner Baney inquired on the process of activities for churches and what is allowed. Mr. Gutowsky explained use limitations and Community Development Department staff doesn't have ability to come to the wildlife mitigation but is required by agencies such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to review the mitigation Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 6 of 7 hierarchy. Mr. Smith noted staff s original option was to attempt to avoid conflict noting the greatest risk of conflict was the outdoor events and explained land use permits for large events would not allow for great impact. Commissioner Baney recapped and the direction would be to strike church. Commissioner Henderson would go with option 4. Commissioners DeBone and Baney lean toward option 1 of text amendment. Mr. Gutowsky inquired if the Board would like to see the ordinance and updated findings on December 18th. Mr. Smith commented on potential challenges for each of those options. Commissioner Baney commented on practical applications and balance. Mr. Smith spoke on land use applications and language. Commissioner Henderson feels this creates one more issue. OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:36 p.m. DATED this Day oct 20' for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Ira Tammy B ey, Chajo 017 ATTEST: Recording ec etary Anthony DeBone, Vice C air 2017 ,ra � Philip G. Hen rson, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting December 6, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2017 Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed 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. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Letter of Reappointment to Bruce Barrett, Deschutes County Budget Committees for a term through December 31, 2020 2. Consideration of Letter of Reappointment to John Moore, Spring River Special Road District for a term through June 30, 2020 3. Approval of Minutes of the October 16, 2017 Work Session Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 6, 2017 Page 1 of 3 4. Approval of Minutes of the October 23, 2017 Business Meeting 5. Approval of Minutes of the October 23, 2017 Work Session 6. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2017 Business Meeting 7. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2017 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 8. Solid Waste Advisory Committtee Appointments: Brant Kucera, Jake Obrist, Gillian Ochner, Bill Duerden, Jared Black, Smith Reese, Jerry Andress, Rick Williams, Catherine Morrow, Brad Baily, Erwin Swetnam, and Mike Riley 9. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2017-719, Sheriffs Office Vehicle Purchase - Peter Martin, Automotive Supervisor 10. Consideration to Authorize County Administrator's Signature on PCC Schlosser Economic Development Loan Conversion - Judith Ure, Management Analyst 11. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2017-730, an Amendment to Document No. 2016-521, an Intergovernmental Agreement Between Oregon Department of Transportation, City of La Pine, and Deschutes County for the US97: Sunriver Interchange - OR 31 Project - Cody Smith, County Engineer 12. First Quarter 2018 Performance Measure Update - Judith Ure, Management Analyst 13. DELIBERATION: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 6, 2017 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. 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/meetingcalendar (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 Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 6, 2017 Page 3 of 3 201710131026 Two estimates for Fire fuel Reduction on 33.21 acres Date: October 13, 2017 To: William Kuhn From: Eric Evans / Botanical Developments / LCB #9268 / 541.280.7871 (cell) Subject: Fire Fuel Reduction on -30ac for Tax Lot #300 Scope Botanical Developments proposes to provide the necessary labor to cut, haul and chip the dead woody material throughout the site. Some tree thinning may occur with the owners approval. Cheat grass manual removal may be an option. The debris will remain onsite and chipped where access is available. Chip mulch piles will be no deeper than 3". All mechanically disturbed areas will be naturally restored with native seed, wood chips and light raking. Item No. Description Total 1 Furnish handcrew labor $ 39,000 2 Furnish Equipment (Chipper/tracked skidsteer) $ 6,000 3 ITotal $ 45,000 This from Jake Ringold on 20171026 which was then withdrawn William, thanks for all the info. A little bit about myself: I'm a certified arborist and landscape gardener. For years I worked on large thinning contracts with the forest service. I definitely know alot about the work, but I don't typically take on large scale fuels reduction work. That being said, I have a close associate from the forest service days who does juniper work fill time for nonprofits and private land owners. This is something he and I could collaborate on. What I can tell you. With no road access, getting a chipper in to chip the juniper brush is most likely not feasible. Hand piling and burning would probably be the best option. The going rate for us to do most juniper work is around $320 per acre just to cut trees. Obviously totally dependent on site conditions and what you want done. Piling and burning would be another operation as would anything to do with actual brush such as bitterbrush/sage. Again without a road system, I'm not sure how access would work. There's a limit to how far we can hike in work before a utv/atv or something is needed. Not sure if this type of equipment use is an option. So extreme rough estimate 320 x 33= $10,560. Cutting alone. Summary of meeting: Chippers are limited by the fact that they don't go off road. About 100 feet is as far as most operations I've seen would manually carry brush to a road. Cutting brush by hand has numerous equipment and operational limitations; mowers can operate on flat ground. Usually "required maintenance" has to do with fire safety. At a court level, they might look as much at the juniper fuel hazard as the decadent brush component you are interested in working with. Fire safe specification would probably allow the retention of many junipers, but I suspect they would need to be limbed up. Thanks for having me come look at the job. I wish you the best on your noble mission of stewardship for your land. - Jake Ringold ISA Certified Arborist PN -8392A C:\Docs\prop65575\Dowell\_ Offer to buy 201709\20171013 1026 Two estimates for Fire fuel Reduction on 33.docx page 1 2017-12-05 QSAYE WSHARE 0HIDE MORE - 0 EXPAND XCLOSE Public View Owner View W/0"; 65595 Sisemore Rte, Bend, OR 97743 Studio - 1 bath • 424 sgft Enjoy the spectacular Cascade Mountain views, gorgeous sunsets, and pristine mornings from this special Tumalo home site. There are 4.3 acres plus 1/2 interest in the adjoining common lot for privacy and view protection. In addition there is a 424 sf studio apartment and garage already built on the site.., such a perfect location (location, location) to develop and build the home of your dreams. Facts and Features Type Single Family Cooling Wali nYear Built �( J� 1995 Parking No Data l Days on Zillow (($j Price/sgft 5 Days (1 $1,531 INTERIOR FEATURES Bedrooms R x s, Studio Other Rooms 1'oo ;s_ Kitchen, Great Room Heating and Cooling !,,, atir:p' Baseboard Wall i FOR SALE $64.9,©00 Lestimate`: $592,792 EST. MORTGAGE $2,402/mo Viet pre -qualified..... RE/MAX Heating 1 Baseboard Lot 4.3 acres O Saves D 7 Appliances Appllarw,o� included: Dryer, Washer Flooring f lour size: 424 sgft Flooring: Carpet, Tile Other interior Features Ce,ilirlq fan I am interested in 65595 Sisemore Rd, BEND, OR 97703. 1 want financing information By pressing Contact Ag—t, you agree tlunt Zillo Group and real estaee professionals may cai€%text you about ynur 4q.iry, wi.icb may involve use of automated means and prercarJtdfarVficial voices. V :u don't neud to consent as a cpnJRfem of buying any properly. goads w servic s, Mra )e/data rates may apply. Brian Meece (541) 639-3423 �' �� ��Steve Nassar Y"r(t36) JM Recent Sales (503) 966-9412 Fulcrum Properties Group ****fir (83) M Recent sales (541) 435-2125 Greg Yeakel -- 3 s �t (13) Recent sates (541) 25S-4308 Learn how to appear as the agent above C:\rocs\prop65575\Dowell\_ Offer to buy 201709\20171013 1026 Two estimates for Fire fuel Reduction on 33.docx page 2 2017-12-05 Location: 65591 Sissrrr2rc Rd .10fr and Pat DV^eLL 50-S 701 0-.31 7110 area (fetter S rc,:.41 In rs9 in Lhe only aLsrrvanz CE thi-S deawing that Lr, hal.ng "applic9 lor" noxa. rhoaq rest or LhQ 5zructura is already an Zrproved c�cupant 04,01.Ling of 10r ycar:, 20070727_PerkinsA]IowsRooml nGarage_1611190000100BU20070727090314.pdf .................��. Futuro House Expans ion ,area ................. 20070727_Perki nsAl IowsRoom I nG arage_1611190000100B U20070727090314. pdf CDD COVER SHEET FOR CMA 07/27/2007 09:03:14 t FILE ID 1611190000100BU20070727090314 TAXMAP 1611190000100 SERIAL 163466 DIVISION BU SITUS 65595 S I SEMORE RD HOUSE# 65595 STREET SISEMORE CONTENT PP/ B 6 5 7 31 RECORD ID B 6 5 7 31 Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX 20070727_PerkinsAllowsRoominGarage_1611190000100BU20070727090314. pdf 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 Business Meeting of December 6, 2017 DATE: December 1, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration to Authorize County Administrator's Signature on PCC Schlosser Economic Development Loan Conversion RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize County Administrator to convert $50,000 economic development loan made to PCC Schlosser to a grant. CONTRACTOR: PCC Schlosser AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: Starting Date: 1/5/2016 Ending Date: 1/5/2019 INSURANCE: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes County Economic Development Loan Program was initiated to encourage and assist companies seeking to relocate to and/or create new jobs within Deschutes County. To receive a loan, companies must agree to create a specific number of jobs within a defined period, then maintain this level of employment for an additional set period of time. PCC Schlosser entered into an agreement with the County for a loan in the amount of $50,000 with terms that included relocating and/or hiring twenty-five (25) new full-time employees in Deschutes County on or before January 5, 2018 and maintaining these positions for a twelve- month period beyond the date all new positions were filled or by January 5, 2019, whichever date occurred first. As certified by Redmond Economic Development, Inc. (REDI) / Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO), PCC Schlosser has met these terms and, in accordance with the agreement, is eligible to have the loan converted to a grant. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure, Management Analyst; Jon Stark, Senior Manager of REDI, and representative(s) of PCC Schlosser DESCHUTES COUNTY Economic .Development Forgivable Loan Program Loan Recipient: PCC Schlosser 345 NE Hemlock Redmond, OR 97708-6005 541-330-4627 Agreement No.: DC -2016-438 Date of Agreement: July 6, 2016 On behalf of Economic Development for Central Oregon, I hereby certify that PCC Schlosser has met all conditions of the Deschutes County Economic .Development Forgivable Loan Program as specified in Agreement DC -2016-438 (attached). I further attest that a representative of Economic Development for Central Oregon has reviewed employment and payroll records furnished by PCC Schlosser and that such records confinxt that the company: a) Created within and/or relocated to Deschutes County at least 25 new full-time, family wage positions by or before January 5, 2018, and b) Maintained these new positions in Deschutes County for a 12 -month period beyond the creation/relocation date and by or before May 5, 2019. I therefore request that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners authorize that the business development loan made to .PCC Schlosser be converted to a grant in accordance with the terms of the attached agreement. Economic Development for Central Oregon Title: C' 1') Date: /(;I ,,- 261.1—, / I DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH PCC SCHLOSSER This Economic Development Loan Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into: BETWEEN: Deschutes County (hereinafter referred to as "County") PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 541-330-4627 AND: PCC Schlosser 345 NE Hemlock Redmond, OR 97756 541-548-0766 RECITALS WHEREAS, County finds that the program set forth in this Agreement will promote state and local economic activity by creating new jobs and investment; and WHEREAS, Company wishes to expand its existing equipment and business operations within Redmond, Oregon by increasing employment and investing in equipment and building improvements; and WHEREAS, the said expansion in Redmond, Oregon will create at least twenty-five (25) new full- time, family wage jobs between January 5, 2016 and January 5, 2018 for total employment by Company of 360; and WHEREAS, once filled, the new full-time jobs will be maintained for an additional consecutive 12 -month period to occur on or before January 5, 2019; and WHEREAS, County desires to promote the expansion of Company's facility by loaning funds in the amount of $50,000 for certain hiring and training expenses and such loan will later be converted to a grant upon the condition that Company satisfy certain requirements; and WHEREAS, County has engaged Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO) to assist in administering and implementing the loan; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to as follows: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 Dollars and $ shall mean lawful money of the United States of America. Section 1.2 Loan shall mean funds loaned by County to Company as provided under Section 3. Section 1.3 Project shall mean expansion of Company employment in Deschutes County, Oregon. Section 1.4 Full -Time Employee shall mean any employee who has been hired with the expectation that the job will last for at least one (1) year and who will work at least forty (40) hours per week or the equivalent of 2,080 hours per year. SECTION 2 TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by all parties and continue until the loan is paid in full or the loan is converted to a grant as provided in Section 3.3 below. SECTION 3 LOAN Section 3.1 Loan County agrees to loan Company the sum of $50,000 no later than 30 days following delivery of this signed Agreement to County. Section 3.2 Loan Purpose and Representations of the Company The purpose of the loan is to carry out the project, and for no other purposes. Company represents and warrants that it will diligently pursue and complete the following: 3.2.1 Company will employ at least twenty-five (25) additional fall time employees between January 5, 2016 and January 5, 2018 for a total of 360 full-time employees. 3.2.2 Company will maintain these new positions from the date all are filled for an additional consecutive 12 -month period to occur on or before January 5, 2019. 3.2.3 Wages for the new positions will average $45,615, excluding commissions, per annum. 3.2.4 Company will submit quarterly and annual progress reports to EDCO with documentation for job creation, capital investment relating to new facilities, and equipment associated with the project. 3.2.5 Company shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. 3.2.6 Company shall timely pay all Deschutes County real and personal property tax when due and shall satisfy all delinquent property tax accounts in full. Section 3.3 Loan Repayment or Conversion to Grant 3.3.1 Unless the loan is converted to a grant as provided below, Company agrees to pay to the order of County the full amount of the loan as well as interest at the rate of 8% per annum beginning from the date County releases funds to Company until the earlier of. (a) the occurrence of an event of default, as defined below, or (b) January 5, 2019. 3.3.2 County agrees to convert the loan to a grant that does not need to be repaid, if and when County determines in its sole discretion that Company has satisfied all of the obligations in Section 3.2 and its other obligations under this Agreement. Such conversion shall only be effective upon written verification by the County Administrator that the loan has been converted to a grant. 3.3.3 County may, in its sole discretion, convert a portion of the loan to a grant if all of the obligations under Section 3.2 and this Agreement have been fulfilled to the reasonable satisfaction of County. In the event of such partial conversion of the loan, the loan shall continue to be payable on a pro -rated basis in an amount determined by multiplying $2,000 by the difference between twenty-five (25) and the number of full-time employees employed in Deschutes County by Company as of January 5, 2018. Interest will accrue on this portion of the loan at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the time the Company received the loan monies to the time they are repaid. SECTION 4 DEFAULT Section 4.1 Events of Default The following shall be considered events of default: 4.1.1 Company fails to complete, or County reasonably determines that Company will not be able to complete, the obligations described in Section 3.2 and its other obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that upon such failure or determination, County shall first provide to Company written notice of such failure or determination, and Company shall have thirty (30) days to correct the matter. If the matter has not been corrected by Company within such thirty (30) day period to the reasonable satisfaction of County, County shall be entitled to declare Company in default of its obligations under this Agreement and the loan and accrued interest shall be payable in full. 4.1.2 Company effects a change of ownership or change of control of its business which results in dissolution or conversion of the original business entity or relocates its business operations outside of Deschutes County, Oregon on or before the end of the contract period. Change of ownership and/or change of control of the business will not be deemed a default if Company notifies County which may then condition consent on any reasonable term(s) necessary to adequately secure the loan. A change in majority stock ownership will not constitute a default if all other provisions in this agreement are met. 4.1.3 The occurrence of any event that has or may reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Company's financial condition or Company's ability to make any payment required by this Agreement. 4.1.4 Company fails to pay, becomes insolvent or unable to pay, or admits in writing an inability to pay Company's debts as they become due, or makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors. 4.1.5 A proceeding with respect to Company is commenced under any applicable law for the benefit of creditors, including, but not limited to, any bankruptcy or insolvency law, or an order for the appointment of a receiver, liquidator, trustee, custodian, or other officer having similar powers over Company is entered. SECTION 5 MISCELLANEOUS Section 5.1 Right to Inspect Company agrees that County, their agents, and employees shall be entitled, upon reasonable prior notice to Company, to access and inspect the property and employment records of Company and its affiliates in order to insure that Company is complying with the terms of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The right to inspection shall also include any property or employment records that are in the possession of any affiliate of Company. The right of inspection shall continue until all of the obligations of Company under this Agreement have been satisfied. Section 5.2 Attorney's Fee Provision In the event suit or action is instituted to enforce any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party shall pay to the prevailing party, in addition to the costs and disbursements allowed by statute, such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney fees in such suit or action, in both trial court and appellate courts. Section 5.3 Indemnification Company shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless County and EDCO, their officers, agents, employees, and members from all claims, suits, and causes of action, including attorney's fees, of any nature whatsoever relating to claims by third parties resulting from or arising out this Agreement or funds provided to Company under this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 5.3, County and EDCO shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Company, their officers, agents, employees, and members from all claims, suits, and causes of action, including attorney's fees, relating to claims by third parties as to the validity under public finance law of this Agreement or funds provided to the Company under this Agreement. Section 5.4 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the matters herein. Section 5.6 Titles and Subtitles The titles in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. Section 5.7 Notice All notices, requests demands, and other communications to or upon the parties hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made: Upon actual receipt, if delivered personally or by fax or an overnight delivery service; and at the end of the third business day after the date of deposit in the United States mail, postage pre -paid, certified, return receipt requested; and to the addresses set forth on page 1 of this Agreement or at such other address of which such party shall have notified in writing the other parties hereto. Section 5.8 Time is of the Essence All parties agree that time is of the essence under this Agreement. Section 5.9 Applicable Law This Agreement is made, and shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to the principles of conflicts of law. Venue shall lie in state courts located in Deschutes County, Oregon, provided, however, if the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Section 5.10 Disclosure Under Oregon law, most agreements, promises, and commitments made by a lender after October 3, 1989 concerning loans and other credit extensions which are not for personal, family, or household purposes or secured solely by borrower's residence must be in writing, express consideration, and be signed by the lender to be enforceable. Section 5.11 No Waiver No failure or delay of County in exercising any right, power or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of such right, power or remedy of County, or of any other right. A waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of or prejudice County's right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision. Any waiver, permit, consent or approval of any kind or character on the part of County must be in writing and shall be effective only to the extent specifically set forth in such writing. Section 5.12 No Assignment by Company No obligation or right under this Agreement may be assigned by the Company without the prior consent of County, which consent may be withheld, conditioned, or delayed in the sole discretion of County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the dates set forth below their respective signatures. Deschutes County Tom ,Anderson, County Administrator Date: (O '2- f / PCC Schlosser By. Lisa King, Controlle 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 Business Meeting of December 6, 2017 DATE: December 1, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: First Quarter 2018 Performance Measure Update RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: None. Informational only. CONTRACTOR: N/A AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: N/A INSURANCE: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Select departments will provide updates on progress made toward Board of Commissioners' goals and objectives during the first quarter of FY 2018. Written documentation of the highlighted measurements and of all department reports submitted is attached. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure and representatives of highlighted departments. z A W �a U�00 i� AAw 00 Cd to O w 0 O N o o1-4 O iC b 40, to M 41 Z p+ 4-rn ® "� 0 N 9 y, cd" � cd O w U cd � o o °en 6h (4-4cd U Cd C O 03 + O 5 C1,13 } j cn un U ¢� Qr �• O U CJ fl n vi A •� o y rn o >C,j1>� � n U +' rd • �- vii U eA 41 cl aj N y ® U o 0 ° 4 a� 0 U o � ® °' 0 E 3clQ °U w ° o � ° �" A'r. Q U 'd o '� cd R n Cd cn Cd 4° 7d a� 0 cc3 4- U a) LnO o~ U M Cd 4-, O $:icd 0 a 0 w 4-" 0 0 0 0 4-, p Ms S CC u O � � En O O U° N•��o cd Cd 4-4 � o % •ic ° aCd Cd N Ca O O O J $-o 000 cn j O U O o y O U C. 0 O O ��U, N H o H -+5- d U00° a� cd o � C U N Cd o «' N � 44 o �. Cd a ON C/ U a o Ln as N CIS un V U � U O� a� cd A CC u O � � En O O U° N•��o cd Cd 4-4 � o % •ic ° aCd Cd N Ca O O O J $-o 000 cn j O U O o y O U C. 0 O O ��U, N H o H -+5- d O 9 01 Ci? rt LsJ 9 01 Deschutes County Performance Measures Q1 Report 07/01/2017 - 9/30/2017 9-1-1 Service District County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Meet the 9-1-1 call answering standard established by the National Emergency Number Association by answering all 9-1-1 calls within 10 seconds, 90% of the time during the average busiest hour. Q1: Goal met at 90.6%. 2. Make high priority calls ready for dispatch with location information within 12 seconds. Q1: Goal met at 10 seconds. 3. Staff two fire dispatchers 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year. Q1: Goal met. 4. Staff supervisory positions for 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year. Q1: Goal met through expansion of the Acting in Charge (AIC) program. 5. Staff a law enforcement data channel 12 hours per day. Ql : Goal dependent on full staffing. Only 2 of the District's 44 line positions remain unfilled. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 6. Complete the Computer Aided Dispatch system replacement project. Ql: This goal has slipped to FYI because the vendor was unable to meet the original March 2018 target date. Deployment is now scheduled for October 2018. 7. Complete the digital trunked radio system replacement project. Q1: Goal met for law enforcement. The fire service has begun deployment. 8. Secure agreements with government agencies interested in receiving service from the new radio system. Q 1: In progress. 9. Achieve Oregon Accreditation Alliance accreditation. Ql : In progress. 10. Improve the retention rate for new line employees. Q1: In progress. Administrative Services Department County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. 10 -day or fewer wait time for an appointment at the Veterans' Service Office. Q1: The veteran's service office is maintaining a less than 10 -day waiting period for client appointments. 2. Work with IT to update the County's website, making information easy to access and navigate. Ql : No progress to report (due to leave). Project will resume in October. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support of County operations. 3. Achieve 95% rating of overall quality of internal audit reports as compared to national average for association of local government auditors. Q1: No progress to report during QIsince no new performance audits were issued. 4. Number of workplace accidents that require days away from work, restricted, or transferred workers per 100 employees (DART Rate). Ql: No progress to report during Q1. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Maintain Risk reserve at the 80% confidence level of adequacy, based on actuarial study. Q1: No progress to report during Q1. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation. 6. Work with non-profit agencies to increase the supply of affordable housing. Q1: Continuing to monitor on-going affordable projects (Housing Works and Habitat for Humanity) which are being planned and underway (the land use planning application review process has begun) on properties donated by the County in La Pine during the previous year. 7. Continue to identify asset or foreclosure properties that may be appropriate for housing and/or social services and assist the developer in bringing projects to fruition. Q1: No progress — such property review occurs in Q2 (November) following the acquisition of tax foreclosure properties through the recordation of the annual Tax Deed. 8. Seek opportunities to partner with other jurisdictions to stimulate affordable housing projects. Q1: In discussions with the City of Redmond regarding their interest in County property on the east side of the Redmond City Limits for possible UGB expansion for affordable housing as authorized under HB 4079. A formal request for participation via support and/or land from the City would be expected in Q2. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. 9. State and federal funds secured on behalf of local public transit providers from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Transit Agency (FTA) for the purpose of providing transportation services to seniors and people with disabilities. Ql : No progress to report during Q1. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism and recreation. 10. Contribute to economic stability and growth by leveraging funds for job creation and business recruitment, support and diversification. Q1: Worked with the City of La Pine and Sunriver La Pine Economic Development to amend and repeal covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCR's) in the La Pine Industrial Park to remove redundant and superfluous regulations affecting industrial/economic development therein. Assessor's Office County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Accounts managed per FTE compared to other Oregon counties. Q1: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this Spring. 2. Written approval by the Department of Revenue for the Assessor's Certified Ratio Study. Q1: Received full approval for FYI 7/18 tax year. 3. Percentage of tax statements mailed by October 25. Q1: Progress will be reported during the second quarter. 4. Written certification from the Department of Revenue approving the County Assessment Function Assistance (CAFFA) program. Ql: Yearly process that occurs in May, so won't have until May 2018. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Cost per account managed compared to other Oregon counties. Q1: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this Spring 6. Administrative expenses as a percentage of taxes imposed compared to other Oregon Counties. Q1: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this Spring 6. Administrative expenses as a percentage of taxes imposed compared to other Oregon Counties. Ql: Yearly measurement which won't be able until sometime this Spring LJ �i N a-1 Ln n O 00 M t00 00 t0 t0 O In n N d 00 'I to N d M td0 n N 00 LA N 00 n to 00 n 00 00 00 M M t0 00 eel 00 M 00 vi 00 ei 00 N N M M t0 a M n t0 N M N M N ID O n O N Ol M O 00 0 Lnri M N N M n M n O ri cn M 0 M 00 rn 00 Ln N M t0 Ln M ei O to N 00 t00 N W to 1-4 t0 N M N M a^-1 M a -I M d a -i N M Ol N r4 LM N W N M 00 N a rl M M N 00 O ri M to N N N to LM 00 N N M W O M t0 M M N N W N M M LA n M M N N N M M M Ol to M n N M N M t0 N 410 M to N _ N N N N n N t0 N N tN0 M 00 O M t0 ' 000 I d N d t0 00 00 .-1 d O M m M an Ol N M t0 to 0 M 01 Ln an N N koN �i r'm Ln I 15 0 H 4. ad I M Community Development Department County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Achieve 85% voluntary compliance in code enforcement cases. Q1: During the 1st quarter, 85% of code enforcement cases were voluntary compliance. 2. Resolve 75% of code enforcement cases within 12 months. Q1: During the 1st quarter, 86% of cases were closed within 12 months. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. 3. Coordinate with cities for growth management. Q1: Preliminary discussions with Bend, Redmond and Sisters regarding implementing HB 4079 Pilot Program for Affordable Housing County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Administer land use programs that promote livability and sustainability. 4. Coordinate with the City of Bend to implement the Bend Airport Master Plan. Q1: The City of Bend has not applied for the proposed amendments. It is unknown if/when the City will initiate such amendments at this time. 5. Coordinate with City of Redmond to entitle large lot industrial site. Q1: The City of Redmond has not initiated a UGB amendment. The City continues to proceed with evaluating transportation impacts with ODOT and County transportation staff. 6. Staff is engaged in conversations with the City of Bend regarding Regional Problem Solving. Q1: County staff is waiting for a response from the City on whether or not it will be a partner in this effort. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 7. Achieve 6-10 inspection stops per day. Q1: During the Pt quarter, CDD achieved 10 inspection stops per day. 8. Achieve an average turnaround time on building plan reviews of 8-10 days. Q 1: During the 1St quarter, the average turnaround time on building plan reviews was 12.8 days. The Building Safety Division is recruiting for 1 approved (unfilled) FTE and 1 on-call staff. 9. Issue land use administrative decisions with notice within 45 days and without notice within 21 days of completed application. Q1: During the 1St quarter, land use administrative decisions with notice were issued within 42 days and land use decisions without notice were issued within 28 days. 10. Issue onsite septic system permits within 15 days of complete application. Q1: During the 1St quarter, onsite septic permits were issued within 10 days of completed application. Community Justice County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 1. No more than 10% of low-risk youth referred for first-time alcohol and other drug violation recidivate within one year of initial referral. Q1: Will be measured in quarter four. Last measurement reported in quarter 4 of FYI was 9%. 2. 75% of supervised adult offenders have up to date criminogenic risk assessments that drive case plans. Q1: Baseline level established in first quarter is 52.2%. The division has begun planning for a 2/1/18 implementation of an intake/assessment process that utilizes additional staff to conduct assessments in order to meet the goal of timely and accurate risk assessment that guides offender case management. County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 3. Identify and work with criminal justice and substance abuse partners to provide effective treatment for supervised medium and high-risk offenders. Q1: Progress was made on this front during the first quarter. In the Juvenile division, administrative staff work regularly with substance abuse treatment providers to obtain, track and analyze participation and completion of juveniles involved in treatment. In the Adult division, recruitment is underway for a Parole & Probation Specialist to conduct quality assurance activities with substance abuse treatment providers to ensure compliance with state standards of 0 care and effective practices. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems and provide collaborative internal support for county operations. 4. Complete initial implementation of Community Justice Dashboard by June 30, 2018. Q1: Progress made during the first quarter includes continuing investigation of the most cost- effective and useful dashboard platform to utilize. Activities were attending training provided by county IT on BI, a new dashboard / data management platform being investigated, continuing talks with other state community corrections divisions utilizing the Tableau platform, and a meeting with the SCRAM company, which has a new digital case management platform with potential capability of providing dashboard performance measurement assistance. District Attorney's Office County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Participate in Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC), Central Oregon Law Enforcement Services (COLES), Multiple Disciplinary Teams (MDTs), and other public safety organizations. Q1: LPSCC- Aug 1St COLES- Jul 13th, Sept 14th MDT's- Jul 19th, Aug 2nd, Aug 9th, Aug 16th, Sept 6th, Sept 13th, Sept 101, Sept 201h, Sept 27th County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 2. Implement Goldilocks drug recidivism reduction program Q1: Over the last 3 months (Jul 1 — Sep 30) related to implementing the Goldilocks project we have: • Hosted numerous group and individual program meetings with partner sites to discuss program plans and to establish specific program responsibilities for each organization. • Established program workflows. • Worked with Pacific Source to receive approval and detennine process to direct program participants to primary care providers at Mosaic or La Pine Community Health Center only. • Contacted other OHP primary care providers within the community to inform them of the program. • Researched substantial compliance and measurement tools. • Received approval to adjust our grant budget to hire a substance use disorder counselor and rent space. • Identified and secured rental space at Central Oregon Collective. • Ordered program materials (i.e. laptops, bus passes). • Drafted the position description and posted the position opening for the substance use disorder counselor. • Developed a training plan, and began training law enforcement. • Finalized partner MOUs for signatures. • Developed program materials to be used during the orientation meetings. • Worked with a graphic design firm to develop the program materials that will be used by law enforcement to promote the program. • Hosted focus groups to help refine those materials. • Finalized and printed the Clean Slate information cards. • Scheduled presentations to inform local city councils about the program. • Conducted bi-weekly grant progress meetings with the Urban Institute. • Submitted a quarterly grant report to the Urban Institute/MacArthur Foundation. 3. Total cases filed, broken down by felony, misdemeanor, juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, and civil commitment. Average of annual cases filed per Deputy District Attorney (DDA) will be documented each quarter on a chart. Q1: Cases Filed Qtr. 1 July 1, 2017 — September 30, 2017 Total Cases Filed Felony 375 Misdemeanor 776 Juvenile Delinqu,-ney 50 Juvenile De endency 27 Civil Commitment Hearings 4 Total: 1232 Per DDA: 65* *Accounts for 3 Deputy District Attorney's being out on TML and leave. 4. Driving under the influence of intoxicants trial conviction rate. Q1: Our conviction rate is 100% for this quarter. We have had 18 trials with 0 acquittals. 5. Average elapsed time to final disposition (in days) for adult misdemeanor cases. Q1: The average elapsed time to final disposition in adult misdemeanor cases is 37 days. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. 10 6. Support Sheriff and Behavioral Health with implementation of crisis receiving center program. Ql : Project is on hold as Sheriff and Director of Behavioral Health work on funding issues. Have had three informal discussions with the Sheriff about the project, I continue to speak out publicly in support of the project, and I stand ready to assist with next steps when the Sheriff and the Director of Behavioral Health are ready. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for county operations. 7. Provide Civil Commitment legal representation to behavioral health and provide administrative oversight of the Medical Examiner program. Q1: Mental Hold, Civil Commitment & ME Cases Qtr. 1 July 1,,.2017..— September 30, 2017 Type Total Cases Mental Hold 65 Civil Commitment 4 ME Cases 62 Facilities Department County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 1. Participate in the update of the County Emergency Operations Plan. Q1: No progress to report during Q1. 2. Continue to improve the resiliency of County facilities through the retrofit and installation of seismic restraints and shutoff valves. Q1: Staff are currently evaluating additional facilities for the installation of seismic restraints and shutoff valves in FY 2018. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. 3. Provide improved pedestrian access to County facilities and services through the repair, replacement and construction of new sidewalks (DSB, WSSB, NOCO, and Courthouse). 11 Ql : Paver reset and tree well removal was completed in August 2017 along Bond Street at the Courthouse complex. Minor sidewalk repairs were completed at various locations throughout the downtown campus. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 4. Develop and implement a County -wide facility asset management and replacement plan. Q1: Staff anticipate that facility condition assessments for Phase II of the Facilities Master Plan will take place during Q2. Fair & Expo Center County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with County and community partners in preparing for and responding to natural and man-made disasters. Continue working with law enforcement and community partners on the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Q1: Worked very closely with all emergency groups including law enforcement, FEMA, and Forest Service during Eclipse/Milii Fire. Showed how facility can handle situations County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. 2. Achieve $45 million in economic impact generated from Fair & Expo events and facilities. This measure utilizes economic multipliers established by Travel Oregon and updated with Travel Industries of America travel index. Q 1: $17,217 economic impact 3. Have more than 283,000 visitors attend this year's Fair. Ql : Due to excessive heat/smoke goal not reached — 245,000 County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 4. Achieve 90 percent customer satisfaction (or greater). Ql: 93% 12 County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Work closely with Property & Facilities to develop a long-term replacement program for Fair & Expo facilities. Q 1: Ongoing 6. Increase business with use of TRT funding and development of overall strategic marketing plan. Q1: Feasibility study almost complete with plan moving forward. Finance Department County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. Complete financial system implementation by June 30, 2017. The Financials Phase of the project was substantially completed and went live on July 1, 2017. Q1: There are several functions that will be implemented when time allows including purchasing cards and employee reimbursements. 2. Complete HR/payroll systems implementation by January 1, 2018. Ql : This project will not go live in January 2018. The new go -live date will be established once several implementation issues are worked out. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. Complete the transition to the MUNIS budget module for use in the FY 2019 budget process beginning in January 2018. Q1: This project is on track. We expect that departments will use the new budget entry functionality in the upcoming FY 2019 budget process. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 4. Implement new software for use by County staff and lodging operators to report and collect room taxes online by December 31, 2017. 13 Q1: This project will move forward as time allows but will not be implemented by December 31, 2017. Health Services Department County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 1. Report semi-annually on implementation of forensic diversion program including numbers and types of individuals served. Q1: The forensic diversion program has served 35 individuals since its inception. Thirty-two of those individuals had a total of 161 arrests in the 18 months prior to their first contact with the forensic diversion program. Post forensic diversion, the same 32 individuals have only accounted for 31 arrests and the total recidivism has reduced to 80.74%. A few highlighted individuals from the program: Jane Doe #1 was homeless and arrested 7 times in the year prior to entering the forensic diversion program. She is now a year out from her initial engagement with forensic diversion and she is housed with a foundations grant, attending school, and has had no arrests. Jane Doe #2 was arrested a total of 15 times over a two year period, since forensic diversion she has had no arrests. John Smith #1 was arrested a total of 16 times over a two year period, post forensic diversion he has had no arrests. County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 2. Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 3. 80% of preparedness partners responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. 4. 61 % of the 94 new National Public Health Reaccreditation standards will be achieved by June 14 30, 2018. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 5. 58% Foundational Capability Score will be achieved by June 30, 2018. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 6. 72% Foundational Expertise Score will be achieved by June 30, 2018. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 7. Reduce outbreaks and spread of disease by completing 95% of communicable disease investigations within 10 days, as defined by the Oregon Health Authority. Q1: This measure is reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. 8. Reduce outbreaks and foodborne illness by inspecting a minimum of 95% of licensed facilities (e.g. restaurants, pools/spas/hotels, etc.) per state requirements. Q1: This measure is reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. 9. Achieve measurable progress toward state aspirational goal of zero suicides. Q1: This measure is reported at the end of the calendar year, no information to report. 10. Reduce teen pregnancy rates to < 3.5 per 1,000 women 10-17 years of age. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 11. 90% of participants in the Nurse Family Support Services (NFSS) program report having a patient -centered primary care home. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 12. 90% of the pregnant women in Central Oregon receive prenatal care beginning in their first trimester. Ql: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. 13. 60% or more of eligible pregnant women are enrolled in WIC within their first trimester. Q1: This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. 15 14. 82.7% of individuals discharged from a psychiatric hospital receive an outpatient behavioral health visit within 7 calendar days of discharge. Q1: 91 % of individuals discharged from a psychiatric hospital received an outpatient behavioral health visit within 7 calendar days of discharge. FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Q1 Outcome Numerator Denominator FY18 Q1 Outcome 58 64 91% 15. Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients seen within state timelines as specified in the following categories: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours and 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. Q1: 100% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 1) Emergent/Urgent: Within 24-48 hours. FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Q1 Outcome Numerator Denominator 52 52 100% Ql: 99.5% of Behavioral Health Oregon Health Plan clients were seen within state timelines as specified in the following category: 2) Routine: Within 2 weeks. FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Q1 Outcome Numerator Denominator 398 400 99.5% 16. 90% of children and adolescents referred by the Department of Human Services (DHS) receive a behavioral health assessment within 60 calendar days of notification*. Q1: 71.4% of children and adolescents referred by the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a behavioral health assessment within 60 calendar days of notification. *"Notification" is a Department of Human Services (DHS) related concept and does not reflect the timeline between DHS requesting a Behavioral Health assessment appointment and the provided appointment. 16 FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Q1 Outcome Numerator Denominator 5 7 71.4% 17. Provide semi-annual update on Behavioral Health System Transformation (mental health/substance use disorders and intellectual and developmental disabilities), including implementation of Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 18. 75% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients will remain housed for 6 months or more. Q1: 100% of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients remained housed for 6 months or more. FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Quarter 1 FY18 Q1 Outcome Numerator Denominator 16 16 100% County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. 19. > 99% of WIC clients responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the services they received. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 20. > 95% of Environmental Health inspection services customers responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the services they received. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 21. 100% of reproductive and public health clinical services customers responding to a customer survey report satisfaction with the services they received. 17 Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 22. > 93% of respondents to a Behavioral Health client survey are satisfied with their experience. Q1: This is a semi-annual measure that will be reported during Q2 and Q4. No information to report. 23. 85% of Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities surveys reflect an answer of "yes" to the question "Does your Service Coordinator give you the help you need?" Ql : This is a fiscal year annual measure, no information to report. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 24. Increase the number of site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Information" (Baseline: 50, quarterly measure). Q1: There were 288 site visits to the external webpage, "Health Statistics and Information." 25. DCHS will disseminate accurate, timely and culturally appropriate public health information on at least four seasonal health topics via Epidemiology newsletter, media release and/or website. Ql : DCHS is currently disseminating a weekly flu report which can be viewed at https://www.deschutes.org/healLb/page/local-flu-surveillance. This report is a comprehensive look at the influenza virus within our region, including regional influenza statistics and demographics. Human Resources Department County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Continue to partner with all stakeholders to ensure that the finance/HR project is progressing according to the project plan. Q1: HR staff have been meeting regularly with software implementation team to design foundation of the new HR system. HR staff identified a few County Departments/Offices to provide input on existing processes as well as upcoming needs and will continue to partner with more stakeholders as the process evolves. County Goal: Service Delivery 18 Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 2. Evaluate and re -design the existing classification and compensation structure. Q1: HR staff received the final reports and recommendations from classification and compensation project consultant. HR staff reviewed recommendations with steering committee, drafted new pay grade structure, classification structure, and compensation philosophy. HR staff met with all County Department/Office leadership to review recommended outcomes and impact of the project. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. 3. Provide training to department supervisors and managers on human resource policies and procedures. Q1: HR staff drafted updates to County practices to comply with two legislative changes; Oregon Paid Sick Time Law, and the Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017. Information Technology County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Complete the modernization of the County's finance, human resources and payroll systems. Ql: The financial portion of the project went into production on July lst. Electronic time collection has been released for use, however it not completely implemented. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. 2. Promote the expansion of the use of the County's Open Data effort by enlisting the participation of Health Services, Public Safety or Finance. Q 1: No progress to report during Q 1. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 3. Complete the redesign of the DIAL website user interface. Q 1: No progress to report during Q 1. County Goal: Service Delivery 19 Objective: Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. 4. Develop a restitution tracking application for Community Justice — Juvenile. Q1: This application went into production for Community Justice on October 3011' County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Reduce crime and recidivism through prevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. 5. Develop informational dashboards for Adult Parole and Probation with data from the State and County systems to assist service providers in delivering services adjusted to appropriate levels. Q 1: No progress to report during Q1. Community Justice has decided not to pursue completion of this project in its original form. Information Technology continues to assist the department with determining appropriate tools for tracking and reporting on service data. County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism, and recreation. 6. Provide GIS support for the 2020 Census Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA). Q1: The required registration paperwork to participate in LUCA has been completed. Internal personnel resource to perform the work has been identified. Justice Court County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 1. Increase compliance with traffic laws and ordinance codes. Q1: No progress to report. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Promote community participation and engagement with County government. 2. Conduct evening court sessions in Redmond, La Pine and Sisters. Q1: No progress to report. Legal Counsel all County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. 1. Increase department capacity by achieving 50% electronic case file creation/maintenance. Q1: The Legal Department now creates/maintains approximately 70% of its case files in an electronic format. This reduces paper usage and file storage needs. 2. Increase staff efficiency by fully implementing new case management system. Q1: The Legal Department (as of 10/1/17) has implemented the Legal Files case management system. The system is complex, and we all continue to learn and work out some of the bugs. The system affords all of the attorneys with 24/7 real-time access to all case file materials. The increase in efficiency will be gradual due to the steep learning curve associated with the case management system. Natural Resources County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 1. Continue implementation of the FEMA pre -disaster mitigation grant treating approximately 1300 acres of hazardous fuels over a three year period. Q1: 517 total acres treated to date. 5 other projects are under contract or are in the planning stages. County Goal: Healthy People Objective: Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. 2. Maintain or increase public participation in Fire Free events as measured by yard debris collected. Q 1: No update, fall Fire Free will be in Q2. 3. Maintain or increase the number of communities participating in the Firewise Communities Program. Ql: Two new Firewise communities were added in the last quarter, Sage Meadow in the Sisters area and Hillside Park in Bend. The total number Firewise communities is 21. Road Department County Goal: Economic Vitality Objective: Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. 21 1. Sustain the Pavement Condition Index at 80. Q1: The maintenance treatments and overlay program delivered in 2017 resulted in an overall Pavement Condition Index of 82 — which is an increase of one point from 2016 and two points from 2015. 2. Achieve 96% of roads rated good or better (Pavement Condition Index above 70). Q 1: Approximately 96.1 % of the County's paved network is rated "good" or better. This is a 0.1 % increase from 2016. 3. PCI Sustainability Ratio at 100%. (Reports the ratio of pavement maintenance investment divided by systems needs per the Pavement Management Program.) Q1: The County's Pavement Management and Budget Options report identifies a 5 -year need of approximately $19.OM on pavement maintenance and preservation projects. The current program budget estimates approximately $20.9M in expenditures such that the ratio of budgeted investment versus the estimated requirement exceeds 100% (110%). This will allow the County to sustain the PCI at the existing, optimal level (low to mid 80s). County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 4. Provide a maintenance treatment or resurface 14% of the County's road pavement asset. Q1: To be calculated in upcoming quarters. Sheriff's Office County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 1. Participate in multi -agency coordination activities (meetings, plans and trainings). Q1: No progress to report in Q1. 2. Number of emergency preparedness activities. Ql : Participated in two events — the Eclipse and the Milli fire. County Goal: Safe Communities Objective: Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. 3. Respond to 35,500 patrol calls for service. 22 Ql: Responded to 10,491 calls. 4. Initiate 39,000 patrol calls for service. Q1: Initiated 11,575 calls. County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 5. Replace 10 existing HVAC units in the older section of the jail. Ql: No progress to report. Department of Solid Waste County Goal: Service Delivery Objective: Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. 1. Develop a Solid Waste Management Plan to determine disposal method to be developed as Knott Landfill reaches capacity. Plan will identify capital needs for new disposal method as well as needed modification to other system facilities to ensure effective integration with new disposal method. Q 1 report not submitted. 01 Deschutes County FY 2018 Goals and Objectives Mission Statement: Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost- effective manner. Safe Communities: Protect the community through planning, preparedness and delivery of coordinated services. • Provide safe and secure communities through coordinated public safety services. • Reduce crime and recidivism throughprevention, intervention, supervision and enforcement. • Collaborate with partners to prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. • Support and advance the health and safety of Deschutes County's diverse populations. • Promote well-being through behavioral health and community support programs. • Help to sustain natural resources in balance with other community needs. Economic Vitality: Promote policies and actions that sustain and stimulate economic vitality. • Support affordable housing options through availability of lands and appropriate regulation. • Administer land use programs that promote livability and sustainability. • Maintain a safe, efficient and sustainable transportation system. • Partner with organizations and manage County assets to attract business development, tourism and recreation. Service Delivery: Provide solution -oriented service that is cost-effective and efficient. • Ensure quality service delivery through the use of innovative technology and systems. • Support and promote Deschutes County Customer Service "Every Time" standards. • Promote community participation and engagement with County government. • . Preserve and enhance capital assets and strengthen fiscal security. • Provide collaborative internal support for County operations. Healthy People: Enhance and protect the health and well-being of communities and their residents. Health Services #2: Promote well-being through 75% of Foundations Rental Assistance behavioral health and community support program housed clients will remain housed programs. for 6 months or more. 1 Status: During the 111 quarter, 16 of 16, or 100%, of Foundations Rental Assistance program housed clients remained housed for 6 months or more. Rental Assistance- Foundations Program Overview Goal: Assist individual to live as independently in the community as possible. Eligibility: • Adults with a serious mental illness (SMI) diagnosis in which their mental health condition has affected access to, and/or ability to, maintain stable house. • Priority to individuals: o Transitioning from Oregon State Hospital (OSH) o Transitioning from a licensed residential setting o Without supports are at risk of moving to a higher level of care o Homeless or at risk of being homeless • Meet specific income guidelines • Not receiving rental or housing assistance from another source Funding Use: ❖ 30 slots for rental assistance- up to $702/slot ❖ Move -in expenses such as deposits; paying for outstanding utility bills ❖ Two positions: Rental Specialist and Peer Support Specialist who are responsible For program oversight including: o Assisting with application process o Finding rental units o Payments to landlord o Support services including: budgeting, community navigation, Maintaining health relationships which support individuals live independently Additional information: client has to pay 30% of rent; we cannot exceed $702/month. Since inception in 2014 we have had 66 individuals receive funding through the program. We currently have 21 receiving funding and 21 in the search phase. We often release more slots for individuals than the total 30 allotted given the challenges finding housing. 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 Business Meeting of December 6, 2017 DATE: November 28, 2017 FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, 541-385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATION: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff seeks Board's direction and offers the following: 1. Deliberate, identify a preferred amendment, and request an ordinance and updated findings for consideration of first and possibly second reading on December 13. 2. Other as determined by the Board The Board of County Commissioners is deliberating on December 6, 2017 to consider Comprehensive Plan and zoning text amendments relating to Deschutes County's Wildlife Area Combining Zone. 1 Community Development ment Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sails Division P.O, Box 6O05 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 91708-5005 Phone: (5411) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http: ffivvvoi. d e s ch ute s, o rg/c d MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: November 29, 2017 SUBJECT: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments / Deliberation The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on November 6, 2017, closed the oral record and left the written record open until Monday, November 20, at 5:00 p.m. Deliberation is scheduled for December 6. I. ADDITIONAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY During the open record period, staff received additional written testimony. It is organized alphabetically (Attachment). II. WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE AMENDMENTS / 5 VERSIONS There are five versions of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone amendments for the Board's consideration. 1. Option 1 is the original amendment provided to the Planning Commission for their public hearing on September 28. 2. Option 2 represents the Planning Commission's recommendation. It prohibits churches along with other secular uses (agri-tourism, commercial activities in conjunction with farm use, etc.) in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Range based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) Equal Terms provision. Owlity Services 111mli- atter! with Pride • Fortune_J • McKay • Shepherd • Baker • Gould • Meyer • Smith • Boyd . Gram • Newbold • Sparks • Bracket • Harris . ODFW • Stanfield • Crocker . Hitson • Oliver • Strauss • Casey . Humphrey • Parker • Stuart • Conklin_B . Kriegh • Petition • Thompson • Co_ nk K . Kuhn • Powell • Thorgeirsson • Cook • Lee • Rbtjadair • Warriner • Fi • Lillebo • Ryter • Winegar _C • Fizzzz • Littlefield • Savage • Winegar_S • Fortune—H II. WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE AMENDMENTS / 5 VERSIONS There are five versions of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone amendments for the Board's consideration. 1. Option 1 is the original amendment provided to the Planning Commission for their public hearing on September 28. 2. Option 2 represents the Planning Commission's recommendation. It prohibits churches along with other secular uses (agri-tourism, commercial activities in conjunction with farm use, etc.) in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Range based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) Equal Terms provision. Owlity Services 111mli- atter! with Pride Option 3 encompasses a revised amendment introduced by staff during the Board's public hearing. It allows churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone only if the applicant can demonstrate that prohibiting a proposed church or other religious exercise violates any provision of RLUIPA. The revised amendment responds to arguments regarding the applicability of different RLUIPA provisions made by the public during the Planning Commission's hearing. Likewise, it attempts to address the same concerns raised by the Planning Commission albeit in a different fashion. 4. Option 4 deletes the word "church" from Deschutes County Code, DCC 18.88.040(B) and DCC 18.128.080. The change would require that churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone follow the same regulatory scheme governing churches in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. 5. Option 5 retains the current code provisions. Table 1— Wildlife Area Combining Zone / Options OPTION AMENDMENT DCC 18.88.040(B). Uses Not Permitted in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Range: *r-Urcrt DCG 18.88.040(E). Use Limitations. Option 1 ; Churches, agri-tourism and other commercial events, and wineries are subject to applicable provisions of DCC 18.116 and 18.125 and the following criteria: Outdoor events, activities, and public assemblies that are incidental and subordinate to the ' uses noted above shall not be allowed during the time of year when deer, elk, and antelope rely on their habitat for calving or winter or summer range DCC 18.88.040(8). Uses Not Permitted in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Range: Not Permitted: • Church Option 2 • Agri -tourism • Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use • Wineries • Etc. DCC 18.88.040(B). Uses Not Permitted in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Range: Not Permitted: Option 3 • Church Exception: If an applicant demonstrates that prohibiting a proposed church or other religious exercise violates any provision of RLUIPA. DCC 18.88.040(8). Uses Not Permitted in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Option 4 Range: —Ghwe.", -2- OPTION AMENDMENT DCC 18.88.040(8). Uses Not Permitted in Deer Winter Ranges, Elk Habitat and Antelope Option 5 Range: Not Permitted: • Church I11. BOARD DIRECTION Staff seeks Board's direction and offers the following: 1. Deliberate, identify a preferred amendment, and request an ordinance and updated findings for consideration of first and possibly second reading on December 13. 2. Other as determined by the Board. Attachment Written testimony -3- From: Tammy Bony To: Peter Gutowsky Subject Fwd: LANDWATCH IS A DISGRACE AND MUST BE STOPPED Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:55:19 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-656711300 NW Wall Street. Suite 2001 Bend- OR 97701 tannnyb64)deschutes ore I www deschutes ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: John Baker <jba�t2logigtic vnamics net> Date: November 20, 2017 at 10:28:26 AM PST To: John Baker <bak r(_).logisti . namics net> Ce: I'amnty Bane a deschutes org" <Tamn>,v BaneyLDdeschutes ore>, "Tony.DeBone riideschutes ori' <Tony DeBonel {)descI1uLQ ore>, "Phil.tlendersonUdeschutcs org," <Phil.Henderson(,t deschutecorg> Subject: LANDWATCH IS A DISGRACE AND MUST BE STOPPED Dear Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony De Bone and Phil Henderson My name is john Baker. I am a business owner, a resident of Deschutes county for 22 years and a 4th generation Oregonian as well as your constituent. It has been brought to my attention the group called LANDWATCH has launched a targeted attack on the Shepherdsfield Church and wedding venue. I have never met the Shepherd Family but I have done my research on the situation and its history. This attack by LANDWATCH is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" I want to know why LANDWATCH targets a good Family like these people yet has no issues with groups like.. 2017 RAINBOW FESTIVAL which had 12,000 gatherers and 2 deaths NO WORD FROM LAND WATCH 2017 GREAT AMERICAN ECLIPE PARTY with 70,000 people at Big Summit Prairie near Prineville NO WORD FROM LANDWATCH Every year the 4 Peaks Music Festival in Bend NO WORD FROM LANDWATCH The list goes on... LANDWATCH does not target gatherings that they and their friends attend!! LANDWATCH is a disgrace to our community. LANDWATCH is a bunch of out of state busybody attorneys who came here in recent years and cost Bend Millions of dollars, they have never been taught to mind their own business. This is a clear attack on Religious Freedom, Freedom of assembly and private property rights. I am not even going to get into all the improvements these folks have done to their ranch helping the deer population thrive. Other people who farm, have winery tours, Mountain Biker trails throughout the West side of Bend have way more contact with Deer THAN THE 2 ACRES the Shepherd Family has set aside to help people get married. Please help stop LANDWATCH. Respectfully, John Baker LogIStlC Dynamics Inc. Flatbed & specialized transportation services throughout the U.S. and beyond... Office (541)306-6732 ;Cell (541)306-7326 ;Fax (541)610-1609 605 SW Mill View Way, Suite 250, Bend, Oregon 97702 F- Tammy Banal To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Deer habitat Data: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:59:16 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11100 NW Wall Street. Suite 200 Bend. OR 97701 taminyybUdeschutes.org I www.deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: boyd <bwdelan Wbendbroadband com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 5:18:42 PM PST To: <Tammy.Baney(gdeschutes ore> Subject: Deer habitat Reply -To: boyd <bwdc1an(4bendbmadhand.com> Tammy Baney: I have lived in Deschutes County most of my 78 years and have always been fascinated by the abundance of various forms of wildlife. Over the years, my father owned two ranches, both having an abundance of deer and other wildlife. Both ranches have now been subdivided, as well as numerous other wildlife areas that I was familiar with including Woodside Ranch and Klippel Acres. In the 1980's, I purchased an acreage in Tumalo and landscaped it for wildlife. Early on, we had 15 to 20 deer on our place. In recent years, that number has dropped to six or eight. My neighbors have subdivided their properties in such a way as to block deer migration to the river. Our state land use system was setup to protect prime wildlife areas, but I have seen numerous examples where habitat has been developed, or migration routes blocked. Prior to the 1970's, we had numerous "Sagebrush" subdivisions developed followed by Destination Resorts. Also, individuals have filed law sults which, in some cases, have allowed them to develop their property. The upshot Is that when you drive south, west or north of Bend, you see ubiquitous development, or sprawl. I can recall driving from Bend to our large ranch near Sisters in the 1950's and seeing ten or twelve houses at the most. People will always think of a reason to develop wildlife habitat. In my opinion, you have been elected to protect a major resource, our wildlife. Please follow the recommendation of the planning commission. Charles Boyd 20160 Tumalo Rd. Bend, OR 97703 Dear Deschutes County Commissioners, November 20, 2017 I oppose weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes County because like most Oregonians, I see a healthy balance where wildlife can freely roam and coexist with Oregon's residents ---rural or otherwise. I'm appalled at the assertions of Land Watch, and quite frankly, what they are saying about the need for wildlife protections on the Shepherd's property is a bunch of bunk. The wildlife present on the property are in no way "stressed" on the Shepherd property off of Holmes Road. Wildlife abounds and roams freely on John's property. Unlike the road kill, cougar killed, and killed deer during hunting season in Oregon ---the deer on the Shepherd property are in good shape. I have been to the property a number of times in recent years, and I challenge anyone connected with Land Watch to go to the property and spend at least half a day there to observe the wildlife. I can't think of a finer example of a natural wildlife habitat than the beautiful landscaped area close to the Shepherd home, and the sagebrush rural area that covers most of the large 220 -plus acre property. You don't see deer deterrent fencing or anything of the sort on the property. In fact, what you see is a hospitable environment for all kinds of wildlife which criss-cross the property. This private ranch is a good demonstration of how one can truly live "one with nature"! As you may know, the home church met weekly in the Shepherd's private home. This is no different than having a weekly potluck for a community service or support group every Sunday, or having your bridge or poker group over on a weekly basis! Churches of all kinds meet weekly. Regarding the use of one's own private property for weddings in the warm months of summer in Central Oregon should have never been an issue. Whether the summer is used for a few weddings or a dozen, it should not matter. We are not talking about having large events five days a week where a carbon footprint could be left. I am urging you to allow a wildlife friendly landowner to exercise his first amendment rights, and with no restrictions. Should you decide to go with the enviro scare tactics of Land Watch or LUBA, I will help fund the legal effort along with countless others to overturn your denial of the Shepherd's first amendment rights. And I will never, ever give up. This nonsense by the county has got to stop. Sincerely, i From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Gutowsky Subject Fwd: Deschutes County"s Wildlife Zane Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:08:12 PM In service to our community- Talmny Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541)388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb(cddecchutes" www deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: <bfbfbrocker(Wgmail com> Date: November 16, 2017 at 8:18:44 PM PST To: <Tammy Ban yUd s l�e>, <TmY DeBQmadeschutes ore>, <Phil NendersonlWdeschutes.org> Subject: Deschutes County's Wildlife Zone Amendments Dear Commissioners, Please uphold the protections for the Metolius Deer Winter Range. Please don't allow one landowner to push individual gains against the Planning Commission's and the community's consensus not to weaken wildlife protections. Thank you for your service to our community. Barbara Brocker 5 Cedar Lane Sunriver From: Tammy Baney To: Peter GutMSky Subject Fwd: \Ndlife Area Teat Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:00:42 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney ( Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street Suite 200, OR 97701 taf�yb4d r h teG org I mmnY.des .hot c or Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Andrea Casey <andrea.casey(�icloud comms Date: November 19, 2017 at 6:01:11 PM PST To: Taw Baney(Wdecchntec ore, **Tony. D Bon deschutec org, **Phil.Hendercon(_()deechutec ore Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Commissioners Baney, DeBone and Henderson, I oppose amending the Deschutes County Wildlife Code because... Sent from my iPhone 20 November 2017 Bill Conklin 421 SW Blakely Ct., Bend, OR 97702 County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701 Thank you for your work as commissioners representing the interests of us in Deschutes County. I appreciate that you're decisions reflect on contentious issues, and that it is difficult to remain objective in the face of emotionally -charged and potentially expensive counter claims. I am writing in support of John Shepherd regarding the use of his private property for use as a small church and for outdoor weddings (during summer months). I believe that the Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW) concerns over negative mule deer disturbances by Mr. Shepherd's legitimate use of his property are grossly overstated. I am a trained wildlife biologist (Oregon State 1974) and avid outdoorsman. Mule deer are very adaptable and opportunistic creatures, easily adjusting to occasional disturbances like those suggested with John Shepherd's land use. It's worth noting that deer are primarily nocturnal, moving about during hours when there would not be weddings or other outdoor activities at the Shepherd's place. One has only to note the herds of deer roaming through Bend's flower beds and grazing the crab apple crops to witness their comfort with people and changing habitat. My educated guess regarding declining mule deer populations, the stated concern of COLW, has to do with general loss of habitat and human pressures due to the explosion of people in Deschutes County. While this phenomenon bears attention in land and wildlife stewardship, it certainly should not overshadow legitimate use of private property. A far better approach for legitimate concerns would be to engage landowners like the Shepherds in making favorable accommodation to the mule deer - like planting cover crops (crab apple trees?) and preserving secluded islands of bedding ground. I don't think lack of habitat is relevant considering the Shepherd's use of only two acres out of 220 acres for their activities! Regarding land use decisions in general, I highly support the default position of unfettered use by the land owner. Private property is the natural and necessary product of freedom. Government may only legitimately restrict that freedom for compelling public interests, like safety. In the case of Mr. Shepherd, I hope that you can broker an agreement that respects his full right to use of his land, while honoring the concerns of COLW. Crab apple trees are pretty cheap -? Respectfully, t � c. From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Support for John Shepherd Data: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:29:50 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb((7d s hot s or www.deschutes.ore Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From: Kelly Conklin <conklincrew7(Wgtnail com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 2:08:41 PM PST To: Phil Henderson(Wdeschutec org Ce: Tony.DeBone(o deschutes.ore Subject: Support for John Shepherd Dear Commissioners, Thank you very much for serving Deschutes County as our County Commissioners. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration for all the issues you face. I am writing in response to the issue that John Shepherd is facing regarding the use of his private property. I strongly support the individual's right to use their property as they desire. I believe it is extremely important to support private property owners and not allow the government to control how we use our property. Mr. Shepard should be able to use his property as he desires. He should be able to hold weddings or church services year round without any backlash from the government. Property ownership is part of the American dream and sets us apart from other nations. Please help preserve the American dream by supporting John Shepherd's individual rights as a property owner. I urge you to not set a poor precedent by putting animal rights above human rights. Thank you for your time and consideration. Once again, I plead with you to support John Shepherd's First Amendment rights and his religious freedoms without any restrictions imposed by the county. Respectfully, Kelly Conklin From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Fwd: Wildlife Area Text Amendment Dabs: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:53:22 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Sheet Suite 200 1 Bend -OR 97701 tammyb4deschutes.org I WWW deschutes.org Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Carolyn Cook <coo kooc(q,)yahoo.com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 4:40:29 PM PST To: "Tammv b�neyr(4deschutes.ore" <Tammy banQy(Wdesch tes.or >, "Tony D .Bon . Wrieschutes.org" <Toiry DeBone(Wdeschutes ore>, "Phil Henderson(�deschutes ore" <Pbil Henderson(W_ deschutes.ore> Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendment Commissioners Baney, DeBone and Henderson, I oppose amending the Deschutes County Wildlife Code because...I think we have already squeezed our wildlife out of enough of THEIR, rightful habitat; there is just too much greed in this town; Why are the city and county officials so determined to attract all and sundry to this region, changing the culture and sustainability of why we live here not to mention the effect it all has on our wildlife. Please consider them; they are already disappearing and we are not even talking about the effects of climate change. Thank you for your hopeful consideration in this matter. Carolyn Cook From: rammv Eanev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: TO WEAKEN ? Date: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:05:39 PM In service to our community- Tatmny Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb&deschutes org w^.=.w.deschutes org Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Filcich < I 897fatherUginail com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 9:07:10 AM PST To: Tat- my.BaneyUdecchutea ore Subject: TO WEAKEN ? Dear Comm: To weaken something already in place is to weaken our SELVES. Think that our! TOM FILCICH (vis'a'vis' the deer thing) From: Tammy Ba— To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Wldli(e Area TeA Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 201712:55:47 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb&deschutes.org www descbutes ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Larry Fizz < fizz g4vahoo.com> Date: November 18, 2017 at 10:00:10 PM PST To: "Tamm; BaneXUdecch t g.org" <Ta�mpy Ban .y(4deschutes.org>, "Tony, DeBone4deschutes.or " <Tony DeBone(Wdesclmtes ore>, "Phil Henderson&deschutes.org" <Pltil Henderson(�desclmt.,3- re> Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Reply -To: Larry Fizz <Ia_u3Jizz g yahoo com> Commissioners Baney, DeBone, and Henderson, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed wildlife area text amendments. I testified to the Deschutes County Planning Commission, via an 05 -October -2017 e-mail to Mr. Peter Gutowski, that I oppose amending the Deschutes County code to allow churches in the wildlife area because I believe that Central Oregon's wildlife needs our protection at this rather critical juncture. Others joined together in opposing the amendments, including the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended against changing the County's code to accommodate one landowner's private event venue. After much public testimony against changing the code, the Commission recommended that the code be strengthened to protect wildlife, and specifically prohibit other similar uses to include churches, wineries, agri-tourism, hunting lodges and other similar assemblies of people. The Planning Commission's recommendation reflected a public process where dozens of community members voiced their opposition to weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes County. Please be aware that I am not a resident of central Oregon but lived there for a year when my employer stationed me in Bend for a work assignment. I respectfully urge you to honor the public process and the Planning Commission's recommendation by denying the proposed text amendments. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Larry Fizz Pottstown, Pennsylvania HEATHER FORTUNE November 19, 2017 Dear Commissioner Ilenderson, I am writing, on behalf of John Shepherd and the land use restrictions imposed on his property. I do not know personally know John Shepherd; I have not been to his home church or attended a wedding on his property. I am aware of this ongoing legal battle. I did attend the hearing a fe,,v weeks ago. I found it very disconcerting that the hearing began with everyone expressing justified concern about the mentally ill and drug addicted having adequate food and housing this winter. At no time did anyone express any concern about Nor. Shepherd's financial prospects and whether or not lie was able to support his household; indeed, he and his family looked as if they were fallen on hard times. 'Much concern was expressed over the eating habits of the deer; whether they were getting adequate nutrition eating his lawn, possible interrup- tion of their migration, whether they were "stressed and terrified" by his occupation of his own property. No concerns were expressed about Mr. Shepherd's family or whether they were eating, getting adequate nutrition or whether he can keep his lights on. T grow tired of hearing about the deer. They are down among its because of the reasons put forth at the hearing (cougars not being allowed to be trapped and so ori) and this situation has been created by the very groups who are opposing Mr. Shepherd's use of his property. They don't even want him to use the two acres he is using out of 200 acres! This is an oppressive overreach. Choosing animal rights over property owner's rights sets a very dangerous precedence. My husband and I are possibly selling our property this spring. We will think twice about buying ill Deschutes County. As to the use of his home as a church with 20 congregants, I am aware of numerous other busi- ness concerns in the restricted area with much higher volume traffic. So this does seem to be a religious rights issue. As someone who hosts Bible studies in my home, I am offended on so many levels by this "cease and desist" order. With churches now becoming targets, it makes sense to have churches in homes which call be less easily targeted. I am concerned as a landowner in Deschutes County. If one of these groups opposing Mr. Sheherd's property rights decides that those "terrified and stressed" deer that come up on my porch and eat my flowers and tomatoes are being hindered in their migration, I might have to vacate in lieu of the deers' rights. I am concerned as a parent of a teen who sees religious rights being eroded daily. I am concerned at the callous disregard of the groups at the hearing about Mr. Shepherd and his family's wellbeing. I am concerned when I see two coun- ty commissioners (seated well above us) listening to a desperate man pleading his case, perhaps going rather long, exchanging exasperated glances. I would like to ask you to carefully consider this case. Sincerely) Heather Fortune. 81.67 17TH STREET • '1ERREBONNE OREGON 97760 HEATHER FORTI.7 ATE November 19, 2017 Dear Commissioner Bancy, I am writing on behalf of John Shepherd and the land use restrictions unposed on his property. I do not know personally know John Shepherd; I have not been to his home church or attended a wedding on his property. I am aware of this ongoing Iegal battle. 1 (lid attend the hearing a few weeks ago. I found it very disconcerting that the hearing began with everyone expressing justified concern about the mentally ill and drug addicted having adequate food and housing this winter. At no time did anyone express any concerti about Mr. Shepherd's financial prospects and whether or not he was able to support his household; indeed, he and his family looked as if they were fallen on hard times. Much concerti was expressed over the eating habits of the deer; whether they were getting adequate nutrition eating his lawn, possible interrup- tion of their migration, whether they were "stressed and terrified" by his occupation of his owti property. No concerns were expressed about Mr. Shepherd's family or whether they were eating, getting adequate nutrition or whether he can keep his lights on. I grow tired of hearing about the deer. They are down among us because of the reasons put forth at the hearing (cougars not being allowed to be trapped and so on) and this situation has been created by the very groups who are opposing Mr. Shepherd's use of his property. They don't even want him to use the two acres he is using out of 200 acres! This is an oppressive overreach. Choosing animal rights over property owner's rights sets a very dangerous precedence. My husband and I are possibly selling our property this spring. \k%e will think twice about buying in Deschutes County. As to the use of his home as a church with 20 congregants, I am aware of numerous other busi- ness concerns in the restricted area with much higher volume traffic. So this does seem to be a religious rights issue. As someone who hosts Bible studies in my home, I am offended oil so many levels by this "cease and desist" order. With churches now becoming targets, it makes sense to have churches in homes which can be less easily targeted. I am concerned as a landoRmer in Deschutes County. If one of these groups opposing \4r. Sheherd's property rights decides that those "terrified and stressed" deer that come up on my porch and cat my flowers and tomatoes are being hindered in their migration, I might have to vacate in lieu of the deers' rights. I am concerned as a parent of a teen who sees religious rights being eroded daily. I am concerned at the callous disregard of the groups at the hearing about Mr. Shepherd and his family's wellbeing. I am concerned when I see two coun- ty commissioners (seated well above us) listening to a desperate man pleading his case, perhaps going rather long, exchanging exasperated glances. I would like to ask you to carefully consider this case. Sincerel, 4-c-�,,4L/J 4v'-� Heather Fortune 8167 17TH STREET • TERRE13ONNE OREGON 97760 HEATI-IEP FORTLI NE November 19, 2017 Dear Commissioner DeBone, I am writing on behalf of John Shepherd and the land use restrictions imposed on his property. I do not know personally know John Shepherd; I have not been to his home church or attended a wedding on his property. I am aware of this ongoing legal battle. I did attend the hearing a few weeks ago. I found it very disconcerting that the hearing began with everyone expressing justified concern about the mentally ill and drug addicted having adequate food and housing this winter. At no time did anyone express any concern about Mr. Shepherd's financial prospects and whether or not he was able to support his household; indeed, he and his family looked as if they were fallen on hard times. Much concern was expressed over the eating habits of the deer; whether they were getting adequate nutrition eating his lawn, possible interrup- tion of their migration, whether they were "stressed and terrified" by his occupation of his own property. No concerns were expressed about Mr. Shepherd's family or whether they were eating, getting adequate nutrition or whether he can keep his lights on. I grow tired of hearing about the deer. They are down among us because of the reasons put forth at the hearing (cougars not being allowed to be trapped and so on) and this situation has been created by the very groups who are opposing Mr. Shepherd's use of his property. They don't even want him to use the two acres he is using out of 200 acres! This is an oppressive overreach. Choosing animal rights over property owner's rights sets a very dangerous precedence. My husband and I are possibly selling our property this spring. We will think twice about buying in Deschutes County. As to the use of his home as a church with 20 congregants, I am aware of numerous other busi- ness concerns in the restricted area with much higher volume traffic. So this does seem to be a religious rights issue. As someone who hosts Bible studies in my home, I am offended on so many levels by this "cease and desist" order. With churches now becoming targets, it makes sense to have churches in homes which can be less easily targeted. I am concerned as a landowner in Deschutes ounty. If one of these groups opposing Mr. Shelierd's property rights decides that those "terrified and stressed" deer that come up on my porch and eat my flowers and tomatoes are being hindered in their migration, I might have to vacate in lieu of the deers' rights. I am concerned as a parent of a teen who sees religious rights being eroded daily. I am concerned at the callous disregard of the groups at the hearing about Mr. Shepherd and his family's wellbeing I am concerned when I see two coun- ty commissioners (seated well above us) listening to a desperate man pleading his case, perhaps going rather long, exchanging exasperated glances. I would like to ask you to carefully consider this case. Sincerely, Heather Fortune 81.67 17TH STREET • TERR 'BONNE OREGON 97760 11/18/17 To whom it may concern: I am writing to ask you to make sure our right to have churches in our home is protected. It is a fundamen- tal right; one upon which our country is founded. I am asking you to rule in favor of the landowner's right to use his property to meet to worship, to make a living and to live peacefully without undue harrassment from special intest groups with deep pockets. These rules and laws which are so easily put in place are much more difficult to disentangle. Please protect my right to freedom of religious rights, and the future generation's rights. This is about John Shepherd and his right to have a home church. And about my son growing up in a country that is free of over -regulation by those elected to represent us. Thank you for representing us well. John Fortune �` Peter Gutowsky Subject: FW: public comment on wildlife zone -----Original Message ----- From: Nunzie [mailto:nunzie@pacifier.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:20 AM To: Board <board@co.deschutes.or.us> Subject: public comment on wildlife zone Hello Commissioners: It is important to not allow noise and people gathering events in the wildlife zone. These types of human intrusions fragment and stress wildlife. Please do not change the Wildlife Zone to allow noise and people gathering events such as churches. Deschutes County wildlife protections keep wildlife habitat in a combining zone and reserved for wildlife and away from human encroachment. Your planning commission voted wisely to not allow churches in the wildlife zone. Please respect the public process and keep wildlife zones for wildlife not churches. You are familiar with simple mantras like don't disturb wildlife, don't feed wildlife, don't stress wildlife... these are for the benefit of wildlife. Keep the mantra: no churches in wildlife zones. Thank you Nunzie Gould From: Tammy 13— T.: Peter Gutowskv Subimt: rwd: Wildlife Area Teat Amendments D.W: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:17:57 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street. Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tame a)desclmtes.ore I www.deschutes.ora Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Megan Gram <mecam m g tnnail.com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 11:10:29 AM PST To: Tammy Barley <Tammy Baney((4dec h ,t c or >, Tony DeBone <TonY.DeBone(Wdesclmtes ore>, Phil.Henderson4deschutes.org Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Commissioners Barley, DeBone and Henderson, I oppose amending the Deschutes County Wildlife Code because I'm concerned about our dwindling mule deer population and how quickly the habitat for our native wildlife is disappearing. Allowing yet another for profit business to come in to our community (which strongly values wildlife and it's habitat) and destroy mule deer and other wildlife habitat for profit sets a bad precedent and continues to send the message to developers that Bend is open for business without regard to the protection of our natural resources. Please consider the voices of those who have spoken out against this weakening of our wildlife protections in favor of profit and those who do not have a voice, but who will be impacted most by this decision. Central Oregon deserves better. We must protect those who cannot protect themselves and we must protect what is closest to the hearts of many Central Oregonians, wildlife, instead of making it easier for someone who recently moved to the area to make a quick buck. Please vote to strengthen wildlife protections by honoring public process and adopting the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Thank you, Megan Gram From: Tammy Ea— To: Peter Gutowsky Subject Fwd: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 201712:09:14 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney ( Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11100 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb n.deschutes.org I www.deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Kermit Williams <kennit.dmma(Wgmail.ccm> Date: November 17, 2017 at 12:56:33 PM PST To: Ta- mmy.Baney4deschutes.org, Tonv.DeBonendeschutes org, Phil.HendersonUdegebuteg.org Ce: Kermit and Donna <kermit.donna&Wnail.com> Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Dear Commissioners Baney, DeBone, and Henderson Thank you for the opportunity to comment again on the proposed wildlife area text amendments. On Sept. 28, 2017, I testified to the Deschutes Co. Planning Commission that I oppose amending the Deschutes Co. code to allow churches in the wildlife areas set aside for our mule deer winter ranges which includes the Metolius, Tumalo, and North Paulina districts. Asa member and volunteer of Protect Animal Migration (PAM), a citizens' advocacy group for education and outreach supporting protections of animal migration corridors, especially of our mule deer, Iran strongly opposed to weakening any protections for our dwindling mule deer population in Central Oregon. PAM has sought advice and facts about our mule deer from wildlife biologists at ODFW and ODOT, from the Oregon Hunters Asso., from professors of natural resources at COCC and OSU- Cascades, and from conservation groups such as die Bitterbmsh Broads chapter of the Great Old Broads for Wilderness. They all agree that despite management, the mule deer populations in Central Oregon have shrunk by 55% since the 1960's, and the main contributing factors are loss of habitat and stress from ever increasing exposure to more roads and development, mountain bikers, ATV 's, and bikers with unleased pets. All these activities have adverse impacts on our wildlife, esp. mule deer, within their summer and winter ranges, and migration corridors. Heavy traffic on south Hwy. 97 towards Sunriver have forced changes in mule deer migration routes, causing them to migrate towards Bend to spend the winter. Obviously, the city is not anywhere ideal as a winter range. Thus, there are few designated winter ranges set aside to offer protection for mule deer with hiding places, forage, and thermal cover needed to survive winters. The statistics that I gather yearly for PAM from ODOT, the city of Bend, and Deschutes Co. Road Dept. for animal vehicle collisions reveal startling numbers of over 1000 deer killed yearly in Deschutes Co. This slaughter added to fragmentation of habitat will continue to endanger mule deer populations. We should not and cannot continue to ignore these impacts because soon we will reach a tipping point where the populations of mule deer will not recover. The Planning Commission unanimously recotmnended against changing the County code to accommodate one landowner's private event venue. Over 30 public testimonies were against changing the code, and the Commission recommended that the code be strengthened to protect wildlife, and specifically prohibit other similar uses including churches, wineries, agri-tourism, hunting lodges, and similar assemblies of groups of people. As a member of the community, which voiced their opposition to weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes Co., I respectfully urge you to honor the public process and the Planning Commission's recommendation by denying the proposed text amendments. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Donna Harris D.V.M. 55785 Lost Rider Loop Bend, Or. 97707 Tim Hitson PO Box 2211 Terrebonne, Oregon Nov. 16, 2017 Dear Commissioner Baney, I am writing to express my concern about what seems like the erosion of landowner's rights in Deschutes County. I own a number of properties in Central Oregon. When I hear of what is happening to John Shepherd it gives me serious doubts about owning property in Deschutes County. I do not know John Shepherd, but I do not think we can lay the responsibility of the deer population issues at his door. He has a right to run a business or a church or whatever else he chooses. It is his property. Deschutes County is becoming more densely populated. I don't think that is John Shepherd's fault. I have concerns over the environmental groups promoting animal rights and thereby usurping owner rights. As far as having a small home church, or a big home church, the man has 200 acres. There is a law against discriminating against churches in Deschutes County. So let the man have a church! Thanks for your attention to this matter. Property owners should not have to defend themselves in court for five years against environmental groups and personally bankrupt themselves to use their property as they choose. And religous rights! Please weigh in favor of religious rights. Sincerely 14� //e , L Timothy Hitson Tim Hitson PO Box 2211 Terrebonne, Oregon Nov. 16, 2017 Dear Commissioner DeBone, I am writing to express my concern about what seems like the erosion of landowner's rights in DeschutesCounty. I own a number of properties in Central Oregon. When I hear of what is happening to John Shepherd it gives me serious doubts about owning property in Deschutes County. I do not know John Shepherd, but I do not think we can lay the responsibility of the deer population issues at his door. He has a right to run a business or a church or whatever else he chooses. It is his property. Deschutes County is becoming more densely populated. I don't think that is John Shepherd's fault. I have concerns over the environmental groups promoting animal rights and thereby usurping owner rights. As far as having a small home church, or a big home church, the man has 200 acres. There is a law against discriminating against churches in Deschutes County. So let the man have a church! Thanks for your attention to this matter. Property owners should not have to defend themselves in court for five years against environmental groups and personally bankrupt themselves to use their property as they choose. And religous rights! Please weigh in favor of religious rights. Sincerely Timothy Hitson Tim Hitson PO Box 2211 Terrebonne, Oregon Nov. 16, 2017 Dear Commissioner Henderson, 1 am writing to express my concern about what seems like the erosion of landowner's rights in Deschutes County. I own a number of properties in Central Oregon. When I hear of what is happening to John Shepherd it gives me serious doubts about owning property in Deschutes County. I do not know John Shepherd, but I do not think we can lay the responsibility of the deer population issues at his door. He has a right to run a business or a church or whatever else he chooses. It is his property. Deschutes County is becoming more densely populated. I don't think that is John Shepherd's fault. I have concerns over the environmental groups promoting animal rights and thereby usurping owner rights. As far as having a small home church, or a big home church, the man has 200 acres. There is a law against discriminating against churches in Deschutes County. So let the man have a church! Thanks for your attention to this matter. Property owners should not have to defend themselves in court for five years against environmental groups and personally bankrupt themselves to use their property as they choose. And religous rights! Please weigh in favor of religious rights. Sincerely Timothy Hitson From: Tammy 8— To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Fwd: Wildlife Area Te# Amendments Data: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:20:52 PM In service to our community - Tammy Haney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-656711100 NW Wall Street. Suite 200 1 Bend. OR 97701 tanunybUdescluites.org I www .deschutes org Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Terry Humphrey <taos ymail com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 2:11:59 PM PST To: Tammy.Baney4deschutcs org, Ton;.DeBone(Wdeechutee org, Phil.Hendergon(a)d sch r es or Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Cormnissioners Baney, DeBone and Henderson, I strongly oppose amending the Deschutes County Wildlife Code. Allowing churches to operate for-profit venues is a dangerous precedent. The critical deer winter range was established for good reason. Don't allow this single interest organization to improperly invade the minimal habitat that we have left! From: Tammv Banev To: Peter rtmskv Subject: Fwd: Wildlife area amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:04:28 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney ( Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend. OR 97701 tammy] )deschutes.org www.descbutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: LeeAnn Kriegh <krieghl4gjTaJ1.com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 8:18:39 AM PST To: Tammy Ban y(p4deschutes.org, TonyDeBone((�sclmtecorg, Phil Henderson(Wdeschutes.org Subject: Wildlife area amendments Commissioners, Thank you for serving the county. I am concerned that it appears you may override the Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation — which I strongly supported — and instead choose to weaken wildlife protections. To do so is to ignore the public process and do further ]tarn to area wildlife that are valuable economically and ecologically. Right now, as deer populations are dwindling is the absolute wrong time to snake changes that worsen their chances at survival. It appears to me that the county is being bullied by a special interest that is threatening a lawsuit. Giving in to them will lead to more like thein. What's next, and where will you draw the line? Right now, churches aren't allowed in the Winter Range—that's not religious discrimination; it's about protecting habitat. Further, the "church" is seeking to operate as a for-profit entity, which surely points to their real monetary motivations. Other arguments being made by the church make even less sense. They say the proposed events will take place in the sutmner, but deer and other wildlife migrate through and reside in the space year-round. It makes no difference to a mule deer whether its habitat is degraded in the winter or summer months. There is plenty of space in the county for a wedding venue or church to operate. Deer winter range only accounts for a small fraction of county land and is considered critical habitat. Churches can be moved; the winter range cannot. Please stand strong and do not be bullied into making an exception that will harm wlldlife and no doubt lead to more appeals by others to do the same. Sincerely, L eeAnn Kriegh From: Tammy Raney To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Fwd: DO NOT WEAKEN the Wldlife Area Text Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:04:05 PM Attachments: 20030213 Sheoherd STATUTORY SPECIAL WARRANTY DEE ATT00001.htm 20070814 Sheoltgrdsfield LLC An des of Oroan at on SOS ATT00002 htm ntLI7L16 : In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541)388-6567 ( 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 2001 Bend. OR 97701 taminybUdeschutes oreI www deschutes ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "William Kuhn" <William((4RiskFactor com> To: "Tammy Baney" <Tamm: Baney�deschntee org>, "Tony DeBone" <Tny o.D on (g deschutes ore>, "Phil Henderson" <Phil BendersonUdeschutes org> Cc: "_william()RiskFactor.com" <william(o)RiskFactor com> Subject: DO NOT WEAKEN the Wildlife Area Text Amendments Maybe Deschutes Count)' needs new attorneys who are willing to stand up against those who don't follow county code. When it comes time to enforce wildlife habitat restrictions, my wife and I realized that Deschutes Count)' has a hard time enforcing the intent of its own county code. The purpose and intent of the wildlife habitat restrictions is to limit human activity within that area designated as Wildlife Area Combining Zone. Since 1900 the world human population has doubled. It then doubled again, and it is now on its way to doubling a third time. In mathematical terms that is called exponential growth. During the same time period -- around the world wildlife habitat has shrunk by an even greater inverse factor. The more humans there are the less room there is for our wildlife. The property in question that was the cause of this text amendment — was in the \V ildlife Area Combining Zone when the property was purchased. We presume the new owners did their due diligence when they purchased. The Statutory Special Warranty Deed of the property owner who is a the crux of this text amendment idea, makes it clear, that the purchaser is responsible for knowing what the restrictions are before the)' buy. So I ask, What was the intent of the purchaser of the property? Was there a premeditated intent to violate the land use restriction? I ask that question specifically because that was the intent of those who bought property next to us. I reference my wife's and my struggle which was made worse by the County -- Please see xvww.A-\\'ayForward com for further information. From the testimony recently given by the offending property owner who declared he was upset with his chickens being killed, maybe he should find property outside the wildlife area combining zone so he doesn't have to worry about the wildlife and the wildlife restrictions. For me to be as fair as possible to both sides of this argument I asked my ordained minister brother for a religious or spiritual perspective his response. The proper spiritual argument is to follow Christian Gospel, that gospel declares God as Creator of all creation that gospel gives human beings the responsibility to care for and be stewards of that creation, then doesn't that include all creatures great and small. So I ask you -- for God's sake, pass a text amendment that increases the protections of wildlife habitat. Surely all Christians would want that. Native Americans and in particular the traditional Mohawk, Iroquois, Ottawa, along with many other councils use this criterion: Does a particular decision benefit the whole, in the short-term and for seven generations to come? William Kuhn INVEST/O - Registered Investment Advisors PO Box 5996 Bend, OR 97708-5996 591 "1 3676 William@Risk"otor.com "Illegitimi n carborundum" - refers to the continuing acts of Deschutes County See www.A-WsyForward.com for why. "First, they ignore you, Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Mahatma Gandhi CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE- The information contained in this electronic mail transmission, including all attachments, is confidential and may not be shared or forwarded without authorization of the sender and, if so authorized, may not be shared or forwarded without this Notice. This transmission is intended solely for the individual n med above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination or unauthorized use of thisatransmi ss ion is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission, and then delete it from your computer and network. 20030213 Shepherd STATUTORY SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED.pdf Cl) After recording return to: John H. Shepherd 19411 Dayton Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address; John H. Shepherd 19411 Dayton Rd. Bend, OR 97701 File No., 7066-99327 (CW) \ Date. February 04, 2003 FIRST AMERICAN I ITL . INSURANCE COMPANY OF OREGON P'O' BOX 323 NAHCYUBLANKENSHIP, CICIAL RICORDS OUNTY CLERK 2003.10319 I I I II II I lIII I I III 111 $41,00 0211312003 12;22023 Pit D»D Cnt®1 Stn®2 ,TEFF $15.00 $11.00 $10.00 $5.00 RFND. OR 97700 STATUTORY SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED Mt. Tipton Development, LLC, Grantor, conveys and specially warrants to Sohn H. Shepherd and Stephanie 3. Shepherd, the following described real property free of liens and encumbrances created or suffered by the Grantor, except as specifically set forth herein: legal description attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof This property is free from liens and'` encumbrances, EXCEPT: The true consideration for this conveyance Is $329,550.00. Page I of 2 lit:C;GnpU) try r -1116Y AM1-i11QAN'Il11:C INFaURANCE COMPANY Of OR -(•ION A`; At ACCOMOOK''C N ONLY. NO LIABILITY 1S r rc;E�1 F:t) t CH -1 -HE COND11ION OF "11111 Stf(=f;tC1i'NCY, Olt "(4Il•`31'10CUME►SIT. APN: 160620 Statutory Special Warranty Heed File No.: 7066-99327 (CW) - continued Date: 02/04/2003 Mt. Tipton Development, LLC 6y: Thre tis rs Dev. Co., Inc., Mem im Larkin, U.P. OFFICIAL SEAL DANIELLE KINYON i NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON STATE OF Oregon) COMMISSION NO. 351845 )55. M cOMMISSION EXPIRES JAN.20 20M County of Deschutes ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of _� � ` , 20' by as Tim Larkin, V.P. of Three Sisters Dev. Co., c., i r Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: / - 2-6 - 0 t Page 2 of 2 Legal Description Township Fourteen (14) South, Range Eleven (11), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Section 1: That portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (S W '/4 SS_, '/4) lying South of Holmes Road, and that portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE 1/4 SW V4) lying South of Holmes Road, Section 12: That portion of the Northeast Quarter (NE '/4) lying South of Holmes Road and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE 1/4 NW 1/4)s Township Fourteen (14) South, Range Twelve (12), East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, Section 7: That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW '/4 NW 1/4) lying Southerly of Holmes Road. 160620 14 11 0000 00103 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION aF Corporation Division www.filinainoregon.com REGISTRY NUMBER 45694593 k i'/ = E -FILED Aug 14, 2007 OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE ?0070814 Shepherdsfield LLC Articles of Organization SOS - : orporation - Business Entity Filing Records - 45694593.pdf DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1. ENTITY NAME SHEPHERDSFIELD LLC 2. MAILING ADDRESS 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 3. NAME & ADDRESS OF REGISTERED AGENT JOHN SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 4. ORGANIZERS JOHN SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 5. MEMBERS/MANAGERS MEMBER STEPHANIE SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 6. DURATION PERPETUAL 7. MANAGEMENT This Limited Liability Company will be member -managed by one or more members Page 1 �.,. Corporation Division "3 www.filinainoregon.com 20070814 Shepherdsfield LLC Articles of Organization SOS - :.orporation - Business Entity Filing Records - 45694593.pdf OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE By my signature, I declare as an authorized authority, that this filing has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete. Making false statements in this document is against the law and may be penalized by fines, imprisonment, or both. By typing my name in the electronic signature field, I am agreeing to conduct business electronically with the State of Oregon. I understand that transactions and/or signatures in records may not be denied legal effect solely because they are conducted, executed, or prepared in electronic form and that if a law requires a record or signature to be in writing, an electronic record or signature satisfies that requirement. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE JOHN SHEPHERD Page 2 20140915 Shepherd hosts wedding gets fined Published Sept. 15, 2014 at 12:01AM Wedding hosts near Sisters get fined Deschutes County couple seek approval for weddings while receiving citations John Shepherd, center, conducts a wedding rehearsal on his property at Shepherdsfield, near Sisters in 2014. A court ruling Wednesday deals a blow to the attempt of Shepherd and his wife, Stephanie, to gain approval to hold weddings on the site. (Andy Tullis / bulletin file photo) 2897778 By Ted Shorack The Bulletin A permit tug of war has continued to play out this summer for a Sisters -area couple who has been fined more than $2,000 for hosting weddings on their 216 -acre property. Deschutes County code enforcement officials have given out five citations to John and Stephanie Shepherd this summer because their land is zoned exclusively for farming. They've held approximately 18 weddings on the property this summer, a violation of county ordinances. John Laherty, an attorney with the county, said the couple was told in 2013 they needed the necessary permits in order to continue. The Shepherds have sought approval for their wedding venue for about three years and say the county's actions have become abusive. It's not the first time the issue has come up: Weddings and commercial events on agricultural land have been a routine issue for the county since 2008, with some landowners giving up on the process. In 2010, Kelly Brown of Redmond chose to stop holding weddings at her Flying Diamond Ranch to limit legal penalties from the county. The Shepherds first held weddings on their property in 2011 for members of the church congregation that meets in their home with John Shepherd as pastor. Today, he officiates about half of the weddings on his property. Wedding parties pay about $1,500 to use the property. Applications for event permits on farmland poured into the county's community development department in 2012 as the economy improved. County commissioners approved an agritourism and commercial event ordinance in response, allowing some landowners to use their property for events. The couple applied in 2012 for a permit through the newly approved agritourism and commercial event ordinance, but say they were told it wasn't applicable for their property. They went another route and sought permitting for 2 acres of their property for use as a private park. That application was initially rejected because wedding events weren't considered recreational. After reworking the permit two more times to try and gain approval from the county, the Shepherds estimate they've spent about $15,000 in fees. Nick Lelack, community development director, said the county is working with the Shepherds to resolve the discrepancies. "We're putting a lot of resources in cooperation with Mr. Shepherd and working on his application," said Lelack. "We're hopeful that all the issues can be addressed and then we can move forward." Lelack said private park applications are somewhat rare for Deschutes County. CADocs\prop65575\DesCoCode\_WA needs protection\Churches in WA\20140915 Shepherd hosts wedding gets fined.docx page 1 2017-10-30 "We only had one previous application for a private park, for a commercial wedding reception in 1990," he said. With wedding contracts established far in advance, the Shepherds continue to have events on their property while their fourth permit application awaits a yet -to -be -determined final decision by county commissioners. The Shepherds have submitted additional requested materials since August while a wildlife biologist with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is scheduled to inspect the site as well. "We would comply if we could," said Stephanie Shepherd. "We can't. We're stuck. They're working very hard with these citations to get us into compliance, but they also know at the same time that there's nothing we can do about it." "I'm feeling bullied by my government," John Shepherd said. The county has filed an injunction in Deschutes County Circuit Court seeking to halt 2015 weddings on the property. Laherty said the county has no choice but to seek judicial relief. "The county tried to work out a resolution of this so that (Shepherd) would agree to not have any of these commercial wedding events without the necessary permits," Laherty said. John Shepherd said the couple has stopped advertising for 2015 and has told brides they can't host future weddings there. Deschutes County commissioners said in May that the county would not actively block weddings on the Shepherd property, but the county's legal counsel said any complaints would have to be followed up with code enforcement fines. Laherty said the county received a written complaint with concerns about the number of weddings that were to be held on the property this summer. Wedding contracts for 2014 were submitted to the county by the Shepherds last year during the ongoing permit application. County code enforcement officials and Deschutes County Sheriff's Office deputies came out to the property on five occasions to cite the couple. Laherty said in order for a citation to be given, the county has to have officials on hand to observe the events, but the Shepherds say guests have begun to complain about law enforcement presence. The Shepherds' property is bordered by the Bureau of Land Management on one side and Holmes Road on the other, near Terrebonne. Stephanie Shepherd said they're careful to wrap up receptions by 10 p.m. and adhere to the noise ordinance. The couple has court dates in October for the citations. In the meantime, John Shepherd said it cost $252 to submit a response to the injunction filed by the county. "We're doing everything we can to comply," he said. "We are waiting for them. They are taking a long time doing this. While they are dragging their feet, we are being issued citations. That's just not fair." John Shepherd estimates that 18 weddings each summer translates into about $1 million in revenue for the local economy. Up to 2,000 guests each year stay in hotels, buy meals, hire caterers, use local florists and rental companies, he said, creating jobs for county residents. The Shepherds say they're hopeful their application will eventually be approved, but say the process shouldn't be so burdensome. "If we don't get through, maybe we'll make a small dent for somebody else who is trying," said Stephanie Shepherd. "If we succeed," John Shepherd said, "we will have paved the way for other people to create private parks and do more with their land." Reporter: 541-617-7820, tshorackAbendbulletin.com CADocs\prop65575\DesCoCode\_WA needs protection\Churches in WA\20140915 Shepherd hosts wedding gets fned.docx page 2 2017-10-30 20171023 Bulletin Protect wildlife or allow church which attracts people into the wildlife zone Published Oct. 23, 2017 at 10:01PM Deschutes County balances religious freedom, deer populations Legal challenge mounted by county resident could lead to federal lawsuit John Shepherd stands against the archway he built for hosting wedding ceremonies at his venue, Shepherdsfield, outside Sisters on Thursday, October 19, 2017. Shepherd is also pastor at his home church and officiant during the wedding ceremonies he hosts. (Joe Kline/Bulletin photo) 6812212 The deckoulside John Shepherds home where he hosts e,ents such as reception droners at his Shephe[ds(ield. outside Sisters on Thursday. CGtooer th. 2017. (.toe Klins!Bulletin photo; Stephen Hamway for The Bulletin @Shamwayl church that hosts weddings and other events, was in violation of a Deschutes County provision designed to protect mule deer and other wildlife. Three years later, however, that provision has trapped Deschutes County between a rock and a hard place. County planners are pursuing a code amendment that would remove churches from the list of buildings prohibited in a portion of the county zoned to protect wildlife, which could help protect Deschutes County from costly federal lawsuits based on a perceived violation of religious freedom. "C'mon, our First Amendment rights are kind of important," Shepherd said. "That's what separates us from Third World dictatorships." However, environmental groups have indicated they could challenge the amendment if it's adopted, in order to protect Deschutes County's increasingly vulnerable mule deer population. "They've been declining for too long, they're under stress in this range anyway," said Carol MacBeth, attorney for Central Oregon LandWatch, during a hearing on the proposed amendment. The situation has been brewing for a while. Shepherd, who has been a nondenominational pastor for around 40 years, began holding church services from his 216 -acre property outside of Sisters in 1999, and said the weddings began as an outgrowth of the church's work. Today, a large arch used during weddings overlooks the valleys and buttes of the High Desert outside Sisters. "It went so smoothly I thought I could open this up to the public and bless people with an affordable place to get married," Shepherd said. Shepherd held weddings and other events at his home on a semi -regular basis until the county notified him of a code violation three years ago, stating that the operation was taking place in the Metolius Winter Range, where churches are prohibited, alongside other uses, including schools A k 1 SISTERS In 2014, John Shepherd received some an og enne s. surprising news. Shepherdsfield, his nonprofit C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\_WA needs protection\Churches in WA\20171023 Bulletin Protect wildlife or allow church which attracts people into the wildlife zone.docx page 1 2017-10-29 Since that time, Shepherd has spent around $10,000 on a wedding permit and hearings officer fees in order to make the church compliant with the county's code. In 2016, after the county approved a permit, Central Oregon LandWatch appealed the decision, arguing that county code prohibits churches in the wildlife zone. Later that year, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals overturned the permit. However, the county's planning commission recognized that prohibiting churches while permitting agritourism operations, including wine tastings and farm tours, could leave it vulnerable to a lawsuit based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The federal law, signed by President Bill Clinton in 2000, protects religious houses of worship from discrimination in zoning and other land use ordinances. Shepherd said allowing buildings like hunting lodges and storage units, which might have a similar impact on deer, while prohibiting churches is a clear violation of the law. He added that he's working with a Michigan-based lawyer who specializes in religious freedom cases, and is prepared to file a lawsuit if the county doesn't allow him to continue holding church services on his property. "Any federal lawsuit is very expensive for the county," Shepherd said. Still, MacBeth added that she thought a lawsuit based on the federal law would have around a 5 percent chance of success. Central Oregon LandWatch is pushing for the county to add an explicit statement prohibiting assemblies and membership organizations in the deer winter range. Allowing churches just to accommodate a potential lawsuit would be counter-productive, and could harm already declining deer populations in the area, MacBeth added. "It's not anything about any religion, it's just about gathering places," she said. Corey Heath, biologist for the Deschutes district of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the department estimates that 5,748 mule deer live in the Metolius range, a significant decline from population totals in the 1970s and earlier. While deer populations wax and wane naturally in Central Oregon, Heath said a growing number of residents in the region, among other factors, makes it difficult for the species to get back on track. "It gets harder and harder (for the species) to recover," Heath said. He added that buildings that receive a lot of traffic, including churches, can destroy habitat and displace populations of mule deer and other large animals. "Our concerns are not with any one type of development," Heath said. "We're concerned with the long-term success of the species." In the meantime, county officials are looking for a solution that balances religious freedom concerns with concerns about deer habitat, according to Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County's planning manager. Earlier this month, the county's planning commission recommended that the county retain its prohibition on churches and other religious buildings in the Metolius wildlife zone. The Deschutes County Commission will deliberate on the issue at a date yet to be determined. "We're recognizing through the amendment process that a lot of people are affected by this," Gutowsky said. — Reporter: 541-617-7818, shamwgygbendbulletin.com C:\Docs\prop65575\DesCoCode\_WA needs protection\Churches in WA\20171023 Bulletin Protect wildlife or allow church which attracts people into the wildlife zone.docx page 2 2017-10-29 From: Tammv Benev To: Peter Gutmskv Subject: Fwd: Shepherds field church Det.: Wedrwsday, November 22, 2017 2:25:02 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend OR 97701 uumnyb 4 deschutes.org I wvnv deschutes.ore Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From: "DWLee" <dw1ee333n9mai1 com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 8:57:08 AM PST To: <Tammv Ban yQd s hist>, <Tonv DeBone(Wdec hnt Sorg>, <Phil Hendercon(ildeschutes.org> Subject: Shepherds field church Monday Nov. 20, 2017 To the Deschutes County Commissioners, The Shepherds and Shepherd's Field Church have over complied with the spirit of the wishes of Oregon Land Watch in providing for deer on their property. A Home Church Bible study does not provide much traffic. Deer in my yard simply walk away; they are not stressed at all. This is their private property. It Is wrong that there even has been a complaint filed. Please remember that this is private property, not public land, and that the deer have the freedom to migrate over the 1.8 million acres of the Deschutes National Forest land. Two acres of private land, regardless of how It is used, will have no effect upon the deer because they have access to the nearby 1.8 million acres of national forest land. The Shepherds' religious freedom and property rights must be upheld by allowing them to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the way they choose as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Most Sincerely, Steven & Deborah Lee Bend, Oregon From: Tamm, Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Wltllife Area Text Amendments Data: Wednesday, November 22, 201712:58:31 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-656711300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend OR 97701 tatniLlyb4deschutes ore I www.desch t - .or Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: KAREN LILLEBO <klilleha4msn com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 3:34:31 PM PST To: "Talnmv.Baney(a cdeschutee ore" <Ta- mt my Baney(Wdecchutec ore>, "Touy.DeBone(Wdeschutee ore" <ToUYDeBone(r&,decchutec or¢>, "Phil.Henderson(Wdeschutes " <phil Henderson(a)d s hnt _ org> Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Commissioners Baney, DeBone and Henderson, I oppose amending the Deschutes County Wildlife Code because mule deer are protected by Land Use Planning Goal 5. Making an exception to this goal can lead to other Goal 5 -protected resources, such as wetlands and riparian areas, being compromised. In addition, wildlife -related activities are an important part of Deschutes County's economy. We don't need to expedite the loss of habitat, and this revenue, by allowing commercial event venues in the winter range. Please honor the public process and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission to strengthen wildlife protections in Deschutes County. Sincerely, Karen Lillebo From: Bill Littlefield To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Ammdendments Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 8:45:50 PM Attachments: Deschutes Cnty Comm fr OHA - WA Zone.odf ATT00001.htm Peter, I hope the public record is still open. The Oregon Hunters Association would like to weigh in and have our position added to the record. Please find attached our letter opposing changing to the WA Combining Zone regulations. Kind regards, Bill Littlefield OHA Bend Chapter President 541-429-2950 bvlittlefield&b endcable. com www.oregonhunters.org OREGON HUNTERS ASSOCIATION Helping Wildlife — Enhancing Habitat— Protecting Our Hunting Heritage To: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Regarding: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments Date: November 8th, 2017 Dear Mr. Gutowsky, It has been brought to our attention that the county commission is considering amendments to the wildlife area combining zone as a result of pressure from a few. I hope the public record is still open. The Oregon Hunters Association would like to go on record in opposition to changes to the wildlife area combining zone regulations and restrictions. We do not want to see the current regulations modified or softened to allow additional development or higher use in critical deer habitat areas. As I'm sure you and the rest of the commission and staff realize, the mule deer and big game in general have been suffering here in Central Oregon for a few decades. One of the big impacts causing this, that we should be able to control, is loss of their habitat. Unfortunately, there has been a slow and steady degradation and depletion of deer habitat in the region. When this happens in winter range, deer mortality goes up and in the tougher winters it goes up substantially. It is important to protect the remaining winter range in order to give the mule deer a fighting chance. Increased use and development puts added pressures on the deer population that they just can't tolerate during our central Oregon winters. The Oregon Hunters association (OHA) is a large conservation group of over 10,000 members in Oregon. OHA was started over 25 years ago right here in central Oregon. OHA membership in central Oregon alone is nearly 1,500. We volunteer our time, equipment, and skills to protecting the big game and their habitat. We are not opposed to all development, but we are opposed to development, or changes in regulations, that will have an impact on our wildlife populations. Softening the regulations in the winter range area will only speed up the demise of our remaining deer herds that are not even 50% of what they used to be. Please oppose changes in regulation. Kind regards, Bill Littlefield Oregon Hunters Association Bend Chapter President 541-4290-2950 bvlittlefield@bendcable.com From: Tammy Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Do not allow churches in deer winter range Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:03:17 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street. Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammybgdeschutes.org I www deschutes ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: miehe<michemekav(&gmail.com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 11:27:08 PM PST To: Tammy Ban y(gdeschutes.ore, Tony.DeBone(ldesebutes.org, Phil HendersortUdeschutes.org Subject: Do not allow churches in deer winter range Deschutes County Commissioners: Please do not allow churches in deer winter range. • Our deer population is dwindling and it is more important than ever to protect habitat from disruption and degradation. . Allowing churches in the winter range sets a dangerous precedent for wildlife and could quickly erode wildlife habitat protections. . Mule deer are protected by Land Use Planning Goal 5. Making an exception to this goal can lead to other Goal 5 -protected resources, such as wetlands and riparian areas, being compromised. . Wildlife -related activities are an important part of Deschutes County's economy. Don't expedite the loss of habitat, and this revenue, by allowing commercial event venues in the winter range. . Even though the proposed events are to take place in the summer, deer and other wildlife migrate through and reside in the space year-round. It makes no difference to a mule deer whether its habitat is degraded in the winter or summer months. . There is plenty of other space in the county for a wedding venue or church to operate. Deer winter range only accounts for a small fraction of Deschutes County land and is considered critical habitat. Churches can be moved, the winter range cannot. • It is unacceptable for the county to amend its wildlife code to accotmnodate the for-profit ventures of individuals. County codes and wildlife protections are a service to the public. This proposed code amendment does a disservice to the public and our natural resources for the benefit of a for-profit event venue. . The county should stand to defend and protect critical habitat. Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to comment. Michele McKay Bend, OR From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Fwd: Wildlife Area Teat Amendments Data: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:01:46 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street. Suite 200 1 Bend. OR 97701 tam adeschutes orc I www.deschutes org Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Gigi Meyer <gigit yeerr((4nie com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 8:48:43 PM PST To: Tammy _BaneyS(4deschutes org, Ton; DeBone(Wdeschutes org, PhilFlendersonUdeschutes org Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments I oppose weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes County. This is a blatant and deceptive land grab that will diminish our shared environment. The proposed code amendment does a disservice to the public and to our natural resources for the benefit of a for-profit event venue. Gigi Meyer Windflower Farm LLC 26285 Walker Rd. Bend, OR 97701 mobile: 541.678.3166 www.windflowerfanubend.com From: Tammy Baney To: Peter Gutowskv Subject; Fwd: Concern about the loss of Mule Deer Habitat Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:03:55 PM Attachments: Letter to the County about Mule De AJ Jacqueline Newbold,do ATT00001.1htm In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 J Bend OR 97701 tammyb(t desclmtes oreI www deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Jacqueline Newbold<newbold0505(L?bendbroadband.com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 8:10:28 AM PST To: "Tarruny Baney, County Commissioner" <Tamtny Baney(tDdeschutes ore>, "Tony.DeBone, County Cotmnissioner" <Tony DeBotne(ti,)deschutes.org>, "Phil Henderson" <Pltil Henderson(;todeschutes org> Subject: Concern about the loss of Mule Deer Habitat Dear County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone and Phil Henderson, I believe that the local Mule deer habitat is at risk. I oppose the County's proposal to allow churches in the deer winter range because it is unacceptable for the county to amend its wildlife code to accommodate the for-profit ventures of individuals. County codes and wildlife protections are a service to the public. This proposed code amendment does a disservice to the public and our natural resources for the benefit of a for-profit event venue. Mule deer are part of the Central Oregon way of life. The county should stand up to defend its protection of critical habitat. • Our deer population is dwindling. It is more important than ever to protect habitat from the disruption and degradation associated with additional development. • Allowing churches in the winter range sets a dangerous precedent for our wildlife. If churches are allowed, other types of assemblies that are currently prohibited such as golf courses, schools, public rec centers, and others can argue that they should be allowed in the winter range or other critical habitat, too. This would quickly erode wildlife habitat protections. • Mule deer are protected by land Use Planning Goal 5. Making an exception to this goal can lead to other Goal 5 -protected resources, such as wetlands and riparian areas, being compromised. • Wildlife -related activities are an important part of Deschutes County's economy. We don't need to expedite the loss of habitat, and this revenue, by allowing commercial event venues in the winter range. Thank you, Jacqueline Newbold 19615 Tumalo Rim Ct Bend, Oregon 97703 Jacqueline Newbold Dear County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone and Phil Henderson, I believe that the local Mule deer habitat is at risk. I oppose the County's proposal to allow churches in the deer winter range because it is unacceptable for the county to amend its wildlife code to accommodate the for-profit ventures of individuals. County codes and wildlife protections are a service to the public. This proposed code amendment does a disservice to the public and our natural resources for the benefit of a for-profit event venue. Mule deer are part of the Central Oregon way of life. The county should stand up to defend its protection of critical habitat. • Our deer population is dwindling. It is more important than ever to protect habitat from the disruption and degradation associated with additional development. • Allowing churches in the winter range sets a dangerous precedent for our wildlife. If churches are allowed, other types of assemblies that are currently prohibited such as golf courses, schools, public rec centers, and others can argue that they should be allowed in the winter range or other critical habitat, too. This would quickly erode wildlife habitat protections. • Mule deer are protected by Land Use Planning Goal 5. Making an exception to this goal can lead to other Goal 5 -protected resources, such as wetlands and riparian areas, being compromised. • Wildlife -related activities are an important part of Deschutes County's economy. We don't need to expedite the loss of habitat, and this revenue, by allowing commercial event venues in the winter range. Thank you, Jacqueline Newbold 19615 Tumalo Rim Ct Bend, Oregon 97703 From: Sara C Grew To: Board Cc: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Planning Division File 247-17-000702-TA/247-17-000703-PA Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:58:06 AM Attachments: ODFW Comments2 Local File 247 -17 -000702 -TA 247-17-000703-PA.PDF ODFW Comments Local File 247 -17 -000702 -TA 247-17-000703-PA.PDF Hello, Please find Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife comments on Planning Division File 247-17- 000702-TA/247-17-000703-PA attached. Thank you, Sara Sara Gregory Wildlife Habitat Biologist Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 61374 Parrell Road Bend, Oregon 97702 c Office: 541-388-6147 Cell: 541-797-3180 a�c.gregoryPstate.or. us regon Kate Brown, Governor September 22, 2017 Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97708 Re: Planning Division File 247-17-000702-TA/247-17-000703-PA Department of Fish and Wildlife East Region 61374 Parrell Road Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 The purpose of this letter is to provide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) comments on the proposed Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Resource Management, to permit churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA Zone). According to Deschutes County Code 18.88, the purpose of the WA Zone is "to conserve important wildlife areas in Deschutes County; to protect an important environmental, social and economic element of the area; and to permit development compatible with the protection of the wildlife resource." Much of the WA Zone is meant to conserve winter ranges for deer, elk and pronghorn. These are areas where wildlife congregate to conserve energy when food resources are scarce and temperatures are often below freezing making them particularly vulnerable to human disturbance. The Department is mandated by State Statute to manage fish and wildlife resources to prevent serious depletion of indigenous species and to provide optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of Oregon (ORS 496.012). This objective can only be realized in concert with land use provisions that benefit wildlife resources such as the Goal 5 planning process that created the WA Zone. The maintenance of adequate winter range is crucial to the persistence of big game populations which provide local ecological and economic value. The winter range protected under the WA Zone in Deschutes County is coming under increasing pressure from a growing human population. Recent census data established the Bend -Redmond area as the fastest growing metropolitan area on the west coast. That coupled with mule deer population estimates that are 40-50% of Department management objectives highlights the importance of maintaining WA Zone protections. It is outside of the Department's purview to comment on whether permitting churches in the WA Zone complies with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). More broadly, the proposed amendment would allow a use that the Department, the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have deemed in an "Interagency Report" to be in conflict with wildlife habitat values because it "generate[s] a high level of public activity, noise, and habitat alterations, which in turn can impact large geographic spaces and alter many acres of valuable wildlife habitat" (see p21 of the 2009 "Updated Wildlife Information and Recommendations for the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update"). The CDD states that mitigation for impacts associated with this amendment will be achieved by prohibiting outdoor activities during the time of year when animals are using the WA Zone. That prohibition may address animals' exposure in winter to the "high levels of public activity" and "noise" listed above. However, it does not adequately mitigate for the "habitat alterations, which in turn can impact large geographic spaces and alter many acres of valuable wildlife habitat" that will likely occur under this amendment. The habitat in the WA Zone must be conserved throughout the year so that it is available and functioning for wildlife during the winter. As mentioned above, the Department has previously agreed that churches (as well as golf courses, commercial dog kennels, schools, bed and breakfast inns, dude ranches, playgrounds, recreation facilities, community centers, timeshare units, veterinary clinics, and fishing lodges) should be among the uses not permitted in the WA Zone. Additionally, from a wildlife conservation stand point, winter range is already at risk from currently permitted uses. Therefore, it would be counter to the Department's statutory responsibility to support this amendment. We recommend that the Planning Commission reject this amendment and the CDD develop an alternative to comply with RLUIPA that will preserve the intent of the Goal 5 planning process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, F'1 71}' Sara Gregory Wildlife Habitat Biologist sara.c.gregoryg,state.or.us 541-388-6147 cc: Bruce Eddy, East Region Manager, ODFW Brett Hodgson, Acting Deschutes Watershed Manager, ODFW Corey Heath, Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist, ODFW regon Kate Brown, Governor November 14, 2017 Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97708 Re: Planning Division File 247-17-000702-TA/247-17-000703-PA Department of Fish and Wildlife East Region 61374 Parrell Road Bend, Oregon 97702 (541)388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281 The purpose of this letter is to provide additional Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) comments on the revised proposed Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) text amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Resource Management, to permit churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone (WA Zone). The Department submitted comments objecting to the first draft of the text amendment in a letter dated September 22, 2017. As the Department does not appear in the Planning Manager's October 31, 2017 memorandum listing those who submitted written testimony, we are resubmitting our original letter with this correspondence. Please add them both to the record. As we discussed during the November 6th public hearing and our previous letter, the Department continues to object to the proposed text amendments according to our statutory responsibility. Mule deer are the only type of deer found in Deschutes County and their populations have been in decline for decades. In some parts of the County there have been declines of up to 70% since 2000. As a result, the Department has made the necessary adjustments to hunting seasons so as not to cause additional declines through harvest. Unfortunately, there are other elements contributing to reductions in mule deer populations. Among the many factors contributing to their decline, many can be tied to human caused habitat reduction, fragmentation, and disturbance on winter range. Unlike other deer species, mule deer are more specific in their habitat needs and more sensitive to humans. Commonly mule deer exhibit migratory behavior whereby they take advantage of the variety of plants available in the mountains during the summer and then move to areas such as those in the WA Zone for the winter to escape deep snow at higher elevations. This means traveling many miles each spring and fall. Mule deer also show a strong fidelity to their migration corridors and their summer and winter ranges. They will return to the same winter range year after year. This winter range is where deer typically interact with people and associated land use. Department studies of hundreds of collared mule deer in central Oregon showed that migratory deer had a better chance of surviving than deer that did not migrate. Therefore, maintaining migratory herds is among the Department's priorities. Maintaining winter range areas that are relatively free from human disturbance is one way to improve mule deer populations. It is difficult for people to interpret stress induced behavior in mule deer because they will often remain motionless when face to face with a human instead of fleeing. However, Department studies showed a strong avoidance of people during the winter. When deer are disturbed by people, their stress levels rise, they increase their movements, and use valuable energy reserves that could make them vulnerable to increased mortality from vehicles, predators and disease among other things. In addition, other research has shown that as residential development increases, survival of mule deer fawns decreases. Low fawn survival equates to slow or negative population growth. Therefore, relying on urban development to support our mule deer populations is not a sustainable or desirable option. Through the creation for the WA Zone, Deschutes County recognized the need to preserve traditional winter habitat for mule deer. This in turn preserves open space and habitat for a variety of other species. Indeed, in protecting winter range the Goal 5 planning process has also helped to protect the scenic views and recreational opportunities that makes Deschutes County a desirable place to live and visit. The Department is concerned that the CDD's Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis of the proposed text amendment failed to adequately examine the value of mule deer and other wildlife. At last estimate, hunting and wildlife viewing contributed more than $50 million to the Deschutes County economy annually. There is also a social and environmental component to prioritizing wildlife habitat values that should be considered. The long term consequences of these proposed text amendments could contribute to permanent removal of hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat as the WA Zone would be vulnerable to the construction of very large structures and their associated human presence. This could further compromise the future of healthy functioning mule deer herds in Deschutes County. The Department requests a revised ESEE analysis that recognizes the wildlife values that could be impacted by these text amendments. Finally, the Department would like the language on Packet Page 22 revised to remove the statement that these text amendments were developed in coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. While Department staff appreciate the positive working relationship we have with CDD staff and hope to collaborate on future projects, in this case, we were not able to come to an agreement. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, r Sara Gregory Wildlife Habitat Biologist sara. c. gregory(a-)state.or.us 541-388-6147 cc: Bruce Eddy, East Region Manager, ODFW Michael Harrington, Deschutes Watershed Manager, ODFW Corey Heath, Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist, ODFW From: Tammv Bane, To: Peter Gutomkv Subject: Fwd: Support for Shepard"s Field Data: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:53:23 PM In service to our community - Tammy Barley I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tam yb&deschutes ore I www d c h rt s or Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Tony Oliver <tnnTgio( telle on om> Date: November 19, 2017 at 8:34:19 PM PST To: Tammy Barley DCC <tamin; haney(Wdeschutes org>, Phiil Henderson DCC <Phi].H ndderson((4deschutes org>, Tony DeBone DCC <Togv DeBone(QdeS but or > Subject: Support for Shepard's Field Good Morning Commissioners: At the hearing for Mr. John Shepard, I testified before the Land Watch Attorney. As such, I did not have the opportunity to question her conclusion that two acres out of a two hundred and twenty acre property would adversely affect the wildlife. She came with no statistics nor studies that had been made on the property that supported her conclusion. It is interesting that she can overlook the first hand experience of those living next to marijuana grows on the wildlife yet ignore the testimony of Mr. John Shepard's neighbors. Since prohibiting a church and the associated activities on this land would go against Federal guidelines, I am requesting that you not not in any way restrict Mr. Shepard's use of this property. It would go against First Amendment rights as well should you choose prohibit him from using the land for his church. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, Tony Oliver 550 NW 74th Street Redmond, OR 97756 From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Rowskv Subject- Fwd: Wldlife Pmtections / Mule Deer Habitat 0.O : Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:19:44 PM In service to our community- Tatxuny Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 398-656711300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 ( Bend OR 97701 tammyb((tdeschutes.org I www.deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: 'Rebecca Parker at Crabtree and Raltsmdorff " <markerucrlaw ore> Date: November 20, 2017 at 11:46:37 AM PST To: <TarnmyBanneyy(( deschute,a=> Subject: Wildlife Protections / Mule Deer habitat Dear Ms. Baney, I am writing to respectfully request you vote to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission to strengthen wildlife protection in Deschutes County. I have been a Deschutes County resident for 25 years. The Mule deer population has been a part of Central Oregon much longer than people have and their critical range lands are once again in jeopardy of being compromised. This time the threat comes at the hands of private individuals who claim that their "church" has a right to hold weddings and other activities on the critical rangeland. A deer cannot decide to move its rangeland or its migration corridors, but people and churches most definitely can. The rangeland comprises such a tiny percentage of the County land; the impact of these for-profit ventures would compromise that bit of land set aside for the benefit of our wildlife. Wildlife protections should be strengthened, not diminished. Not only is that important for the deer and other wildlife, but for the citizens of the County, the majority of whom support living in harmony with them and respecting their needs. Deer population is decreasing; they need protection. It would be dangerous precedence to allow an exception and would compromise the goal of Land Use Planning Goal 5. Commercial events should not be allowed to impact the important wildlife activities. Please stand up for the Mule Deer and our other Central Oregon wildlife and support the Planning Commission's recommendation. Sincerely, Rebecca Parker 0) Piz 0 U c: >1 V) )10 4-J 0 0 N u U 0 (3) 4-J 4-J 0 bA E 4-J .P.4 0 4-1 L2? 4-JQJ o (z 1�4 0 a) 04 3: 4-J 4-1 4-4 0 0 C Z-- 4-1 E (U ul c- V) z LM 0 S 0 co 4-.J 4-J ro 0 cz tn a) 46 0 4:4 ro 0 gi 0- " U0 •0 -0 pmq 4J r - 4J 0 04 V Qj 0 vii v O � N ~ a � v 4-J 0 o ao E_5 A v ru W v Ln � Q a- Q Q) o v W t� bo o �, 0 c ..••� .N � t11 N bcl:l� v re v V) �4ru O O t1J 4.1 L- � m c Oas - 4J � L� v 1 � v v �U c a u i r� s i 1 S { VU -o 3 C - ti al >1 -j 4 vi 0 0 u 4-J ao cv :6 ca c - (v 0V) Cd -cc R- ck) cn 0 4-J la� +j rs 0 14 -61 4-4 0 P-4 4-1 C: W C- N Ln 4-1 4-J - c 0 4- 4-1 70 76 c 4- � Lvn) cu C_ 04 .P.4 0 co 46 .2 Q)(U 4-J 0 _0 cu 0- U0 0 -0 or.4 4-1 (u— — op.4 +j :0_0 Ink WE <Z� in ti I�u <Z� 0 a 4� 0 L V o a � v o. c a A E44 a� w 0 0 cn ai — ai U,_' `•v 4-J v 0' a - Qi L +' a-+ 0 o c L- v a) 4-J txoa L O � 0 co cz N 4-' 4-1 a +j � 'C: Ln td u 0 o _0 � v �v :y a ,V ,0 0 P Qu O Fv u � a Qj M N � o ro c v O aA � c t!) A }' E ru (v V) 0- 0- 0 O N 0 �4--J2 4 -Jo zz v _ o a a -cz 4-J o V) 4-1 v E U (v v i V1 V) 4- 4_ • o o c6 O C c �c ru v v :-, O i t= v L O �+ v Q uo •� u a ;Q4 <�) c 2 P V s rL ti s r-E� a � ;Q4 <�) c 2 P V s From: Jim Powell To: Boar Cc: Peter Gutowskv; Anthony Raauine Subject: Testimony Ordinance 2017-017 Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:30:10 PM Attachments: SOS - Corooration - Business Entity Filina Records - 69668490 PDF ATT00001.htm SOS - Corporation - Business Entity Filing Records - 99282197.PDF ATT00002.htm SOS - Corporation - Business Entity Filing Records - 99282197-2 PDF ATT00003.htm What is Shepherdsfield.pdf ATT00004.htm Commissioners I feel saddened, but not surprised, to see the Shepherdsfield issue reappear. I am sorry the past applications and trajectories have led to the current situation. Several thoughts on the new proposal: The RLUIPA equal treatment clause seems to be at issue. The new language addressing high impact human activity within a WA zone - vis-a-vis agri-tourism events, wedding events, wine facility events, outdoor gatherings - eliminates one potential inequality and inconsistency in existing WA zone language. Specifically mentioning these activities as undesirable in the WA zone underscores the intentions behind the original 092-014 / 092-042 ordinances listing prohibited uses in certain critical WA areas and serve to underscore a compelling interest inherent to the purpose of the overlay zone. • Some clarification might be warranted as to why the Tumalo - Metolius deer range as well as elk and antelope ranges were singled out in the original ordinances and not Paulina or other habitat areas within the County. One potential additional equal treatment or "less restrictive" vulnerability may lie in the outcome of 247 -17 -000627 -CU, 629 -PA currently before the Hearings Officer. Though a "ski lake" is not specifically prohibited under DCC 18.88.040, the mitigation proposals surfacing for this application could be argued as applicable and acceptable for prohibited uses in a WA zone. Key in that decision may be extent / time / place/ manner determinations as to the impact levels of "recreational" activity. The current Goal 5 inventory is over 25 years old. Re-evaluation of Goal 5 resources has been on the CDD Work Plan for multiple years but has always been displaced by other issues. The present pressure for development into rural areas makes accurate inventories even more critical if unintentional resource compromise is to be minimized. Conversely, the boundaries of some of the mapped resources may have changed to exclude lands currently designated. An additional implication resides in the WA zone and its potential relationship to an increase in epizootic disease such as Lyme Disease carried by deer ticks. Warming temperatures and precipitation changes seem to be aiding habitat changes for the vector and disease. Deschutes County has not been immune to the change. Promoting high levels of human activity into areas where vector populations may be higher increases the potential for exposure. Personally, I do not find removal of "church" from DCC 18.88.040 a reasonable solution to solving either an RLUIPA alleged infraction or protecting a critical wildlife habitat. LUBA did not fully address the issue in its decision on a previous appeal involving Sheperdsfield. You have testimony from the DLCD Central Oregon Regional Solutions Center supporting the current prohibition. It should be possible to ask LUBA for a preliminary ruling as to whether the County Code with the modified language for event activities in the WA zone constitutes an RLUIPA infringement or not. The varied tacts taken by the individual now alleging an RLIUPA violation by the County have some inconsistencies with such an allegation • The current WA overlay code prohibiting churches was enacted with its supporting documents in 1992. The current landowner has been the owner of record since 2003. a The current owner had a history of using this site as a wedding venue for some time before being cited for code violations and the subsequent attempts to remedy same • Attempts to qualify for a wedding events venue under Deschutes County agri- tourism provisions failed o Attempts to establish a "private park" that would serve primarily as a wedding event venue failed • Shepherdsfield, LLC was created in 2010 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION E -FILED Corporation Division Jun 23, 2010 ".;•.? www.filinginoreaon.com OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY NUMBER 69668490 TYPE DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1. ENTITY NAME SHEPHERDSFIELD LLC 2. MAILING ADDRESS 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 3. NAME & ADDRESS OF REGISTERED AGENT JOHN SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 4. ORGANIZERS JOHN SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 5. MEMBERS/MANAGERS MEMBER STEPHANIE SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 6. DURATION PERPETUAL 7. MANAGEMENT This Limited Liability Company will be member -managed by one or more members Page 1 aF� -�S' Corporation Division IMS 'i www.filinainoreaon.com OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE By my signature, I declare as an authorized authority, that this filing has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete. Making false statements in this document is against the law and may be penalized by fines, imprisonment, or both. By typing my name in the electronic signature field, I am agreeing to conduct business electronically with the State of Oregon. I understand that transactions and/or signatures in records may not be denied legal effect solely because they are conducted, executed, or prepared in electronic form and that if a law requires a record or signature to be in writing, an electronic record or signature satisfies that requirement. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE JOHN SHEPHERD Page 2 Articles of Amendment - Nonprofit Secretary of State - Corporation'Division -255 Capitol St. NE, Suite 151 - Salem, OR 97310-1327-http://www.FilingInOregon.com- Phone: (503) 986-2200 FILE REGISTRY NUMBER: 992821 97 OCT 2 2 2015 OnES' ON In accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.410-192.490, the information on this application Is public record. SECRETARY OF STATE We must release this information to all parties upon request and it will be posted on our website. r office use only Please Type or Print Legibly in Black Ink. 1) ENTITYNAME: Shepherdsfieid Church 2) STATE THE ARTICLE NUMBER(s): and set forth the article(s) as it is amended to read. (Attach a separate sheet if necessary.) The purpose of Shepherdsfield Church is to bring to Christ those who are within the church through worship, prayer, Bible study and fellowship and those who are outside the church through loving outreach and service such as weddings, music, dance, drama and tutoring. 3) THE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED ON: 10/12/15 (If more than one amendment was adopted, identify the date of adoption of each amendment) 4) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE STATEMENT: Q Membership approval was not required. The amendment(s) was approved by a sufficient vote of the board of directors or incorporators. 0 Membership approval was required. The membership Vote was as follows: Cla_ss(es).,entitled- to vote Number of members entitled to vote Number of votes entitled to be cast Number of votes cast FOR Number of votes cast AGAINST 5) EXECUTION: (Must be signed by at least one officer or director.) By my signature, I declare as an authorized authority, that this filing has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true; correct, and complete. Making false statements in this document is against the law and may be penalized by fines, imprisonment or both. Signature: Printed Name: Tide: CONTACT NAME:, (To resolve questions with this filing.) John -Shepherd PHONE NUMBER: (Include area code.) 541 548-9905 31 -Articles of Amendment -Nonprofit (03/12) John Shepherd Pastor EES SHEPHERDSFIELD CHURCH 99282197-16476149 AMDART �`~~ ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION E -FILED Corporation Division Jan 23, 2014 '"�•• ,, i www.filinginoreaon.com OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY NUMBER 99282197 TYPE DOMESTIC NONPROFIT CORPORATION 1. ENTITY NAME SHEPHERDSFIELD CHURCH 2. MAILING ADDRESS 71120 HOLMES RD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 3. NAME & ADDRESS OF REGISTERED AGENT JOHN SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES ROAD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 4. INCORPORATORS JOHN SHEPHERD 71120 HOLMES RD SISTERS OR 97759 USA 5. TYPE OF NONPROFIT CORPORATION Religious 6. MEMBERS? No 7. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS Said organization is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax code. No part of the net earnings of the organization shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to its members, trustees, officers, or other private persons, except that the organization shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in the purpose clause hereof. No substantial part of the activities of the organization shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the organization shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. Notwithstanding any other provision of this document, the organization shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by any organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, corresponding section of any future federal tax code, or (b) by an organization, contributions to which are deductible under section 170 (c) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Upon the dissolution of the organization, assets shall be distributed for one or more exempt purposes within the meaning of section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax Page 1 bF Corporation Division www.filinginoregon.com OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE code, or shall be distributed to the federal government, or to a state or local government, for the public purpose. Any such assets not disposed of shall be disposed of by the Court of Common Pleas of the county in which the principal office of the organization is then located, exclusively for the purposes or to such organization or organizations, as said court shall determine, which are organized and operated exclusively for such purposes. 8. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS The corporation elects to indemnify its directors, officers, employees, agents for liability and related expenses under ORS 65.387 to 65.414. By my signature, I declare as an authorized authority, that this filing has been examined by me and is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete. Making false statements in this document is against the law and may be penalized by fines, imprisonment, or both. By typing my name in the electronic signature field, I am agreeing to conduct business electronically with the State of Oregon. I understand that transactions and/or signatures in records may not be denied legal effect solely because they are conducted, executed, or prepared in electronic form and that if a law requires a record or signature to be in writing, an electronic record or signature satisfies that requirement. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE JOHN SHEPHERD Page 2 Home rb u,,' 11.11— 6p Recommend Qa '�1es About Photos About Reviews Videos -' FIND US" Posts Community 71120 Holmes Rd. Gel pirnc Hons Sisters, Oregon @ShopherAsficldWeddings send enessaae Call 1541) 548-9905 I rti Starting at only $1950, we offer natural beauty and unsurpassed seclusion on over 200 acres, set on a butte with unparalleled views, extensive lawns for both your ceremony and reception, an amazing house for bridal G Business Details prep, a dance pavilion, tents, and much more. With great service, the site is yours for three days for setup, Parking Lot parking rehearsal, rehearsal dinner (Friday), ceremony and SR reception on Saturday and cleanup on Sunday. From: Tammv (3enev To: Peter Rowskv Subject Fwd: Shepherds Feld Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:02:03 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street. Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammybCq)deschutes.oruI www deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Rbthadair <�tjadairaol.com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 1:16:28 PM PST To: TammvBoman (j4desclimes.org Subject: Shepherds Field Good afternoon. I am writing you in support of Sheperds Field and ifs right to continue its religious activities. I find it laughable that Land Watch argues that the activities on this 200 acre piece of land is significantly adversely affecting the deer population in our county. Please support landowner rights and religious freedom by allowing Sheperds Field to continue its religious services. Thank you for your time and attention. Robert Adair Sent from my iPhone From: Tammv Bane, To: Peter Gutmsk, Subject Fwd: Wldlife Area Text Amendments DaW: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:01:49 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend_ OR 97701 tammyb((,Wescbutes,or9 w ii.d Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: GISELA RYTER <gis .lav .s g4msn com> Date: November 16, 2017 at 3:13:33 PM PST To: "Tatiany.Baney4deschutec org" <Tammy.Baney(c4deschutee org>, "tony.debonc4deschutes ore" <tony.debone(tlldeschutes.org>, "Phil.tlenderson(d s .hot c or " <Phil.Henderson(Odeschutes ore> Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments 11-16-2017 Dear Commissioners Baney, DeBone and Henderson, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed wildlife area text amendments. Several weeks ago, I testified in writing to the Deschutes County Planning Commission that I opposed amending the Deschutes County code to allow churches in the wildlife area because I believe that Central Oregon's wildlife needs our protection now more than ever. Many others joined in opposing the amendments, incl. the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Planning Commission. They unanimously recofmnend against changing the County's code to accommodate one landowner's private event venue. After much public testimony against changing the code, the Planning Conunissionrecommended that the code be strengthened to protect wildlife and specifically prohibit other similar uses to include churches, wineries, agri-tourism, hunting lodges and other similar assemblies of people. The Planning Commission's recommendation reflected a public process where dozens of community members voiced their opposition to weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes County. I respectfully urge you to honor the public process and the Planning Commission's recommendation by denying the proposed text amendments. Thank you for your consideration. Gisela Ryter, Bend resident from 1979-2016 P.O.Box 1847 McCall, ID 83638 I moved because wildlife has lost massive ground since I moved there in 1979. Since the 60's Central Oregon has lost over 50% of its mule deer population to development in their habitat and corridors ( according to ODFW) Sent from my iPad From: Tammv 6anev To: Peter GutOwskv Subject: Fwd: Proposed Charge in Rules to allow Weddings/Events in ERJ/Wldlife Overlay Zane Data: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:21:37 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541)388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend OR 97701 tanunyl:(ti)deschutes orc I www deschljWs.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: C SAVAGE <MTBN0RDiC((1&QtWa1l com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 2:54:24 PM PST To: "Tarlany,Bancy((j)deschutes.or" <Tammy Baney(()deschutes ore>, "Tony DeBone(nldeschutes org" <fotty D .Bon !)deschutes.orn>, "Phil.Henderson(t!)deschutes.ore" <Phil.Henderson(d)desc_I tes.orE> Subject: Proposed Change in Rules to allow Weddings/Events in EFU/Wildlife Overlay Zone Sirs & Madam, As a longtime resident of Deschutes county, I am always weary of proposals that lessen our wildlife habitat protections. The current proposal spearheaded by a church in Sisters to allow weddings & events in an exclusive farm use area with wildlife overlay zone is no different than any other commercial venue trying to expand their business operations and should be seen as such. Granted, our constitution protects the free practice of religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use & Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA), but the limits placed on this church have nothing to do with protection of these rights and everything to do protecting valuable winter habitat for deer. The proposed change in rules has many issues. Two issues in particular, significantly lessen the validity of the rule change: -The proposal by the church to hold weddings and events has no relationship to the limiting of religious freedom, it only limits this Pastor's ability to hold revenue -generating events on the subject property. -The RLUIPA allows governments to impose restrictions on land use if it furthers a compelling government interest; in this case the State of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife have clearly expressed that land within the wildlife overlay zone has value as habitat, especially for deer. And that the use of it for weddings/events is in conflict with this goal. Please do not make an exception for churches in this crucial habitat. As Deschutes County continues to grow, we will be forced to make difficult decisions that will not please everyone. But one thing we all love about our home is the wildlife and open spaces. Let's make the right choice for wildlife and our children. Please do make this change. Cordially yours, Chas Savage 63041 Carnelian Lane Bend, OR 97703 541-389-5657-H 541-639-6147-C mtbnordic(@hotmail.com From: John Shepherd To: Peter Gutowsky; Adam Smith; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Phil Henderson; Dan Dalton Subject: Church rights: 3 objections and a simple solution Date: Monday, November 6, 2017 4:51:54 PM Dear All. Thank you for your patient consideration today of churches right to exist on EFU WA. I think I have a simple solution. First, let me explain why I can't accept the thoughtful proposals offered by County legal. The one proposal that would require churches to "demonstrate" that their prohibition would violate RLUIPA puts the "strict scrutiny" or burden of proof on the churches and not the gov't as RLUIPA requires. And any "demonstration" would be appealed to LUBA by Landwatch, where it would likely be rejected. Furthermore, such a hurtle is unnecessary in that any gov't prohibition of churches in code is already a violation of RLUIPA's equal access clause. The second proposal to add conditions on the church operation, such as seasonal conditions or deer friendly conditions such as breeding, birthing or gestation conditions would be too subjective, too subject to challenge by Landwatch and also a clear violation of equal access in RLUIPA. My church shouldn't have to argue in LUBA whether its ministry activities overlap with early deer breeding season. Plus, such a hurtle would never pass the RLUIPA test of "Compelling State Interest". As Bob Perry aptly stated, "Religious rights aren't seasonal." If, as pastor, I need to perform an outdoor memorial service in January, I should not be prevented because deer are gestating. The third proposal, pushed by Landwatch, to also ban all similar gatherings as churches in order to avoid the "equal access" clause fails on several points: 1. RLUIPA strictly forbids banning all religious assemblies 2. New legal restrictions can't be applied retroactively, thus we would sue in Federal Court under the law that existed when our permit was originally struck down 3. It would require banning agri-tourism which is required by the state 4. It would require banning all activities in the Bend/Lapine WA too Thus the only code amendment that we would accept is a simple removal of the ban on churches in 18.88.040 (B). Anything else would trigger a RLUIPA lawsuit. Imagine instead that 18.88 bans Blacks from assembling, instead of churches. You would remove such discrimination without hesitation! However, the solution is simple: cure the impact on wildlife through the existing mitigation mechanisms. Require churches, and everything else, to offset any negative environmental impact through reasonable mitigation. Include this in a required Wildlife Management Plan, as was imposed on me. Viola, problem solved! Thanks again for your desire to work together to solve this problem! Pastor John Shepherd Work with passion. Pray with inspiration. j Virus-free. www.avg.com From: John Shepherd To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: My Nov 6th testimony for the record Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:07:09 AM Attachments: Testimony.docx Hi, Peter. As per Commissioner Baney's request, I wanted to submit the notes from my oral testimony from the Nov 6th hearing into the written record. Please find the notes attached. Thanks, John Shepherd Work with passion. Pray with inspiration. THANK YOU, Commissioners for once again hearing my petition. It has been almost 5 years now. This started when Dennis Luke was commissioner. I'm sorry this hearing has to come on the heels of a horrific slaughter of 26 Christians yesterday at a church in Texas. There is a lot of hatred and bigotry in this country toward Christians. On the other hand, I appreciate the support of so many Deschutes County residents. Everywhere I go people offer me their support and tell me they hope win. And I appreciate all the positive news coverage, from the Bulletin to KTVZ and even from Foxnews. I apologize if I sound angry but for 5 years this special interest group has attacked me and my church and my wedding ministry. I call them an Environmental Hate group. For five years they have done everything they can to shut down my church and my weddings: -charged that our church activities interfere with surrounding agriculture -that we over burden the roads (which get only 360 car trips per day) -that we violated our Farm Mgm't Plan because we raise chicken and cattle instead of hogs and cattle -that churches aren't allowed to locate in houses -that weddings are too religious to be allowed on private land -now that our summer wedding activities harass deer that are 60 miles away in the summer And they have told the County that they will continue to challenge everything we do here. I want to get each of them the bumper sticker that says "COEXIST" ************** Let's talk about deer: According to DeerFriendly.com there are 32 million deer in America. They are neither endangered nor threatened. One report I read said that the deer population in Oregon is either stabilizing or increasing. 3 months ago, on July 28, 2017, Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife wrote on their website "Oregon also boasts a growing white -tail population (2X) and the opportunity to hunt them in controlled hunts..." Some have stated that Oregon is experiencing a minor decline in deer population. If true, there are four causes for the decline of deer: 1- Catastrophic forest fires caused by lack of commercial timber harvesting/thinning. Due to Spotted Owl protections, our forests are now overgrown and aging. Old, crowded trees weaken, and experience beetle kill. When a lightning strike hits, it causes a catastrophic fire. Last summer, Oregon had 20 fires that destroyed 70,000 acres. THAT loss of habitat causes stress in deer. 2. Due to Wilderness Area protections, Fire fighters can't effectively fight fires. When the Milli Fire started, they couldn't enter the Wilderness Area to fight the fire but had to wait for it to burn onto State or private land. Thus we had a month of smoke. THAT stresses deer. 3. Due to Roadless Initiatives, our forest access roads are no longer driveable, making it harder to fight fires. Over half of Sisters forest is now burnt down. 4. Due to cougar protections, our cougar population has soared: -according to ODFW, there are now 6000 cougar in Oregon -my family has seen 5 cougar on or near our property. -a cougar regularly raided my chicken yard, killing them all one at a time -according to Washington State Fish and Wildlife, an adult cougar can kill one deer per week. -more deer are now killed by cougars than by hunters In addition, Oregon sells 73,000 deer tags each year. Last year, hunters killed 42,793. 73,000 hunters stress deer. So if environmentalists want to work to protect deer and deer habitat, there is a lot they can do besides banning churches. *********** Now let me contrast those effects of environmental policy on the decline of deer with what I've done: As part of my site plan review, I have affected numerous mitigation projects: -1 planted a landscape of dozens of trees and a huge wildflower garden to buffer my house -1 planted a lush 1.5 acre lawn that the deer love to eat during the fall and winter -1 planted a 5 acre pasture that the deer feed on during the fall and winter -At great expense and labor I rehabilitated 25 acres of Juniper forest to make it deer friendly, including cutting and piling hundreds of Junipers and sowing millions of native seeds. THIS was the Wildlife Mgm't Plan suggested by Correy Heath of ODFW and agreed upon by Deschutes County. THIS was my mitigation agreement with Deschutes County as part of my Church permit application! It would be a legal violation of our agreement with Deschutes County for them to now ignore my fulfillment of my mitigation obligation. The easiest way for Deschutes County to protect wildlife while allowing churches is to impose reasonable mitigation agreements, as they did with me. Our ministry activities use only 1% of my 216 acres only 2% of the time. In fact, Deschutes County code allows 4 "Outdoor mass gatherings" per year anywhere, without a permit. These gathering can be as large as 3000 people and as long as 3 days, WITHOUT A PERMIT! So, without a permit I can host 12,000 people for a total of 12 days! Far less than I do now. Furthermore: the deer aren't even on my property during the months when the wedding activities occur! The deer return at the end of October, when hunting season opens and hunters kill them by the tens of thousands. Our weddings only occur from mid May to mid October, when the deer are in the mountains! How can our weddings stress deer that aren't even around? And our church meetings are so small, typically a dozen people, that they have no impact. So, do you see how ridiculous it is to violate my 15t amendment rights over deer? ************** Let me talk about the positive impact our church ministry and weddings have: Between mid-May and mid-October, we minister to a lot of happy brides and their families and friends. As part of our ministry, we only charge about 20% of what our competition charges. I also officiate and offer pre -marital and post -marital counseling. We have between 2500-3000 guests celebrating marriage each year. They also come to spend money. Using Central Oregon Visitor Center numbers, I estimate our guests spend $1.25 million each year. They invest in hotels, restaurants, florists, formal wear, caterers, photographers, DJ's, breweries, and many more. $1.25 million! And many happy brides and thousands of happy family members and friends. Deschutes County's motto is "Enhancing the lives of its citizens". Well, that is what I'm doing. ************* Now, let's look at the legal aspects: 15 Legal arguments in favor of a text amendment, allowing churches on EFU with wildlife overlay: 1. "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion". First Amendment to the US Constitution. Our basic human rights are what make us a free people. The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self- evident, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, property rights. All of these are violated by this prohibition of churches on my land. Every time the gov't adds a regulation, they decrease our liberty. Every time the govt gives in to a loud special interest group and bans something or permits something or regulates something, they decrease our liberty. Over regulation is the most common abuse of power. (2X) As far as I know, Deschutes County is the only county that contains an absolute prohibition of churches. And, as far as I know, no other state has such a prohibition. Can you imagine if 18.88.040(B) instead banned the assembly of Blacks? Or women? Would there be any hesitation of removing such a ban? 2. Oregon State law allows churches as a use permitted outright! There are only five civilian uses allowed outright on low value EFU: farming, ranching, logging, mining and churches. In fact, over and over again, churches are listed first on the uses permitted. Why? Because Oregon knows that they can't ban churches! As a use permitted outright, according to State law, I shouldn't even need a permit!, No more than I would need a permit to plant crops! LUBA ruled that Deschutes County is allowed by state law to add this prohibition so our argument is with the County, not the state. NOW LETS LOOK AT FEDERAL PROTECTIONS OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS UNDER 131IJ111:710 RLUIPA uses 5 terms: -Strict Scrutiny- which means the burden is on gov't to prove they are right -Equal terms 5 -Compelling state interest -Substantial burden -least restrictive means Gov't must clear all 5 of these hurtles before they can prohibit a church 3. "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution."- R LU I PA This is known as the "equal terms" clause. This Federal law requires ALL governing bodies to protect the rights of churches to locate where other non -religious activities are allowed. Since Deschutes County has permitted other uses on WA, such as a hunting lodge and a business office and storage area, they must grant equal access to churches. In fact, since 18.88 only lists several uses that are prohibited, it is fair to assume that ALL OTHER uses are allowed, such as an environmental center, a mega pot grow, a farm stand, or a Boy Scout Center. Deschutes County has permitted, in EFU WA, a hunting lodge and a business office with storage area, to name just two examples. They also permit agri-tourism gatherings and events, which are very similar in nature to church gatherings with weddings. Thus, RLUIPA requires County to also allow churches. 4. "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction, B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions or structures within a jurisdiction. "-Federal law contained in RLUIPA However, DCC 18.88.040(B) does totally exclude churches, according to LUBA and the Oregon Appeal Court rulings. Thus, 18.88 needs to be altered to comply with Federal law. Otherwise it is subject to a Federal lawsuit. 5. Another RLUIPA requirement is "Compelling State interest". Deschutes County must prove that prohibiting churches is a "compelling state interest". Since deer are neither endangered or even threatened, and since Oregon issues 74,000 hunting permits each year, there is no "compelling state interest" in banning churches. NONE Especially since Deschutes permitted a hunting lodge on WA, whose sole purpose is to kill deer. Can you imagine explaining to a Federal judge why you allowed a hunting lodge but banned a church? 6. Two other important RLUIPA terms are "substantial burden" and "least restrictive means." RLUIPA prohibits the govt from imposing a "substantial burden" on a church zoning. In other words, gov't can't force a church to relocate if such a relocation imposes a substantial burden. Since my church is home based and since my church wedding ministry occurs in my yard, relocating would be a substantial burden. Rather, gov't must handle my permit with the "least restrictive means". In other words, add the fewest restrictions possible. In both these terms, Deschutes County clearly violates RLUIPA requirements. 7. Agri -tourism is a use permitted on EFU WA. By definition, the assemblies and activities of Agri -tourism, such as weddings, are equal to the activities of Shepherdsfield. A Federal court would see allowing agri-tourism on EFU WA and then banning churches as a violation of "equal access". 8. Since churches are allowed in the Bend/Lapine WA area, there is insufficient reason to ban equal access in the Metolius WA area. County can't allow one and not the other. This failure wouldn't pass strict scrutiny in RLUIPA court. 9. DCC 18.88.040 allows many uses of EFU WA and only excludes ten uses, including churches. Two uses that I know about are a hunting lodge (which is allowed) for the specific purpose of killing deer, and a business office and storage area. Yet, since only ten uses are prohibited, many others are implicitly allowed, such as an Environmental meeting center, a farm stand, a private park, a Boy Scout center, a commercial workshop. And since these uses are allowed, banning churches is clearly discrimination, and thus a violation of RLUIPA. 10.State law determined that my 216 acres of rock and juniper is "exclusive farm use", even though it is mostly unsuitable for farming. The intent of the agri-tourism bill passed by the state is to provide a way for large acreages to make alternate income. My church ministry with weddings meets the spirit and intent of the state and County's agri-tourism bill. 11.Deschutes County's official position is that the County does not prohibit churches on WA overlay. Adam Smith argued in Oregon Appeals Court that it was never the intention of Deschutes County to prohibit churches on EFU WA. Thus, the planning commission should assist County in adjusting the code to uphold that official position. ************* Let me respond to four of my opponents proposals: 12.1-andwatch suggested that the code prohibitions on EFU WA could be expanded to also prohibit anything similar to churches, thus not discriminating. That has four big problems. 1) It is too late. 18.88 has already caused my church permit to be revoked. County can't retroactively expand prohibitions and revoke existing permits. 2) RUIPA "equal access" protections are broad and require that churches be allowed if any other commercial or non-commercial activities are allowed. For example, allowing a agri-tourism or a hunting lodge in a jurisdiction means that a church has to be allowed. 3) Churches are allowed on the Bend/Lapine WA. 4) Expanding prohibitions would have to include banning agri-tourism, which is required by state law. 13.Landwatch suggested that Shepherdsfield could be forced to relocate. RLUIPA requires that churches be addressed with "least restrictive means" and without a "substantial burden". Relocating churches to other areas is not "least restrictive". Furthermore, the "substantial burden" of forcing my house church and wedding ministry away from my home and venue is unreasonable and would not pass legal scrutiny. Finally, RLUIPA forbids governments from "totally excluding religious assemblies" from an area. 14.1-andwatch suggested that County delay a decision and engage in endless fact finding. This delay tactic would only continue to harm me and trample my rights, leaving me in legal limbo. As I explained to County counsel, County has to act sincerely to remedy this matter to forestall an expensive Federal lawsuit. 15.Landwatch suggested that the County exercise a cost -benefit review and take the risk of losing a multi- million lawsuit, if only to serve the deer. But isn't the county also supposed to serve the people and uphold the law? Isn't the county also supposed to uphold our Constitutional rights? The reason the State listed churches as a "use permitted outright" is because Churches and religion are supposed to be protected in America. 16.County has proposed an alternative to deleting the prohibition. County legal summarized it thus: "A church would be allowed only if the applicant can demonstrate that prohibiting a proposed church violates any provision of RLUIPA." 0 This still retains the unconstitutional violation of free exercise. The state does not impose this additional hurtle nor does any other county. Can you imagine applying this hurtle to Blacks? Or women? This would simply force me to fight my opponent in some other court which would be appealed again to LUBA, which always votes Liberal. And, since this proposed new code can't be applied retroactively, my attorney would simply argue against the code prohibition which was in place originally. Let me be clear, ANYTHING SHORT OF A REMOVAL OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHURCHES WILL FORCE US TO FILE IN FEDERAL COURT. Let me close by reading two sentences from The Bulletin's staff editorial board: "The first Amendment gives Americans the right to worship where and as they wish without interference. The commission should make the change." Deschutes County now must make a choice: Do you side with a special interest group that has a history of harassment, that has cost the City of Bend millions in litigation and delays or do you side with a citizen who "enhances the lives of brides, families, guests and merchants in Deschutes County? Do you side with protecting deer simply that more hunting permits can be sold and more can be slaughtered? Or do you side with a constituent who has already dramatically enhanced his property for deer habitat? You must decide which is more important: the rights of deer to roam without seeing people, or the basic human right of free exercise of religion? Finally, would you rather risk a possible lawsuit from a special interest group in local court, or would you rather risk a very expensive civil rights lawsuit in Federal court by an attorney who specializes in Religious Land Use cases. A lawsuit you will almost certainly lose. 10 My attorney thinks this is heading to Federal Court. I told him I'm confident the Commissioners will do the right thing. I hope I am right. 051 From: Tammy aenev To: Peter Gutowskv Subjeet. Fwd: Wildlifel ea Text Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:04:56 PM In service to our community - Tammy Haney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 J Bend OR 97701 tammyb(�&deschutes oreI www.deschutes.or Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message From: KELLY SMITH <KI S 1998(amcn c=> Date: November 20, 2017 at 8:37:12 AM PST To: "Tammy Baney4deschutea org" <Ta1wW.Baney )d .c h rt s or >, "Toll DeBone((4decehutee orc" <Tony DeBone(gd c 11rtec or > "Phii.flendersonCg4deschutes.org" <phil.Hendenon(t�d eehnrP...org� Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Commissioners Baney, DeBone and Henderson I understand that you will be considering an amendment to the Deschutes County wildlife code to allow churches and possibly other organizations to hold events in mule deer winter range and other sensitive areas. Please register my opposition to this proposed amendment. As the Planning Commission has recommended, our county's wildlife areas are too important and sensitive to be degraded by such events, whether they are religious in nature or not. Churches can hold events and operate in any number of areas In the county; mule deer cannot. I am a former County Planning Commissioner and an avid hunter and conservationist. I have watched wildlife and mule deer in particular decline in numbers and vigor over the 40 years since i moved to Bend in 1978. 1 have worked closely with the Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as with hunting and environmental groups to protect habitat and manage human activities that impact wildlife. I really don't want those efforts to go for naught. Although I recently moved to Corvallis, I still closely Identify with Central Oregon and Deschutes County. Please leave our wildlife code intact and prevent churches or other organizations from holding events in our county's sensitive areas. Thank you for your consideration. Kelly Smith 660 SW 56th St. Corvallis, OR 97333 541-647-0137 Kelly Smith From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments Dabs: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:58:05 PM Attachments: Plannino Commission TeStmOny, wildlife Code A endments df ATTOOOO1 htm In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 1300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend OR 97701 tarmnyb&deschutes.ore www deschutes.org Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From:"Kori Sparks" <kori 4colw.ors> To: "Phil Henderson" <Phil Hendercon((4deschutes.org>, "Tony DeBone" <Tonv DeBone(Wdeschutes.org>, "Tammy, Baney" <Tatmny Bat? yLa)d liute�org> Subject: Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments Cornmissioners Baney, Henderson, and DeBone, Thank you for allowing the record to remain open following the public hearing on November 6, 2017 regarding the proposed Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments. I want to ensure that you are aware of these letters submitted to the Planning Commission, and that they are included in the record as you consider amending the Deschutes County wildlife code. I have attached a PDF of the written testimony in opposition to amending the code. Those opposed include: • Addy • Albright • Blakeslee • Borgers • Boyd • Brocker • Clark • Cloudas • Dewey • Drucker • Eagle • Elshoff • Fizz • Gould • Hamper • Jewett and Graham • Kerry • Kriegh • Kruse • Kuhn • Laferriere • Lakin • Lipsitz • Louglmey • Mayer and Morales • Meredith • Morton • Olin • Rippberger • Roche • Ryter • Sickler • Thompson • Winchel • Wuerthner • Wylie Thank you. Kori Sparks Development Engagement Central Oregon LandWatch 541.647 2930 x802 www.colw org From: Tammv Banev To: Peter GU-sW Subj-t Fwd: Shepherds Appieal Dale: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:54:48 PM in service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-656711100 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend OR 97701 tarmnvbCWdeschutes.org I www.deschutes.ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Rich Stanfield <richstanfield(g)yahoo.com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 8:50:25 AM PST To: "tammy baneyUcleschutes.org" <tammy baney(1deschutes ore>, "Tony.DeBoneUdeschutes.org" <tonv.d .bon . Wdeschutes.org>, 'Phill.henderson(c)dechutes.ore" <Phill henderson&)dechutes ore> Subject: Shepherds Appieal Reply -To: Rich Stanfield <richstanfield(a>vahoo.com> This is a First amendment use of the land. If there was a real problem on the deer in this area. the Fish and Game would not issue 2860 tags for deer in this unit. This is just the few who want to control the many and make their ideas our ideas. We totally support the uses of this property for the Shepherds. Rich Stanfield 61011 Brosterhous Rd Bend Oregon 97702 From: Tammv Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject: Fwd: WIdlite protections Data: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:01:25 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 398-656711300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend. OR 97701 tammyb4deschutes ore I www.deschutes ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Strauss <ct. ory t I I aq com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 8:21:48 PM PST To: Tamm; .BanU(Wdeschotee nre Subject: Wildlife protections I wrote earlier to the planning commission to oppose weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes County. Now I am writing to you because our Mule Deer population is on the decline. I have hear several presentations about this subject from wildlife biologists. They all conclude that the population is declining because of fractured and limited winter deer range. Human beings dominate this earth. It is an abomination that a prey species — one that by nature should be plentiful is declining in numbers. Our current wildlife overlays are already a compromise. Please do not weaken them further. Thank you, Susan From: Tammv Banev To: Peter rtmskv Subject: Fwd: Wid0c Fvea Te#AmendmenM Data: Wednesday, November 22, 201712:56:26 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend OR 97701 tai M—deschutes.ore I www deschutes.ore Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From: Amy Stuart <3mystuart63(Wemail com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 3:25:34 PM PST To: Tamt aneyadeschutes.org, Totly DeBone( deseh rt s.org, Phil.Hendersonadeschutes.org Subject: Wildlife Area Text Amendments Dear Commissioner, I understand that you are considering a proposal to weaken wildlife protections in Deschutes County. Many people chose to live in Bend because the quality of life includes the opportunity to view and hunt wildlife species. Please DO NOT WEAKEN current county land use protections for wildlife. Amy Stuart From: Tammy Ba— T.: Peter Gumwskv subject Fwd: Opposed m Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments Date: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:20:30 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (te) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb tt deschutes oreI www.deschutes org Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Charles Savage <thompsonsavage(Wmsn com> Date: November 20, 2017 at 1:43:13 PM PST To: "Phil.Henderson((4deschutes.org"<Phil.Henderson(Wdeschutes.org>, "Tony. DeBope(Wdeschutesorg" <Topy.D .Bon . Wdeschutes org>, "Tatra y.Baneyj(ildeschutes ore" <Tammy.Baneyl<tr)deschutes.ore> Subject: Opposed to Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments Hello - I am writing to express my opposition to amending the Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code to permit churches to hold for-profit events In the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. • Deer winter range is critical habitat. Space outside of the Wildlife Area should be used for events. • Land Use Planning Goal 5 protects Mule Deer. Wildlife Area code should not be amended to accommodate any for-profit enterprises. Amending this code is not in the public's best interest. • Making exceptions such as this sets a bad precedent for Wildlife protection. Code should not be amended for any type of assembly. • I do not see how current WRCC restrictions place an excessive or substantial burden on a church's ability to exercise their faith, nor do I see how churches are treated any differently than non -religious assemblies. I fail to see how churches are being discriminated against. (Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was designed to protect religious assemblies and institutions from zoning and historic landmark laws that substantially interfere with assemblies' and institutions' religious exercise. RLUIPA prohibits government from imposing land use regulation that treats religious assembly or Institution on less than equal terms with a non -religious assembly or institution.) Please reject this amendment. Sincerely - Carlin Thompson thomosonsavaee[amsn cora 11 SK��! Ca November 20, 2017 Deschutes County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97701 Tony DeBone Ron Henderson Tami Baney Dear County Commissioners, I am writing to you today in support for the Shepardsville usage of their land. They own over 200 acres and do NOT disturb any deer.....They are not shooting them, nor are they bothering anybody. Please, do not let this Land Watch group minimize our rights as citizens of this wonderful USA. Thank you for all you do for Deschutes County and let's keep a clear head and responsible actions. We are out of town until after Thanksgiving, so I am forwarding my letter to you via Patti Adair. Sincerely, Judy and Ingimar Thorgeirsson 308 S.E. Springer Ct. Bend, OR 97702 From: Betsy Warringr To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Wildlife protections Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:18:24 PM Hello, Peter - Please note that I oppose weakening our wildlife protections in Deschutes County. Our community is great as long as we protect the natural world that surrounds and nourishes us. Thank you, Betsy - Betsy Warriner - warriner@bendcable.com - 541-317-9065 -- 119 NW Drake Road -- Bend, OR 97701 From: Tamm, Banev To: Peter Gutowskv Subject Fwd: Wildlife protection Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:59:59 PM In service to our community- Tarmny Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Betsy Warriner <warrinrUbendcable.com> Date: November 19, 2017 at 6:10:10 PM PST To: Tammy Baney <Tamt BaneyW4kschutes.org>, < Tony DeBoneUdeschutes orc>, < Phil Hendersonndeschutes.org> Subject: Wildlife protection Dear Tammy, Tony, and Phil - I oppose weakening wildlife protections in Deschutes County because we must keep our wildlife habitats and corridors protected. Our community is great as long as we continue to preserve the natural world that surrounds and nourishes us. Thank you, Betsy Betsy Warriner -- warriner(Wbendcable cora 541-317-9065 119 NW Drake Road Bend, OR 97701 From: Tamm, M- T.: Peter Gut—kv Subjeet Fwd: Shepherd Date: Wednesday, November 22, 20171:58:26 PM In service to our community - Tammy Baney I Deschutes County Commissioner Direct: (541) 388-6567 11300 NW Wall Street Suite 200 1 Bend, OR 97701 tammyb(�4deschotes ore I mny,deschute¢ ore Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: nogt estion grace U,gmail com Date: November 20, 2017 at 12:35:14 PM PST To: Tammy Baney(Wd c .h rtes or Subject: Shepherd Tammy, my name is Cassia and I just wanted to write you to let you know my opinion on the Shepherd case- I don't want to come across as a jerk- so please don't take it that way. I simply feel that his rights as a property owner are being violated- I understand the environmental impact- however I don't think that him using a very small piece of his property is going to traumatize the wildlife to the point that they would never recover- and that by saying someone couldn't use their own property for their livelihood and religious expression... Especially when they've been compliant to try and work towards a compromise. Thank you for your patience in reading this letter - Cassia Winegar I am prepared to go anywhere, provided it be forward:) D.L. To Commissioners DeBone, Baney and Henderson: It appears that Mr. Shepherd has been singled out to receive a lot of harrassment from the county, harrassment that has excluded the other myriad agricultural and business enterprises in Deschutes County that increase traffic through employees and events. I think you should be careful what you do regarding his property. It is unreasonable to expect to restrict all other activities, agriculture and busi- nesses in the county as well, just because you feel you are being held hostage by Landwatch and conser- vation lawyers. Deschutes County has had enough economic grief I think a lot of residents are fed up with paying taxpayer funding to these groups that charge "protection" money to counties so that their harrassment will go away. If you pander to these special interest groups (who exist to pretend to care about the environment and our animals in order to collect taxpayer and county lawsuit funds) you will end up losing a lawsuit to Mr. Shepherd, who will have no choice in order to protect his rights. His constitutional rights to assem- ble on his own property have been trampled for long enough. They taxpayers of Deschutes County will end up picking up the tab on this one, and rightly so... if they are willing to see one of their residents harassed and persecuted. Make the right choice. Respectfully, /_ f Shannon Fingar Madras, OR 541-475-7539