2020-114-Minutes for Meeting March 11,2020 Recorded 3/26/2020�wTES BOG
BOARD OF
ti COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2020-114
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 03/26/2020 3:20:32 PM
2020-114
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
10:00 AM WEDNESDAY, March 11, 2020 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS
Present. were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Henderson. Also present were
Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County
Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and no identified representatives
of the media were in attendance.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
CITIZEN INPUT: None offered
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the
Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Henderson noted he has revisions for Agenda Items 6, 7, and 8 and
will submit them for the next BOCC agenda for consideration of approval.
BOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 1 OF 7
HENDERSON: Move approval of Consent Agenda minus Items 6, 7, and 8
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Consent Agenda Items:
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2020-014, Approval of
New Grant Funds and Increase in FTE Health Department
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Appointing Nick Ahnen, Jessica
LaBerge, and Oliver Tatom to the Project Wildfire Steering Committee
3. Consideration of Board Signature of Letters to Reappointing Rachel Stemach,
Kelly Madden, and Chris Horting Jones to the Deschutes County Historical
Landmarks Commission
4. Approval of Legislative Update Minutes of February 11, 2020
5. Approval of Legislative Update Minutes of February 18, 2020
6. Approval of Minutes of the February 19, 2020 BOCC Meeting
7. Approval of Minutes of the February 24, 2020 BOCC Meeting
8. Approval of Minutes of the February 26, 2020 BOCC Meeting
9. Approval of Minutes of the March 2, 2020 BOCC Meeting
ACTION ITEMS:
10.Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2020-188, Notice of
Intent to Award Contract to Wilkens Industries, Inc. for the
Manufacture and Delivery of Two New Walking Floor Solid Waste
Transfer Trailers
Director of Solid Waste Operations Timm Schimke presented the document
for consideration. The request for proposals process resulted in the receipt
of one responsive bid.
BOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 7
HENDERSON: Move approval of Document No. 2020-188
DEBONE: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
11.Consideration of County Administrator's Signature of Light Fleet Policy -
Road Department
Road Department Director Chris Doty presented the final draft policy for the
light fleet management process for Deschutes County. The original draft was
presented in 2018 and further revisions have been made.
DEBONE: Move to approve the policy with revisions presented
HENDERSON: Second
Discussion: Commissioner DeBone commented on a partnership with
Oregon State University for a project of taking a fleet vehicle to convert the
fuel tank to compressed natural gas.
VOTE: DEBONE: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
12.Consideration of County Administrator's Signature of Deschutes County
Investment Policy F-10
Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn presented the policy for considertation of
approval. The policy was reviewed by the Investment Advisory Committee
and there are no recommended changes to the policy since the last revision.
HENDERSON: Move approval
DEBONE: Second
BOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 7
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Yes
ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
13.DELIBERATIONS: Decision on Remand for Waveseer Marijuana
Production Proposal
Community Development Department Planner Matt Martin presented the
deliberations and decision matrix.
Commissioner DeBone commented on the definition of youth activity center
and scenarios within the county. Commissioner Henderson expressed
concerns of marijuana grows that are applied for by people that aren't even
residents of the county and noted his disagreement with some of the
submitted comments from the applicant's attorney. Commissioner Adair
found it interesting that LUBA seemed to ignore 4H youth activities.
Commissioner Henderson recommended using the Stirling Drive
foreseeability factors to determine youth activity center status.
Assistant Legal Counsel Adam Smith responded on the ability of the Board to
utilize the Stirling Drive factors and on the decision matrix for additional
factors.
Commissioner DeBone acknowledged he will not be in support of applying
the factors to ascertain youth activity center status. He explained his
understanding of what is required (formal registration) to qualify as a youth
activity center; the path being suggested in this deliberation is not consistent
with his understanding as to the original intention of what suffices as a youth
activity center. Commissioner DeBone supports honoring statewide land use
rules applicable within the state of Oregon.
Mr. Smith recommends the Board answer the three questions regarding a
4H club. The first question is will the Board afford judicial notice to the
Stirling Drive foreseeability factors. Commissioners Adair and Henderson
were in support and Commissioner DeBone opposed. The ten foreseeability
factors were reviewed and based upon the interpretation of the factors
BOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 7
Commissioner Adair and Henderson determined that the identified 4H club
qualifies as a youth activity center and that it was foreseeable to the
applicant at the time of its land purchase.
RECESS: At the time of 11:13 a.m. the Board went into and reconvened the
meeting at 11:19 a.m.
Mr. Smith spoke on the LUBA remand and opportunity to revisit the youth
activity center determination. Commissioner Henderson commented on the
apparent failure of the applicant to undertake diligent research of the
neighborhood prior to purchasing the subject property for a marijuana
production facility.
Discussion held on allowed uses on the property of Rhinestone Ranch. The
Board interprets that the equine related activity can occur without a land use
permit. Mr. Smith reviewed the factors related to this use.
Continuing with the decision matrix, the second item to consider was relative
to odor control.
Based on a 2 -1 vote, the application is denied (Commissioners Adair and
Henderson voting for denial; Commissioner DeBone voting for approval).
Staff will prepare a findings document and decision which will be presented
to the Board for consideration within the next week or so.
County Administrator Anderson reported that Deschutes County Public
Health will hold a press conference today in the Barnes Sawyer Rooms at
1:00 p.m. The Board will be present at the conference. Mr. Anderson also
acknowledged that a few additional items remain on today's agenda.
BOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 5 OF 7
RECESS: The meeting went into recess at 12:15 p.m. and will reconvene in
the Allen Conference Room at 2:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER UPDATE:
• Commissioner DeBone spoke with the Mayor and the City Manager of La
Pine regarding a partnership with La Pine for the Historical Landmarks
Commission
OTHER ITEMS:
• Relative to the recent concerns with the Coronavirus, Deputy County
Administrator Erik Kropp summarized the current employee leave policy for
sick time and employee leave donation policy. The Center for Disease
Control recommends flexibility with employee leave. There has been one
person in Deschutes County who has been diagnosed (presumptive) with the
Coronavirus. Mr. Kropp reviewed several options the Board could consider
to prepare in case there is an outbreak within the ranks of Deschutes County
employees. County Administrator Anderson reported the Information
Technology Department is working on a plan to allow access for certain
employees to work from home. County Administrator Anderson asked for
flexibility to address potential hardships. County Administrator Anderson
will keep the Board informed. Commissioner Henderson expressed concern
with the lack of details being provided by the Health Services department
concerning particulars of the person who has been diagnosed with
Coronavirus. He is curious how the information protocol is developed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At the time of 2:29 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:06
p.m.
QOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 6 OF 7
At the time of 3:06 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (d) Labor Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session 3:33 p.m.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.
DATED this _ Day of
2020 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
PATTI ADAIR, CHAIR
ATTEST,
4
RECORDING a`,TARY
BOCC MEETING MARCH 11, 2020 PAGE 7 OF 7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org
BOCC MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2020
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit
www.deschutes.org/meetinZs. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are
anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice.
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 Board Signature of Resolution No. 2020-014, Approval of New
Grant Funds and Increase in FTE Health Department
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 11, 2020 Page 1
of 3
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Letters Appointing Nick Ahnen, Jessica
LaBerge, and Oliver Tatom to the Project Wildfire Steering Committee
3. Consideration of Board Signature to ReAppiont Rachel Stemach, Kelly Madden and
Chris Horting- Jones to the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission
4. Approval of Legislative Update Minutes of February 11, 2020
5. Approval of Legislative Update Minutes of February 18, 2020
6. Approval of Minutes of the February 19, 2020 BOCC Meeting
7. Approval of Minutes of the February 24, 2020 BOCC Meeting
8. Approval of Minutes of the February 26, 2020 BOCC Meeting
9. Approval of Minutes of the March 2, 2020 BOCC Meeting
ACTION ITEMS
10. 10:10 AM Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2020-188, Notice of
Intent to Award Contract to Wilkens Industries, Inc for the
Manufacture and Delivery of Two New Walking Floor Solid Waste
Transfer Trailers - Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste
11. 10:15 AM Consideration of County Administrator's Signature of Light Fleet Policy
- Road Department - Chris Doty, Road Department Director
12. 10:40 AM Consideration of County Administrator's Signature of Deschutes
County Investment Policy F-10 - Greg Munn, Chief Financial Officer
13. 11:00 AM DELIBERATIONS: Decision on Remand for Waveseer Marijuana
Production Proposal - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
LUNCH RECESS
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.
Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 11, 2020 Page 2
of 3
ADJOURN
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Executive Sessions under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations and ORS
192.660 (2) (d) Labor Negotiations
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. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need
accommodations to make participation possible, 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 BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 11, 2020 Page 3
of 3
ES �oG
2
o ` 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 BOCC Wednesday Meeting of March 11, 2020
DATE: March 4, 2020
FROM: Chris Doty, Road Department, 541-322-7105
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of County Administrators Signature of Light Fleet Policy - Road Department
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval with suggested motion: "I move to approve the Road Department's Light Fleet
Policy with noted changes as presented."
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In late 2018, the Road Department presented a draft of a fleet policy to the BOCC to establish
guidelines for the acquisition, retention, and replacement of light vehicles owned by the
County.
After input from the Board and additional piloting of the policy thru FY 19 and into FY 20, the
Light Fleet Policy is ready for Board considerations with highlighted changes. Specifically, an
adjustment has been made to the Light Vehicle Replacement Guidelines in the form of an
amendment to the point system such that vehicles will be retained for a longer period of time
prior to qualifying for replacement than originally proposed.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The goal of the fleet policy is to achieve efficiency and obtain the
lowest lifecycle costs for the taxpayer's light fleet operation by Deschutes County.
ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty and Randy McCulley, Road Department.
o{ Deschutes County Policy No. R ;2020-x : — Formatted: Font color: Red
4 Effective Date: March IL 2020-- Formatted: Font color: Red
DESCHUTES COUNTY LIGHT FLEET POLICY
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to establish guidelines for the acquisition, retention, and replacement of light
vehicles owned by the County. The intention of this policy is to: (1) clarify replacement schedules, (2) reduce the
practice of retaining vehicles that have completed their capitalized life cycles, and (3) provide vehicle replacement
fund direction.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all County departments that utilize light vehicles, with exception of the Sheriffs Office.
"Department," as referenced in this document, is considered to be the "owning" department of a vehicle and is
responsible for supplying adequate funding for the replacement and maintenance of that vehicle. The Department
is the current user of the vehicle and acquired the vehicle as either new or from another department within the
County.
DEFINITIONS
"Fleet Services" Services by the Road Department including: fleet management, vehicle and equipment purchasing,
maintenance and repair, bulk fuel, car wash, and surplus auction.
"Upfit" is the cost of the body, equipment, lighting, signage, etc. that are installed into a vehicle after it is purchased
to prepare it for service.
"E-plate" is a permanent Government Exempt plate issued to any vehicle owned or leased by the State of Oregon,
or the government of a county, city, political subdivision or federally recognized Indian tribe. E-plates do not require
registration renewal and associated costs.
"Budgeted Vehicle Replacements" are vehicles that were identified as a capital expense and approved during the
Department's budget process for the current fiscal year.
"Unbudgeted Vehicle Replacements" are vehicles that were not included in the budget process for the current fiscal
year.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
1. Light Vehicle Acquisition, Retention Replacement, and Use Goals
• Utilize the most efficient and effective vehicle available for every task.
• Use every vehicle to the maximum extent possible while maintaining a low vehicle life cycle cost.
• Create transitions in the fleet using methods that minimize any negative impact on Deschutes County
taxpayers, operating departments and the budget.
2. New Vehicle Acquisitions
2.1. All new vehicle acquisitions must be completed by Fleet Services unless authorized by the County
Administrator. Notification must be provided to Fleet Services prior to acquisition. Departments must
submit a Vehicle Purchase Approval Request to the Fleet Services Manager with all requirements for the
vehicle. New acquisitions will meet the following guidelines:
Light Vehicle lee* Pel'E • Fey !0110/181-iRht Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020
• Vehicle class recommendations as defined in Attachment B.
• Lowest life cost and miles per gallon in application as defined in Attachment B.
• Justification in writing and approval through the budget process for any vehicles that need to be larger
in class size.
• Vehicles will be equipped with standard accessories. Optional accessories or equipment will need to
be justified and approved by Fleet Services.
• Standard exterior colors will be white with gray (or similar) interior, unless authorized by Department
Head in the Vehicle Purchase Approval Request.
• All vehicles will display the County logo, unless authorized by Department Head in the Vehicle Purchase
Approval Request.
• All vehicles will have E-plates, unless authorized by Department Head in the Vehicle Purchase Approval
Request.
• Fleet Services will be contacted prior to making a decision to purchase a new vehicle to ensure that
the addition can meet the desired application and can be serviced by Fleet Services technicians.
• All additions must be incorporated into the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund to ensure
adequate maintenance and replacement accruals.
• All title and registration will be completed by Fleet Services.
2.2. Upon request by Department Head or authorized agent, and budget verification, Fleet Services will procure
new vehicles as follows:
• Procurement shall follow Deschutes County Code and Oregon State Law.
• New additions will be assigned a capital replacement rate and an estimated annual maintenance rate
to fund repair costs (labor, overhead, parts).
Justification and Approval for Vehicle Replacement
3.1. Vehicles will be considered for replacement based on meeting the following criteria: _
• Vehicle is identified as Condition as indicated _in Attachment A: Light Vehicle Replacement -- -- commented [coil: oniycondition ivvehicie5 Wm be
Guidelines; and/or considered.
• Based on assessment of age, mileage and operating costs by Fleet Manager.
3.2. When a vehicle is replaced:
• Its use will be evaluated to see if a more efficient or effective vehicle is available. If not, it will be
replaced with a like vehicle.
• Upgrades must be justified by the Department Head, approved through the budget process, and
charged to that Department.
• Vehicle and accessory equipment selection for replaced vehicle shall follow the same criteria as new
vehicle acquisition as noted in Section 2.
3.3. The Fleet Manager will use a decision tree (Attachment C) to evaluate the type, size and configuration of
replacements.
4. Replacements
4.1. Budgeted Vehicle Replacement
Fleet Services staff will develop an annual replacement plan for each Department. Departments may include
funding for this replacement plan in their annual budget. Quarterly transfers from the Department to the
Road Department Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund will be made by Finance
Light Vehiele Fleet Peek. Fey 10/1181-ight Vehicle Fleet PolicV- rev March 11 2020
4.2. Un-budgeted Vehicle Replacements
Un-budgeted vehicle replacements will not be funded by the Road Department Vehicle Maintenance and
Replacement Fund. Un-budgeted vehicle replacement purchases will be funded directly by the Department,
and will follow the County's policy (No. F-6 Capital Outlay Expenditures) for unbudgeted capital expenses.
• Any additions to the fleet requested shall be approved by the requesting Department Head and reviewed
by the Fleet Manager for utilization best practices.
• The Department will provide a Purchase Order number to Fleet Services.
• Acquisition of the vehicle will be facilitated by Fleet Services as described in Item 2 above.
4.3. Any costs beyond the cost of the vehicle such as prep, related upfit, and prorated maintenance costs, will
be billed directly to the department through our interfund billing process.
4.4. Vehicles must be returned for transfer/disposal to Fleet Services at or before pick up of new replacement
vehicle, unless otherwise authorized.
Vehicle Utilization
5.1. Fleet Services will coordinate the vehicle utilization review process and collection of data for the review.
The Fleet Manager will provide utilization reports to each Department Head or designee by Geteber
Decembe _ Is' of each year. _. _ -_--_ __- __-- Commented [CD2]: The December timeframe is preferred by
_- - the fleet Manager and accommodates the budget process.
5.2. Each Department Head shall have the responsibility for determining the number and nature of vehicles
required to meet the business needs of the Department.
5.3. Department Heads or designees shall review the vehicle utilization data and research the business needs
for vehicles that fall below the utilization standard. Departments may retain vehicles that appear to be
underutilized if retaining them can be justified through explanation of non -mileage based business
requirements. If the retention of a vehicle cannot be justified in its current use, it must be reassigned
within the Department, reassigned to a different Department, or disposed of as surplus by the County.
5.4. Retaining vehicles not meeting the minimum utilization targets below must be justified in writing by the
Department Head.
Vehicle Cate o
Descri tion
Utilization Standard
Light Fleet
Sedans, minivans, SUVs and
Pickup trucks (1/4 ton and 1/2 ton)
5,000 miles per year or used on 60% of
working days
5.5. When vehicles are taken out of service due to being underutilized or are no longer needed, the Department
will be refunded the amount that they have contributed into the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance
Fund (680 Fund) for that vehicle plus the proceeds from the transfer or surplus auction.
5.6. To help Departments eliminate underutilized vehicles due to oversized fleet or short seasonal need, the
following options are available:
1. Use motor pool vehicles, if available.
2. Use employee mileage reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles for County business.
3. Rent vehicles from our preferred commercial rental car provider.
6. Retention of Vehicles
Vehicle useful life cycle will be determined based on the criteria set forth in Section 3. At the end of that useful
life, the vehicle will be replaced as identified in Section 4. The vehicle will be removed from service and disposed
Light V,.N ele Fleet o..r,.. . ,nH r,r, oLight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020
of through trade-in, auction, sale to another government fleet, or transfer to another department to offset a
vehicle of lesser condition.
7. Decommission of Vehicles
7.1. A vehicle will be decommissioned when it has reached the end of its useful life, requires excessive repairs
or is deemed to no longer be functional. Fleet Services will determine the appropriate method of disposal.
If the vehicle is auctioned, proceeds will be issued to the Department through the 680 Fund, less
decommissioning expenses.
7.2. Decommissioning expenses include the cost to prepare the vehicle for disposal and any applicable auction
fees.
8. Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund (Fund 680)
The County maintains the 680 Fund as a reserve fund for the accumulation of resources to provide for the
replacement and maintenance of County -owned fleet vehicles. This fund is used specifically for the purchase
of replacement vehicles, reimbursement to the Road Department for the cost of repairs and maintenance, GPS
equipment and service, and other repair costs not related to operator damage or accidents.
8.1. Resources and Expenditures
Fund resources are derived from all departments that utilize County vehicles. Each vehicle shall have a
calculated annual replacement rate and maintenance and repair estimate. Departments are responsible
for funding the costs of the vehicles designated to their department. Departments may provide additional
resources as needed and will be billed for repair costs that exceed a vehicles estimated rate.
Fund expenditures include reimbursements to the Road Department (Fund 325) for the cost of labor,
materials and services used for vehicle repair and maintenance on a quarterly basis. Expenditures for the
purchase or decommission of vehicles are also included.
Repair costs related to accidents or operator damage are paid by Risk Management. Accident reporting
requirements are detailed in Policy RM-1.
8.2. Fund Interest Income
Any interest income derived from the fund balance is added to the fund and will be allocated to each
department based on the percentage of their annual ending fund balance in relation to the total ending
fund balance at the end of each fiscal year.
8.3. Transfer of Resources Within the Fund
Funds from a decommissioned vehicle may be transferred to another vehicle if sufficient funds are not
available. Any additional funds held in reserve from a decommissioned vehicle will be retained for the
specific purpose of replacing other vehicles operated by the Department, unless requested to be returned
to the Department.
Any department that transfers a vehicle to another department will be reimbursed for the current bluebook
trade-in value of that vehicle.
8.4. Replacement Rates
A defined replacement rate setting process shall be used to establish annual replacement rates. The rates
will be used to collect the resources needed to maintain a sufficient ongoing replacement fund balance.
The rates will be calculated annually and collected on a quarterly basis to provide sufficient funds for the
cyclical replacement of County vehicles. A separate rate will be applied to each vehicle. The basis for
establishing the rates will be documented and available for review.
Light Vehicle Fleet o i ,ni,ni,oLight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020
8.5. Replacement Budget Planning and Preparation
Fleet Services staff shall be responsible for the planning and preparation of annual capital replacement rate
recommendations for Departments for budgetary purposes.
8.6. Replacement Funding
In instances where there are insufficient accumulated funds on hand to replace a vehicle, a review of the
projected shortfall will occur between Fleet Services and the Department. The Department will be required
to provide all additional funds necessary to replace the vehicle.
8.7. Replacement Values
Replacement values may be determined either based on original acquisition cost plus inflation, or based
on estimated replacement cost, based on other perceived cost volatility as determined by Fleet Services.
8.8. Original Acquisition and Upfit Expense
Replacement values will be based on each vehicle's actual or projected total acquisition cost, upfit and
related expenses. All additions must be incorporated into the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund
to insure adequate maintenance and replacement accruals.
8.9. Cessation of Vehicle Replacement Fund Collection
Departments may choose to cease replacement funding for vehicles assigned to their departments if
vehicles will not be replaced. No vehicle replacement funds will be collected when the vehicle reaches the
end of its functional or useful economic life, or is declared surplus and retired. Funds from decommissioned
vehicles may be held in the 680 Fund for future needs or returned to Department if requested.
8.10. Fund Reporting
Fund balance and financial status will be reviewed and reported at least quarterly during the fiscal year.
Balances will be managed at the Department and vehicle level. Fleet Services will determine minimum and
maximum fund reserve levels in order to maintain sufficient replacement and maintenance funds at all
times.
8.11. Fleet Vehicle Asset Management
Fleet Services will utilize a vehicle asset management system to provide for the active management of
County vehicles. The asset management system will be used to maintain primary vehicle accounting
records, including acquisition cost, upfit cost, life cycle targets, year/make/model information, fleet status,
user department data, user department billing account codes, operating expense data and all other
relevant vehicle expense data. Information that is generated by the asset management system will be
made available to user departments as needed and requested.
9. Maintenance
9.1. Maintenance Rates
A defined maintenance rate projection process determined by Fleet Services shall be used to establish
annual maintenance rates. The rates will be used to collect the resources needed to maintain a sufficient
ongoing maintenance fund balance. The rates will be collected on a quarterly basis to collect sufficient
resources for the regular maintenance of County vehicles. The basis for establishing the rates will be
documented and available for review.
9.2. Maintenance Funds
Each user department will have an individual pool for maintenance in the 680 fund and will be responsible for
maintaining sufficient funds for their department's vehicles.
In instances where there are insufficient accumulated funds on hand to maintain the department's vehicles, a
review of the projected shortfall will occur between Fleet Services and the user department. The department
will be required to provide all additional funds necessary to maintain the vehicles.
_ - -------------
Light
h i Fleet Poky rev WW!Kight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020 5
9.3. Preventative Maintenance
Departments shall report mileage to Fleet Services on aqua rterly basis if vehicles are not using the County fuel
system due to location. Vehicles must be scheduled for service as soon as possible when preventative
maintenance services are due.
10. Motor Pool Vehicles
10.1. Vehicles and Scheduling
Motor pool vehicles shall be provided for shared use between departments. Use shall be managed through
a centralized scheduling system. The size and location of the motor pool will be determined by Fleet
Services based on vehicle utilization.
10.2. Rates
A defined usage rate projection process determined by Fleet Services shall be used to establish usage
rates.
11. Fuel/Car Wash
11.1. Fuel and Car Wash Purchases
The Department will be direct billed for fuel and car wash costs in accordance with the rate setting
methodology approved through the budget process. Fuel and car wash costs are not part of the 680 Fund
estimates. Refer to Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. GA-19 for fuel purchasing policies and
guidelines. If fuel is purchased not using County pumps, mileage and gallons at time of fueling must be
reported to Fleet Services.
11.2. Vehicle Care and Cleaning
Departments are responsible for the cleaning and care of their vehicles. Vehicles that are not kept reasonably
clean may be professionally cleaned by a preferred vendor at the Department's expense.
12. Oualified Non -Personal Use
Departments shall establish policies addressing employee assignment of take-home vehicles. In accordance
with IRS rules (IRS Reg. § 1.132-6(e)(2)), employees assigned a take-home vehicle shall incur a working
condition fringe benefit for commuting to and from work, unless excludable per IRS. Reg. § 1.274-5T(k; Reg.
§ 1.132-5(h).
13. Performance Measures
Fleet Services will review annual performance measures to ensure Department, vehicle and overall fleet targets
are being met.
Approved by Date
Light Veh ele Fleet Policy Fev 1 �i,nN oLi�ht Vehicle Fleet Policy rev March 11 2020
Attachment A
Light Vehicle Replacement Guidelines*
Factor
Evaluation Points
Age
One point for each year of chronological age, based on in-service date.
Miles
One point for each 10,000 miles of use.
1, 3 or 5 points are assigned based on the type of service a vehicle receives. Example,
Type of Service
a patrol car would be assigned 5 points because it is in severe duty service. By contrast,
an administrative vehicle would receive a 1.
1, 3 or 5 points are assigned depending on the frequency the vehicle is in the shop for
repair. Assign a 5 to a vehicle that is in the shop on average two or more times a
Reliability
month. Assign a 1 if the vehicle is in the shop an average of once every three months
or less.
1, 3 or 5 points are assigned based on total life M&R Costs (excluding repair of accident
Maintenance and
damage or damaged in operation). A 5 is assigned to a vehicle a life M&R cost equal or
Repair Costs
greater than the vehicle's original purchase price. A 1 is assigned to a vehicle with a life
M&R costs 20% or less than the vehicle's original purchase price.
This category takes into consideration body condition, accident history, anticipated
Condition
repairs etc. A scale of 1-5 is used with 5 being poor condition.
Under 18 Points Condition I Excellent
Good
Point Ranges
18-232 Points Condition II
243-29-7 Points Condition III Qualifies fefApproachino Replacement
3028- points or more Condition IV Qualifies for Replacement
*Guidelines established byAmerican Public Works Association (APWA) and locally modified -
LightV, h , l Fleet o i ... ,ter" tQLight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020
Commented [CD3]: Points adjusted as discussed for Condition
IV. Points in condition II and III adjusted to create 5-point ranges
accordingly.
Attachment B
Vehicle Class Recommendations
Department
Application
Current Vehicle in Use
Recommended Vehicle
Administration/Transport
8 Passenger SUV
Assessor
Assessor
AWD Small SUV
AWD Small SUV
Commissioner
Administration Shared
AWD Medium SUV
AWD Medium SUV
Property
Management
Administration
AWD Small Hybrid SUV
AWD Small SUV
utility
Utility Van
Utility Van
IT
4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup
4WD 1/2 Ton Picku
Electrician/HVAC
4WD Large Utility Van
4WD Lar a Utility Van
Maintenance Specialist
4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup
4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup
Building Services
Landscaping
3/4 Ton Truck
1 Ton Truck
Janitorial
4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup
Medium Utility Van
Administration
Full Size Sedan
Full Size Sedan
District Attorney
AWD Medium SUV
AWD Medium SUV
Administration/General
Use
AWD Medium SUV
AWD Medium SUV
Community Service &
Transport
Full Size 15 Passenger Van
Juvenile
Community Justice
Officers Therapist
Small Utility Van
Small Utility Van
Field Su ervisor
4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup
4WD 1/2 Ton Pickup
Parole Officer/
Administration
Full Size Sedan
Full Size Sedan
Adult Parole and
AWD Small SUV
AWD Small SUV
Probation
AWD Medium SUV
AWD Medium SUV
Administration/General
Use
Full Size Sedan
Full Size Sedan
AWD Medium SUV/Wagon
AWD Medium SUV/Wagon
Client Transport
AWD Medium SUV/Wagon
AWD Medium SUV/Wagon
General Health
Wheelchair Transport
Mini -van
Mini -van
ACT Team (DCDC)
Transport & Moving
3/4 Ton 6 Passenger Pickup
3/4 Ton 6 Passenger Pickup
Administration
Small Hybrid
4WD Mid -Size Utility Vehicle
Building Safety
AWD Small SUV
AWD Small SUV
CDD
Environmental
AWD Small SUV
4WD Small Pickup
Solid Waste
Administration
AWD Small Medium SUV
AWD Small Medium SUV
Field Supervisor...
4WD 314 Ton Pickup
4WD 3/4 Ton Pickup
Light Vehicle leet oeky Fey 10i10j!Kight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020
Site Attendant
Compact Pickup
Compact Pickup
Department
Application
Current Vehicle in Use
Recommended Vehicle
Administration
AWD Medium SUV
AWD Medium SUV
Fair and Expo
Maintenance
Compact Pickup
Compact or 1/2 Ton Pickup
Risk Management
Administration
AWD Medium SUV
AWD Small or Medium SUV
w Vehide Fleet ni,ni,oLight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020
Attachment C
Vehicle Purchase Decision Tree
The Fleet Manager will use the following decision tree to evaluate the type, size, and configuration of
replacements.
REPLACEMENT NEW
VEHICLE VEHICLE
Are replacement NO Does department No
funds availablet have funds w;", Do Not Buy
available?
#= YES- YES
Does vehicle meet
GUIDELINES for NO
application?�
YES
9
Is vehicle i
appropriate for No��®��
County use?
YES
Does vehicle have Change to Lowest
NO Life Cost that meets
the lowest life cost availability needs in
available in class? class
YES .. _.. _.
Does vehicle require Not valid
a special YES �: Evaluate Request - Re -define Request
configuration?
NO
Valid
PURCHASE
Vehicle
Light vehiclePleet Po Light Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March it 2020
10
Attachment D
Purchases Reflecting Department of Energy Rating for Miles Per Gallon
New purchases in the following categories should meet or exceed the following miles per gallon, based on 85% of
average combined fuel mileage by class from the US Department of Energy Fuel Economy Guide for the model
year of the vehicle being purchased.
Example:
InI S M-1.1 Voar
Vehicle Class
85% of Class
Average
Small Car
24.6
Midsize Car
25.5
Large Car
21.4
Light Pickup
14.7
Small SUV
20.6
Standard SUV
15.8
Station Wagon
23.9
*Sport and luxury vehicles were removed from data.
Light h o rLilit Vehicle Fleet policy- rev March 11, 2020
Attachment E
Light Fleet Performance Measures
Targets are to be set and reported on an annual basis.
-Department Measures
-Average Fleet Age
Annual maintenance cost
-Percentage of fleet out of life cycle
Annual average fuel mileage by department
Vehicle Measures
Miles Per Gallon
Maintenance Cost
Utilization
Overall Fleet Measures
PM Compliance. Same as above but for the total fleet.
Averacie fleet age
-Mileage by category
Mechanic count by vehicle a uivalent
Mechanic billable hours
LightVehicle leet o r .. .., anH �i,aLight Vehicle Fleet Policy- rev March 11, 2020 12
I ES C0G2
o' 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 BOCC Wednesday Meeting of March 11, 2020
DATE: March 3, 2020
FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
DELIBERATIONS: Decision on Remand for Waveseer Marijuana Production Proposal
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On February 7, 2018, an application was filed for an Administrative Determination (AD) to
establish marijuana production at 24350/24360 Dodds Road, Bend (tax maps and lots 18-13-
12 100/18-14-7 500) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The Planning Division issued an
administrative decision without a public hearing on November 16, 2018, determining the
application met the applicable criteria. A timely appeal of the approval was filed.
The Board held a public hearing on November 19, 2018, the receive testimony on the appeal.
On February 22, 2019, the Board issued a final county decision denying the request. The
Applicant appealed the county decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
On October 17, 2019, LUBA issued its Final Opinion and Order remanding the
decision to the County for further findings and conclusions of law. On December 6, 2019, the
Applicant initiated remand proceedings under local file no. 247-19-000899-A. The Board held a
public hearing on remand on January 29, 2020.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
COMMUNITY DEVElu.OPhAIENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11, 2020
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner
RE: Deliberations following a public hearing on remand of a marijuana production
application. File No. 247-19-000870-A (related to file no. 247-18-000128-AD).
On March 11, 2020, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ('Board") will conduct
deliberations on the remanded decision specified in the Final Opinion and Order of the Oregon
Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") regarding a marijuana production proposed by Waveseer of
Oregon, LLC ("Applicant") and determine if the subject proposal meets the requirements in the
applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code ("DCC"). The Board held a public hearing on
January 29,2020, to consider the remand proceedings initiated by the Applicant under local file no.
247-19-000899-A.
I. RECORD
The complete record for the project has been presented to the Board over several meetings. The
following is a list of the meetings and materials provided at each:
November 28, 2018, Work Session': Record prior to the submittal of the notice of appeal.
• December 19, 2018, Business Meeting2: Notice of appeal materials.
• January 23, 2019, Work Session 3: Remaining record including materials submitted since the
provision of the meeting packet for the December 19 public hearing and the close of the post
hearing open record period.
• January 30, 2019, Work Session": Staff memo regarding deliberations.
1 11/28/18 Board Work Session: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=1942
z 12/19/18 Board Business Meeting: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=1964
3 1/23/19 Board Work Session: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/DetaiI Meeting.aspx?ID=2087
4 1/30/19 Board Business Meeting: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2090
• February 13, 2019 Work Sessions: Staff memo regarding the draft decision.
• February 20, 2019 Business Meeting6: Staff memo with draft decision.
• January 21, 2020 Tuesday Meeting': Staff memo regarding preparation for the remand
public hearing.
• January 29, 2020 Wednesday Meeting': Staff memo and presentation.
Attached hereto are all documents submitted into the record since the public hearing on January
29, 2020, including:
• 2020-02-04 Gottlieb Email for Olsen
• 2020-02-05 Celko Email for Applicant
• 2020-02-05 Olsen Email
• 2020-02-05 Staff Memo - Rhinestone Ranch
• 2020-02-12 Celko Email for Applicant
• 2020-02-19 Celko Email for Applicant
I. LUBA REMAND
The Final Opinion and Order of LUBA remanded the county decision to address the following issues:
1. Consideration of new findings addressing the youth active center separation distance
standards of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)(iv).
2. Findings addressing the odor standards of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10).
Staff notes the Final Opinion and Order of LUBA was based on the same record on which the Board
originally denied the proposed marijuana production. The Board's decision on remand shall be
based on evaluation new testimony and evidence submitted during the remand public hearing
process. The attached decision matrix is designed to assist the Board during deliberations focusing
on the issues and related decision points remanded in the Final Opinion and Order of LUBA.
5 2/13/19 Board Work Session: http•//deschutescountVor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2098
6 2/20/19 Board Business Meeting: http://deschutescountvor.igm2.com/Citizens/`Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2100
7 1/21/20 Board Tuesday Meeting: http://deschutescounlyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2537
B 1/29/20 Board Wednesday Meeting: http://deschutescountVor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2482
247-19-000128-AD/247-19-000899-A
II. NEXT STEPS
Staff respectfully requests that the Board specify if they intend to approve or deny the application
and to provide any additional findings for staff to include in the decision. At the conclusion of the
deliberations, staff will draft a decision for Board consideration. The draft decision will be placed on
a future Board meeting agenda to afford the Board with an opportunity to provide edits and
feedback. That final decision will be placed on a subsequent Board meeting agenda for Board
signature.
Pursuant to DCC 22.34.030(C), the deadline to issue the final local decision is on April 4, 2020.
Attachments:
1. 2020-03-11 - Decision Matrix
2. 2020-02-19 Celko Email for Applicant
3. 2020-02-12 Celko Email for Applicant
4. 2019-02-05 Staff Memo - Rhinestone Ranch
5. 2020-02-05 Olsen Email
6. 2020-02-05 Celko Email for Applicant
7. 2020-02-04 Gottlieb Email for Olsen
247-19-000128-A D/247-19-000899-A
w w o
z
°c c o w c m
r
_
O J
.:
O O C a W O d a « O N
=p o `
w o
u C > vA W u
E h
C N a - -
*,:
v .+
G) `y N
« v m v c aco
a
3 o i cco
o
>, m o, E vi c v
v
' O O Y 'O C
T O o
No av+
o E m o
Y L C «
LEi C C O N
m
v m a o
Q
W
«
o q C m In
w ar
v o a m'v v._
o c
v v« w �, w w t `w
D
E «�` L c?�`i o
v
E �, '« 'tea
q v ',= o A E a �.
Z? .,
E o t
y
o m E .'S° i. v �' 3 '� d o on m w w :�` m o 0 v z o
A 1. m�
u~i a N U
C v«
c ° v
w x
T'
�O o
o m U C v v E w
v 2` w `o`
io m= w
o. ',.v. E>
O
— c d m E a o¢¢ m a
Z` Lev, v v n
p T p « N
w E C
flQny.:"�«
0
a+ N
w 0 '^ N
v a_
E
E a
u N L
O N �•'C o�� N C
.�.''-.
y
_
—
C W
V W N�� LLO. E
O N
O V .-.
D 0
U
ri
U
Cl vai U D' Z' a0+ C E
j N a N C N y
ip T; p V w. m. v `-3
N> OJ
U �
O -;EN W N W L
N
C N W p C 'O
$ �
0
OD
a
v O
u z�
V
�'vp ct ocm wv
C O C U)
L
vJi W O O O N C
w y W in m N
C
o 0
J
O
—oo� oy p.m='a
vv
w
p o
m G J
O O m m
w
c
O
C
MO
v v
.- v o oo
C
N'
o f J L L O
ocn 3
J V
�
ocu m o
o� ?
o
o '�
G v
w" m
o o v v v
m A c
Q m v a
m
p T
C
3
C N
.N
L
o o
v v s
no m n
o o E
L
y w o Y
viz@
«
wry
o v
Ego «�
�s V a
N N L G� N — O
V
N
>> t0 J ;°
N
J
_ Y O°° J O
1 41
J N�
G V O' W>
.y
N v«i am+ v o L
o LL C v �° W
v o¢ E m o v m
L
'G` 3 m n c m
v N v v' , m o o v z o
O N
V «
U .-
v m v 'i, w o o a a
C N N
J N O C
o
O U1 L w «
J O N n L n
v -a >> m a
y
-o E° ° y v o o
$ n c 'c c a
o
o 3' °' :a m> p
'w o o
v o v
c o a c v o m vvi n c
v o
n
V
° N
v
«
E v E
n
o
m E c '� a �', v
«
o
°p o o� C c o
v .c �-' v««
v
R m yn
m n a¢¢ V
v °1
v n
E o
a
v ° c
c v
c
o .. 0
L � O
n m v
N L L
v C
J 0
J�
3
m w
T � j
C W 'a+
n
O p N
C v
v o
o c
O m
> n
s n
V O �a
m
J v
W
41 _
v
C N
�
—o w.
C
N v a U UI .�+'
G N
N 0
O C
o
N o 0 C
-O '« -O w J o Q
'w
O S
N 7
C
o V
�
m
I
v
ao o c"c N
v °; `"
29 c o y 0 0
m m
m v
N c 00 m ui a o d w
- v m � v
° c v io v v
c 0 'c O-
C ttcv
8 V T
v 0 0 o w o o b
o
0.3 T d c
c
O
m N o
v
Sc o -o
o oc a E m o
° V°-
o 0 0 o c o ',°o-
v w 3
.E0
°
'O
N u
O oo v �o o @ v oov E
o o
o- w c c E
o
E -o u .L o Li, E m m e vTi
.o .a
a o c. c i v m
E o
w v E w w° o v v v no o ..
0 o c E o n n� ,o, E not
o o
r E p
O d C
° v t aLv„Lv, a 3 z° v z m a T
£
c
�n v
o L� °c me m c a� ow 4 L
L u m o
O u u
m
oo w�
N
"O �Ul UI W« via V 41 > u
O C O 7 C O o .° of o 0o
c
0
m E 3 t .o y oo-
w v
_
v m v Y « -o « °-'u 3 w v 'c
`o
c
c d v o 3
v
v o Q 0 N L N W 'L �- L
o y w
au-.
Q t Go C
.� v .N a> - o f E 3 0 Y 'o o '3 c E
GO y a
c o o
v m O O W `°, v O_ V..
L :E
o
v d N co v w c m ._ m
�- m `u c
-o N >.
m
m c d c v
m o t 'c 3 v v o m oo -o
o y>
E ,a`; v
O
N W L d E 'C C L W' N N .p
t o N w L ai
vmi
=
H e EL. ¢ m j v ° v o« 3 0• w .o
¢ o o
3
3
v
ro
o
o
O
a w
> r
o m
c o-
u °
c N.
'c
0 o
o T
o E r rn
w o o 0
o E u o c m
O o
«
3� voo
t
o O v
o 0
o
N
Y 'o `o
v
q o
v
t
C N
m �
E c
v m
o
u 3
- a
o c
c o
v a
N m
c o
-o
An 2t
v
ti w
u
w �
v �
o
u T
W
v
E c
c
— O
c
v v v
o c E
a v v
c
v
m
yO
v c
� � O
3 c
o m
`m L
O v N
� t o
� A
0 o 0
v c w «
m
c E c
m w m
a a d
E ^ E o
v
N Od N d
L L �
� � H
v o
m 3 v m
o
c E
c o
o v o
w a E c
E v a E o
E c ° z
o y o v m
C p
E = m c
o
O c 0 v L
0
L J O O v
V mu 0 u m
v
O v
w q
oho y
m
v
c �
� m
Ashley Williams
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Matt,
Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com>
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 4:25 PM
Matt Martin
Gretchen Reuter
Waveseer Remand; Case File Nos. 247-18-000128-AD, 247-19-000870-A; Applicant's
Final Written Argument
2020.02.19 - LT Patti Adair - Applicant's Final Written Argument.pdf
As you know, this law firm and I represent the Applicant in the above -referenced remand proceedings. Attached please
find the Applicant's final written argument, which is timely submitted within the last post -hearing open record period.
Please include this letter in the official record for this proceeding, and please place this letter before the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners.
Please also confirm receipt.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
Best,
Corinne
Corinne S. Celko I Attorney
EMERGE LAW GROUP
621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
Portland, OR 97205
O: 503.227.4525 ( D: 503.467.0396 ( E: corinne@emergelawgroup.com
Assistant: Gretchen Reuter 1 503.467.0321 1 gretchen@emergelawgroup.com
}}} emergelawgroup.com
This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and
purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and any attachments,
and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking of any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
LAW
19EMERGEGROUP
621 SW Morrison St., Suite 900, Portland, OR 97205
February 19, 2020
VIA E-MAIL ONLY (matt. martin@deschutes. org)
Patti Adair, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
PO Box 6005
Attn: BoCC
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC
Case File Nos. 247-18-000128-AD; 247-19-000870-A
Applicant's Final Written Argument
Dear Chair Adair and Members of the Board:
CORINNE CELKO
Admitted in Oregon
(503) 467-0396
corinne@emergelawgroup.com
As you know, my law firm and I represent Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer") with regard to the
above -referenced application and LUBA's remand of the County's decision denying Waveseer's proposed
marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. As demonstrated in the record, and for
the reasons provided at the remand hearing and during the post -hearing open record period, Waveseer meets all of
the approval criteria for a marijuana production facility, and the Board should approve this application on remand.
This letter is timely submitted within the last open record period and serves as Waveseer's final written
argument. Please place this letter in the official record for this proceeding and approve this application.
A. Bias.
Oregon law does not demand that local decision makers in quasi-judicial land use proceedings maintain the
"appearance of impartiality" required of judges. Rather, what is required of local decision makers is "actual
impartiality," the ability to make a decision based on the argument and evidence before them, rather than on
prejudgment or personal interest. Heiller v. Josephine County, 23 Or LUBA 551, 554 (1992). No additional facts,
arguments, or evidence were presented on remand to support a reasonable interpretation that the Rhinestone Ranch
activities on the Gallucci property and the 4-H Club activities on the Olsen property constitute "Youth Activity
Centers" within the separation buffer.
As previously mentioned, this Board sua sponte extended the open record period absent a request from any
opponent or the applicant, and it suggested submission of testimony that would tend to support a denial. The
Board's comments and questions during the remand hearing also suggested that an applicant is required to trespass,
take the word of self -interested neighbors, and conduct a lengthy stakeout of property, to determine if a property
violates the "Youth Activity Center" separation buffer, despite the fact that the DCC contains no definition of
"Youth Activity Center," there is no use category for "Youth Activity Center," and such term is not used anywhere
else in the code. Consequently, if this Board issues a denial of Waveseer's application on remand, the Board will
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 19, 2020
Page 2
have displayed bias by prejudging the application or favoring personal interest and failing to reach a decision by
applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument presented, including consideration of LUBA's
remand decision.
B. Interpreting the Rhinestone Ranch and 4-H Club Activities as "Youth Activity Centers" is Still
Unreasonable and Contrary to State Law.
The thrust of LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, and the reason for their remand, was that it was
unreasonable for the County to interpret the term "Youth Activity Center" to include the Rhinestone Ranch activities
on the Gallucci property and the 4-H Club activities on the Olsen property. Specifically, LUBA stated that the
County's findings failed to demonstrate any practical way for Waveseer to identify or obtain notice of a particular
"Youth Activity Center" within a separation buffer, distinct and apart from youth -oriented activities that may occur
as part of an existing farm use or as accessory to a residential use.
No additional facts, evidence, or arguments on remand change LUBA's analysis. If anything, the
memorandum from Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky entitled, "Rhinestone Ranch/January 7, 2019 Meeting
Recap/Recent Events," and dated February 5, 2020 (the "CDD Memo"), as well as the lack of any evidence by
opponents, emphasizes that neither the Rhinestone Ranch on the Gallucci property nor the 4-H Club activities on
the Olsen property can be deemed to be "Youth Activity Centers."
The CDD Memo confirms that the only allowed use on the Rhinestone Ranch is the stabling or training of
equines, which is a defined "farm use" and permitted outright in the EFU zone. There is no evidence demonstrating
how Waveseer could have been able to identify the existing farm uses on the Gallucci property as a separate "Youth
Activity Center" within the separation buffer. The CDD Memo also confirmed that recreational activities not
incidental to the farm use or residential use of a property require land use permits. Since there are no permits for
the 4-H Club activities occurring on the Olsen property, there is also no evidence demonstrating how Waveseer
could have been able to identify uses accessory to the residential use of the Olsen property as a separate "Youth
Activity Center" within a separation buffer.
It is unreasonable to require an applicant to trespass, take the word of self -interested neighbors, and conduct
a lengthy stakeout of property, all for the purpose of obtaining information regarding whether youth -oriented
activities occur on a property. Furthermore, such information still fails to notify an applicant if a particular property
violates a separation buffer because the DCC contains no definition of "Youth Activity Center," there is no use
category for "Youth Activity Center," and such term is not used anywhere else in the code.
Notably, a "Youth Activity Center" is not an enumerated use permitted outright on EFU land under ORS
215.283(1). While it may be conceivable that a "Youth Activity Center" could be permitted on EFU land as part
of a non -farm use under ORS 215.283(2), such as a Commercial Activity in Conjunction with Farm Use, no such
permits exist on properties neighboring the Waveseer property. Pursuant to ORS 215.203(1), "Land within such
[exclusive farm use] zones shall be used exclusively for farm use except as otherwise provided in ORS 215.213,
215.283 or 215.284." Since a "Youth Activity Center" is not specifically enumerated as allowed on EFU land, and
since there are no permits for allowed uses that could conceivably encompass a "Youth Activity Center" on
neighboring properties, no "Youth Activity Center" may lawfully exist on neighboring properties.
To deny a land use application for an outright permitted "farm use" on EFU land (Waveseer's marijuana
production facility) due to an unpermitted non -farm use allegedly existing on EFU land (Rhinestone Ranch and 4-
H Club "Youth Activity Centers") would be prohibited under both ORS 215.203 and ORS 475B.526(1)(a). In fact,
such action would violate Statewide Planning Goal 3, which states that "[a]gricultural lands shall be preserved and
maintained for farm use" and that "[z]oning applied to agricultural land shall limit uses which can have significant
adverse effects on ... farm ... uses." By inventing a new non -farm use, not mentioned or defined anywhere else
in the DCC or state statute, and using that non -farm use to limit a state -designated farm use, the Board effectively
created a non -farm use that can have (and is having) "significant adverse effects" on a farm use, i.e., preventing
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 19, 2020
Page 3
marijuana production on EFU land. By adopting DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)(iv), the County exceeded its power
contrary to Statewide Planning Goal 3 and the provision is prohibited by law.
In its' Final Opinion and Order, LUBA stated:
"[W]hile we doubt whether a youth -oriented farm use or residential use could limit
a farm use on property that is zoned EFU, it may be that, under different facts and
circumstances, the county could interpret the undefined phrase `youth activity
center' in a manner that would not violate ORS 215.416(8)(a) and ORS 475B.486."
LUBA Opinion and Order, p. 19.
Nothing on remand presents a material change to the facts and circumstances of this matter in a way that the County
could reasonably interpret the Rhinestone Ranch and the 4-H Club activities as "Youth Activity Centers" within the
separation buffer. There is no evidence in the record identifying any publicly available notice of any authorized
"Youth Activity Center" within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Any interpretation to the contrary would be
patently unreasonable and in violation of ORS 215.416(8)(a) and ORS 475B.486. Neither the undefined "Youth
Activity Center" buffer provision, nor the Board's interpretation of the same, informs interested parties of the basis
on which applications would be granted or denied because neither the applicant, opponents, nor the Board, itself,
can derive a consistent basis on which applications such as Waveseer's would be granted or denied under the
provision.
The term "standards and criteria," as used in ORS 215.416(8)(a), plays the same role as the Oregon Court
of Appeals found in in ORS 227.178(3) and ORS 215.428(3): "[T]o assure both proponents and opponents of an
application that the substantive factors that are actually applied and that have a meaningful impact on the decision
permitting or denying an application will remain constant throughout the proceedings." Davenport v. City of Tigard,
121 Or. App. 135, 141, 854 P.2d 483, 486-87 (1993). Because "Youth Activity Center" is undefined in the code
and does not exist anywhere else in the code to provide context for its meaning, the term inherently hands the Board
unbridled discretion to define the term as it sees fit, which is precisely what the Board will do if it denies Waveseer's
application again.
For these reasons, Waveseer complies with the 1,000-foot Youth Activity Center buffer requirement, and
the Board should approve this application on remand.
C. Waveseer Meets All Odor Control Standards.
As discussed at the remand hearing, the County's challenged final decision stated that the Board adopted
and incorporated by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the
November 16, 2018 Administrative Decision. The Administrative Decision found and concluded that Waveseer's
application complied with the County's odor control standards. Notably, the Board's findings in the challenged
decision did not reference any evidence rebutting the applicant's expert. Based on the Board's findings in its final
decision and the adoption and incorporation by reference of the prior Administrative Decision, the Board has
effectively found that Waveseer meets all odor control standards, and this application should be approved.
Alternatively, even if the Board did not adopt and incorporate the findings and conclusions of the
Administrative Decision with regard to odor control requirements, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates
that Waveseer's application complies with the County's odor control requirements. At the remand hearing,
Waveseer's engineering expert, Roger Whitaker, testified that the proposed odor control system meets the
requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) and will serve as an effective odor control system, which will at all times
prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Mr. Whitaker also stated that
ionization would not create any hazardous waste that could leak into the ground or water supply. Mr. Whitaker
explained that ions attach to odor molecules, making them drop to the ground like dust, which can easily and
effectively be harmlessly removed via sweeping.
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 19, 2020
Page 4
For these reasons, as well as those provided in Waveseer's application materials and submittals, Waveseer complies
with all odor control standards, and this application should be approved.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, at the remand hearing, in the post -hearing open record period, and as set forth
in LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, we believe that Waveseer's application meets the "Youth Activity Center"
separation requirement and odor control requirement, in addition to all of the other applicable standards and
approval criteria, under the County's code for a marijuana production facility. Therefore, we respectfully request
that you approve this application on remand.
Sincerely,
Corinne Celko
Attorney
cc: Client (via e-mail only)
EMERGE LAW GROUP
Ashley Williams
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Matt,
Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com>
Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:37 PM
Matt Martin
Gretchen Reuter
Waveseer Remand; Case File Nos. 247-18-000128-AD, 247-19-000870-A
2020.02.12 - LT Patti Adair - Applicant's Rebuttal in Second Open Record Period.pdf
As you know, this law firm and I represent the Applicant in the above -referenced remand proceedings. Attached please
find the Applicant's rebuttal letter, which is timely submitted within the second post -hearing open record period. Please
include this letter in the official record for this proceeding, and please place this letter before the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners.
Please also confirm receipt.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
Best,
Corinne
Corinne S. Celko I Attorney
EMERGE LAW GROUP
621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
Portland, OR 97205
O: 503.227.4525 1 D: 503.467.0396 ( E: corinne@emergelawgroup.com
Assistant: Gretchen Reuter 1503.467.0321 1 gretchen@emergelawgroup.com
III emergelawgroup.com
This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and
purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and any attachments,
and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking of any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
LA
�� � �
CORINNE CELKO
Admitted in Oregon
(503) 467-0396
corinne@emergelawgroup.com
621 SW Morrison St., Suite 900, Portland, OR 97205
February 12, 2020
VIA E-MAIL ONLY (matt. martin@deschutes. org)
Patti Adair, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
PO Box 6005
Attn: BoCC
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC
Case File Nos. 247-18-000128-AD; 247-19-000870-A
Applicant's Rebuttal in Second Open Record Period
Dear Chair Adair and Members of the Board:
As you know, my law firm and I represent Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer") with regard to the above -
referenced application and LUBA's remand of the County's decision denying Waveseer's proposed marijuana
production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. This letter serves as Waveseer's rebuttal to the
evidence and arguments submitted during the first open record period, and this letter is timely submitted within the
second open record period. Please place this letter in the official record for this proceeding and approve this
application.
A The Rhinestone Ranch Cannot Constitute a Youth Activity Center.
1. The CDD Memo Explains the Limited Farm Uses Allowed at the Rhinestone Ranch.
At the remand hearing, Assistant County Counsel, Adam Smith, testified that the County had previously
met with the Galluccis and made an oral land use decision determining that all of the activities taking place on the
Rhinestone Ranch were allowed outright and that no land use approvals or permits were necessary. At the request
of the Board, Mr. Smith and Community Development Department ("CDD") staff agreed to submit into the record
a memo summarizing their meeting with the Galluccis.
Accordingly, a memorandum from Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky entitled, "Rhinestone Ranch/January
7, 2019 Meeting Recap/Recent Events," and dated February 5, 2020 (the "CDD Memo"), was submitted during the
first open record period. In summarizing the uses taking place at the Rhinestone Ranch, the CDD Memo stated as
follows:
"They [David Gallucci and representatives of the Rhinestone Ranch] stated that
the primary use of the property and aforementioned facilities is for stabling or
training equines, a farm use defined in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.04.030
and permitted outright in the Exclusive Farm Use zone, DCC 18.16.020(A)... .
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 12, 2020
Page 2
Contrary to their website which identified after school activities, homeschooling
and holiday events, they further clarified that no other land uses or activities occur
on the subject property."
CDD Memo, p. 2.
Based on the representations made by Mr. Gallucci and representatives of the Rhinestone Ranch, CDD determined
as follows:
"The `stabling or training equines, including but not limited to, providing riding
lessons, training clinics and schooling shows' are allowed outright as a `farm
use(s).' The uses of the Rhinestone Ranch, as described, clearly fell within the
definition of farm use. Specifically, the equine -related activities and uses
described for the public (e.g., training, riding, education at camps, classes, or pony
parties) fell within `riding lessons.'
However, increased intensity and types of uses require land use permits, such as
farm stands, agri-tourism events, recreational activities not directly related to the
farm use or incidental to the residential use of the property, and/or commercial
activities in conjunction with farm use. The representatives were informed that
CDD would be glad to help them explore the permitting process(es) if expanded
operations were anticipated in the future." (Emphasis in original).
CDD Memo, p. 2.
The CDD Memo also stated that portable toilets may be allowed for limited uses associated with farm use,
but that if the Rhinestone Ranch expanded operations, permanent onsite wastewater infrastructure would be
necessary with a detailed proposal, a complete approved site evaluation and any necessary installation designs and
onsite wastewater permits. See CDD Memo, p. 2. In addition, the CDD Memo stated that a Change of Use permit
would be required to verify that fire and life safety requirements were met if the dwelling on the property were used
by school children and/or accompanying adults, and that while equine facilities allowed riding lessons and training
clinics, ORS 455.315 limited such lessons and clinics to a maximum of 10 persons at any one time. Id.
Lastly, the CDD Memo confirmed that additional events may be occurring at the Rhinestone Ranch beyond
what was represented at the January 7, 2019 meeting and that holiday events, like a "Santa on the Ranch" event,
are likely not "farm use" and are not allowed outright. See CDD Memo, pp. 2-3. The CDD Memo confirms that
the only allowed use on the Rhinestone Ranch is the stabling or training of equines, which is a defined "farm use"
and permitted outright in the EFU zone.
2. The Record Contains Evidence of Unpermitted and Illegal Activities on the Ranch.
As demonstrated in the record of the proceedings in this matter, the activities taking place at the Rhinestone
Ranch were described differently than they were described to CDD staff at the January 7, 2019 meeting. In the
proceedings below, representatives from the Rhinestone Ranch testified that they held Summer Camps for up to 50-
70 children every week. Additionally, the record below contains photos of more than ten (10) children at one time
in riding helmets or on horseback. More recently, the Code Enforcement Complaint initiated by Waveseer and
submitted into the record contains evidence from the Rhinestone Ranch's website demonstrating that there are
numerous youth -oriented commercial events and services currently offered for a fee that include scavenger hunts,
crafts, games, hay rides, a visit from Santa, birthday parties, and a school.
As confirmed by the CDD Memo, increased intensity and types of uses over and above stabling and training
equines, including "riding lessons" for no more than 10 people at any one time, require land use permits, possible
onsite wastewater permits, and potential building permits. Since there are no land use permits, development
FMERGE LAW GROUP
February 12, 2020
Page 3
permits, building permits, or other authorizations for uses other than "farm use," any additional youth -oriented
commercial events and services offered by the Rhinestone Ranch are unpermitted and illegal.
3. Interpreting the Rhinestone Ranch as a Youth Activity Center is Contrary to Law.
As the County determined in the CDD Memo, any increased intensity and types of uses over and above
stabling and training equines, including "riding lessons" for no more than 10 people at any one time, require land
use permits, possible onsite wastewater permits, and potential building permits. Since there are no such permits or
authorizations for the Rhinestone Ranch, any youth -oriented commercial events and services occurring at the ranch
that go above and beyond "farm use" are unpermitted, illegal, and cannot form the basis of a Youth Activity Center.
To the extent that the Board interprets such unpermitted, illegal activities to form the basis of a Youth Activity
Center, the Board's interpretation would be contrary to law. An illegal use cannot prevent a lawful use from
occurring within a separation buffer.
Furthermore, to the extent the Board interprets the "farm use" at the Rhinestone Ranch to form the basis of
a Youth Activity Center, the Board's interpretation would also be contrary to law. The Rhinestone Ranch cannot
be a primary farm use and a primary Youth Activity Center use that prevents another farm use from siting on EFU
land. A "Youth Activity Center" is not an allowed use on EFU land under state statute or under Deschutes County's
own code. To LUBA's point in its Final Opinion and Order remanding the decision back to the County, there is no
practical way for an applicant to identify a "Youth Activity Center" if the use consists of permitted farm use on
EFU land.
B. A Residential Home Hosting 4-H Club Meetings Cannot Constitute a Youth Activity Center.
No New Evidence Was Submitted Clarifying the 4-H Club Meeting Activities.
During the first open record period, Attorney Michael Gottlieb submitted a letter on behalf of Chris Olsen,
the owner of property located at 24432 Dodds Road (the "Olsen Property"). Mr. Olsen also submitted an email on
his own behalf. Neither Mr. Gottlieb's letter nor Mr. Olsen's email further describe or clarify the youth -oriented
activities allegedly taking place at the Olsen Property. Based on the record of the proceedings below, Mr. Gottlieb
had previously stated that 4-H club meetings occur bi-weekly from January until August in the residence on the
property, as well as in an outbuilding and outdoor facility/pen on the property. See letter from Mr. Gottlieb, dated
February 27, 2018. As discussed more fully below, the 4-H club activities are either incidental or accessory to the
residential use of the Olsen Property, or such recreational activities are of a type and intensity that they require land
use permits.
2. Interpreting the 4-H Club Activities as a Youth Activity Center is Contrary to Law.
According to the CDD Memo:
"... [I]ncreased intensity and types of uses require land use permits, such as farm
stands, agri-tourism events, recreational activities not directly related to the farm
use or incidental to the residential use of the property, and/or commercial
activities in conjunction with farm use." (Emphasis added).
CDD Memo, p. 2.
Since there are no permits issued on the Olsen Property for youth -oriented recreational activities, the 4-H club
activities are either incidental to the residential use of the property or they are illegal — either way, such activity
cannot constitute a Youth Activity Center use. To the extent that the Board interprets such unpermitted, illegal
activities to form the basis of a Youth Activity Center, the Board's interpretation would be contrary to law. An
illegal use cannot prevent a lawful use from occurring within a separation buffer.
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 12, 2020
Page 4
Furthermore, to the extent the Board interprets the activities that are incidental to the residential use of the
Olsen Property to form the basis of a Youth Activity Center, the Board's interpretation would also be contrary to
law. An incidental or accessory use cannot prevent a primary farm use from siting on EFU land. A "Youth Activity
Center" is not an allowed use on EFU land under state statute or under Deschutes County's own code. To LUBA's
point in its Final Opinion and Order remanding the decision back to the County, there is no practical way for an
applicant to identify a "Youth Activity Center" if the use is merely incidental or accessory to the primary residential
use of the property.
C. There is No "Notice" or "Foreseeability" of a "Youth Activity Center" on the Gallucci Property or
the Olsen Property.
Both Mr. Gottlieb and Mr. Olsen contend that Waveseer could have obtained notice of the youth -oriented
activities occurring on the Olsen Property by calling, writing, or knocking on the door and asking Mr. Olsen what
activities occur on the property. However, this contention misses the mark and creates the exact scenario LUBA
warned against.
First of all, the "notice" to which an applicant is entitled is the existence of a "Youth Activity Center" use,
not merely the existence of activities involving youth. An applicant must have a way to practically identify a Youth
Activity Center use within a separation buffer and be able to distinguish such use from activities involving youth
that are part of a different use or are incidental or accessory to a different use.
Secondly, requiring an applicant to obtain "notice" of a Youth Activity Center directly from a neighbor is
an example of why LUBA found the Board's prior interpretation to be unreasonable. In its Final Opinion and Order,
LUBA stated as follows:
"We agree with petitioner that the county's broad interpretation of "youth activity
center" is unreasonable because there is no way for an applicant to determine if a
particular EFU-zoned property could be used for marijuana production. Instead,
the county interpretation would allow the county to deny a marijuana production
application when any neighboring property owner testified that youth -oriented
activities regularly occur on a neighboringproperty within the separation buffer.
Those youth -oriented activities may occur outdoors, or in a farm structure, as part
of an existing farm use, or may occur in and around a residence as accessory to a
residential use. In any event, a property owner or applicant would not have any
practical way of identifying whether those youth -oriented activities are occurring
within the separation buffer surrounding any particular EFU-zoned property. As
applied in this case, the county's interpretation of youth activity center is so
amorphous and uncertain that we conclude it is unreasonable." (Emphasis added).
LUBA Opinion and Order, pp. 18 - 19.
Lastly, no different facts or circumstances have been raised at the remand hearing or during the open record
period to demonstrate that Waveseer had any practical "notice" of a Youth Activity Center within the separation
buffer to disqualify the subject property from being eligible for a marijuana production facility. Therefore, to the
extent the Board relies on the argument that Waveseer failed to ask its neighbors what activities occurred on
surrounding properties to deny this application again, the Board's interpretation will be deemed unreasonable.
D. Title Company Issues Are Irrelevant to This Proceeding.
During the first open record period, Mr. Olsen submitted an email alleging that a title company would be
unable to close a loan or hold escrow for property purchased with the intent to grow marijuana. Mr. Olsen expressed
concern that laws were broken in the acquisition of the property. For the reasons discussed more fully below, Mr.
Olsen is wrong, and this issue cannot form the basis for a denial of this application.
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 12, 2020
Page 5
First and foremost, this remand proceeding is limited to the two issues raised in the notice of remand
hearing: 1) the interpretation of the youth activity center separation buffer; and 2) the odor control requirements.
The title company issue falls outside of the narrow scope of this remand and should be rejected. Secondly, Mr.
Olsen is precluded from raising this issue now because he could have raised it in the proceedings below, but failed
to do so. The original land use application is signed by Peter Winsor as the property owner, and the record in the
proceedings below contains the Statutory Warranty Deed demonstrating that the current owner of the property is
Peter Winsor. Since this issue is outside the scope of the remand and was not raised in the proceedings below, it
cannot be raised now.
Secondly, approval or denial of a land use application for a marijuana production facility in the EFU zone
shall be based solely on the standards and criteria as set forth in DCC Chapter 18.16 (EFU zones), Chapter 18.80
(Airport Safety Combining Zone), and Chapter 18.116.330 (Supplementary Provisions for Marijuana Production).
LUBA has stated that the "standards and criteria" for permit approval must already exist in the plan and ordinance,
and the local government cannot manufacture standards and criteria to apply to approve or deny a permit application.
See Buel-McIntire v. City of Yachats, 63 Or LUBA 452 (2011) and Hoffman v. Deschutes County, 61 Or LUBA
173 (2010). Furthermore, LUBA has held that a local government's decision violates the law where the local
government relies on "factors" and "considerations" unconnected to approval standards in its land use regulations
to deny a permit application. Ashley Manor Care Centers v. City of Grants Pass, 38 Or LUBA 308 (2000).
The standards and criteria that apply to this application do not include the issue of whether a title company
was aware of the intent in purchasing a particular property. Therefore, this issue is irrelevant to this application and
cannot form the basis for a denial of this application.
Thirdly, Mr. Olsen is factually incorrect. I have been a land use lawyer representing clients in the cannabis
industry for over four (4) years. I have worked with title companies who were fully aware of the intent to use a
particular property for a cannabis business, and who served as escrow agent, closed the transaction, and provided
title insurance on the property. Not all title companies openly work with cannabis businesses, and there are some
title companies who used to work with cannabis businesses and no longer do so. However, it is factually incorrect
to say that no title company will close a loan or provide escrow services to a buyer with the intent to use property
for cannabis. There is no legal requirement that a title company must be informed of the exact use to which
purchased property is required to be put. Furthermore, a title company is not necessary to close a loan or provide
escrow services in a real estate transaction. Law firms can provide escrow services to their clients in a real property
transaction.
Lastly, Mr. Winsor purchased the subject property from the former owners in 2016, prior to his affiliation
with Waveseer. Waveseer is currently under contract to purchase the subject property from Mr. Winsor. There is
no evidence in the record of any problem with title, no evidence in the record that any laws were broken in the
acquisition of the subject property, and there is no evidence in the record of any claim by a title company that it was
"misinformed" during any transaction involving the property. For these reasons, this title company issue should be
rejected and cannot form the basis for a denial of this application.
E. DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)0v) Itself is Unreasonable.
Based on the Board's comments at the remand hearing, including leaving the record open on its own whim
and suggesting that the opponents submit evidence regarding what Waveseer was told by the former owner of the
subject property, DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)(iv) is unreasonable in violation of ORS 215.416(8)(a) and ORS
475B.486(2), and any decision invoking this provision is prohibited by law.
It seems as though the Board would have an applicant trespass, take the word of self -interested neighbors,
and conduct a lengthy stakeout of property, all for the purpose of obtaining information regarding whether youth -
oriented activities occur on surrounding properties. Even if such youth -oriented activities occur, an applicant is
still uncertain as to whether a property violates a separation buffer because the DCC contains no definition of
EMERGE LAW GROUP
February 12, 2020
Page 6
"Youth Activity Center," there is no use category for "Youth Activity Center," and such term is not used anywhere
else in the code.
Furthermore, the Board has acknowledged that the meaning of "Youth Activity Center" has morphed and
changed for them over time as they consider new applications, and the Board has expressed different factors for
determining a Youth Activity Center in different proceedings. These circumstances demonstrate that the DCC
approval standards and criteria for the subject application fail to inform interested parties of the basis on which an
application will be approved or denied, in violation of ORS 215.416(8)(a). For these reasons, DCC
18.116.330(B)(7)(a)(iv) is, itself, unreasonable.
F. Waveseer Meets All Odor Control Standards.
During the first open record period, no one submitted any evidence or argument demonstrating that
Waveseer had failed to meet all odor control requirements. No one challenged the applicant's contention that, based
on the Board's findings in its final decision and the adoption and incorporation by reference of the prior
Administrative Decision, the Board has effectively found that Waveseer meets all odor control standards.
Additionally, no one challenged Waveseer's engineering expert's testimony at the remand hearing, and no
one challenged the applicant's contention that substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that Waveseer's
application complies with the County's odor control requirements. For these reasons, as well as those provided in
Waveseer's application materials and submittals, Waveseer complies with all odor control standards.
Conclusion.
For the reasons stated above, no additional facts or circumstances exist on remand to support an
interpretation of "Youth Activity Center" that results in a denial of this application. Based on the evidence and
argument on remand, and as set forth in LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, we believe that Waveseer's application
meets the "youth activity center" buffer requirement and odor control requirement, in addition to all of the other
applicable standards and approval criteria, under the County's code for a marijuana production facility. Therefore,
we respectfully request that you approve this application on remand.
Sincerely,
Corinne Celko
Attorney
cc: Client (via e-mail only)
EMERGE LAW GROUP
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: February 5, 2020
SUBJECT: Rhinestone Ranch /January 7, 2019 Meeting Recap / Recent Events
On December 19, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing on the Waveseer
marijuana production proposal (case file: 247-18-000128-AD/247-19-000899-A). Appellants raised a new
issue on appeal.' Specifically, appellants testified that the proposed marijuana facility would be located
within 1,000 feet of the lot line of a neighboring property containing a "youth activity center" - i.e. the
"Rhinestone Ranch." As such, the appellants argued the application must be denied.
Based on the appellants' and Rhinestone Ranch representatives' testimony during the public hearing
regarding the size, frequency, and range of youth activities occurring on the Rhinestone Ranch property,
Community Development Department (CDD) staff, in consultation with the Deschutes County Legal
Department, contacted Trisha Wright to determine if the activities and uses comply with Deschutes County
Code and state law. Specifically, Nick Lelack, CDD Director, called Rhinestone Ranch representative Trisha
Wright to schedule a meeting to discuss the issues raised during the public hearing and information
discovered on the Rhinestone Ranch website regarding land uses and activities occurring on the property.
The following staff from CDD met with David Gallucci, Jarod Wright, and Trisha Wright, representatives of
Rhinestone Ranch, on January 7, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.
• Nick Lelack, Director
• Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
• Chris Gracia, Assistant Building Official
• Todd Cleveland, Environmental Soils Supervisor
• Will Groves, Senior Planner
Christ Gracia, the Deschutes County Assistant Building Official and Todd Cleveland, Environmental Soils
Supervisor participated in the meeting to determine compliance with the Oregon Building Code and State
onsite wastewater treatment regulations.
1 This issue was not raised during the administrative (staff) review and decision.
Pagel of S
According to Deschutes County Property Information, a residence, built in 1945 and six farm buildings exist
on the Rhinestone Ranch property, 61311 Williamsen Ranch Road, tax lot 1813120000700.2 Staff asked the
Rhinestone Ranch representatives to clarify the land uses that were taking place at the Rhinestone Ranch
property. They stated that the primary use of the property and aforementioned facilities is for stabling or
training equines, a farm use defined in Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18,04,030 and permitted outright in
the Exclusive Farm Use zone, DCC 18.16.020(A). The Rhinestone Ranch representatives explained that
school children regularly participate in a wide range of horse -related uses and activities on the property,
such as training programs and camps. Contrary to their website which identified after school activities,
homeschooling and holiday events, they further clarified that no other land uses or activities occur on the
subject property.
Based on the Rhinestone Ranch representatives' explanation of the uses and clarifying their previous
testimony to the Board as well their website, Senior Planner Will Groves stated our (CDD) determination
that:
The "stabling or training equines, including but not limited to, providing riding lessons, training
clinics and schooling shows" are allowed outright as a "farm use(s)". The uses of the Rhinestone
Ranch, as described, clearly fell within the definition of farm use. Specifically, the equine -related
activities and uses described for the public (e.g., training, riding, education at camps, classes, or
pony parties) fell within "riding lessons".
However, increased intensity and types of uses require land use permits, such as farm stands,
agri-tourism events, recreational activities not directly related to the farm use or incidental to
the residential use of the property, and/or commercial activities in conjunction with farm use.
The representatives were informed that CDD would be glad to help them explore the permitting
process(es) if expanded operations were anticipated in the future.
Todd Cleveland addressed onsite wastewater obligations. He discussed allowing portable toilets for limited
uses associated with farm uses. However, he emphasized that if they wanted to expand their operations,
permanent onsite wastewater infrastructure would be necessary with a detailed proposal, a complete
approved site evaluation and any necessary installation designs and onsite wastewater permits. If they
wished to change the use of a facility with an existing onsite wastewater treatment system, an authorization
notice would also be required.
Chris Gracia discussed building permit requirements if the dwelling was being used by school children
and/or accompanying adults. He emphasized a Change of Use permit would be required to verify that the
fire and life safety requirements were met. He also informed representatives that equine facilities
regulated by Oregon Revised Statute 455.315 allowed riding lessons and training clinics, but were limited
to a maximum of 10 persons at any one time.
CDD staff encouraged the Rhinestone Ranch representatives to enter written testimony into the Waveseer
record clarifying the activities and uses on their property based on their statements and explanations to
CDD during the meeting. However, no such testimony was provided during the open record.
More recently, CDD staff discovered that additional events may be occurring at the Rhinestone Ranch
beyond what was represented during the January 7, 2019 meeting. Specifically, staff became aware that
2 http://dial.deschutes.org/Real/Improvements/112515
the Rhinestone Ranch apparently hosted a "Santa on the Ranch" event on December 8, 2019. Facebook3
reports the event was attended by at least six members of the public. It is unclear if the extent and nature
of the 2019 event was similar to the 2018 "Family Santa Day on the Ranch" event.4 While CDD is declining
to issue a formal determination in this letter, this type of holiday event is likely not "farm use". Staff
encourages the property owners to contact planning staff to schedule a pre -application meeting to explore
permitting options if such events are anticipated in the future.
3 https://www.facebook.comZevents/2469960526459590 (See Attachment A, below)
4 https://www.facebook.com/events/355977425172353/``
(See Attachment B, below)
Attachment A
DEC Santa on the Ranch
8 Rhinestone Ranch
* Interested ✓ Going ...
St►nday, December 8, 2019 at 10 A1,41 - 2 Pl,,l
Rhinestone Ranch slllov� Map
About DISCLIssion
6 Went • 6 Interested
https://www.facebook.com/events/246996052645959Q/
(image date 2/5/2020)
Attachment B
DEC Family Santa Day on the Ranch
23 ir, Rhinestone Ranch
* Interested
2 Dates Dec 9. 2018 - Dec 23 2018
Rhinestone Ranch Snov,- Mlap
Hosted by Rhinestone Ranch r:.lessage Host
About Discussion
80 Interested
Details
Conte enjoy our 2nd annual Santa Family Day at the Ranch. Our kids have
been enjoying Santa visits at Rhinestone Ranch for 7 years and we thought
it was time to share the joy with their parents!
Come take a picture and visit veith Santa enjoy a family caroling hay ride,
and a pony/horseback ride for the kids(or yourself if You'd like).
Tickets include (1) Santa visitipicture.. (1) hay ride and (1) pony horseback
ride.
There will be food and hot cocoa available to warm up and lots of Ranch
style holiday fun!
1 pm to 4pm
https://www.facebook.com/events/355977425172353/
(Image date 2/5/2020)
Matt Martin
From: Chris Olsen <bauerelectronics@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 4:52 PM
To: Matt Martin
Subject: Letter to The Board
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
RE: File No: 247-18-000128-AD
At the last hearing it was made public that Peter Winsor is an employee of Waveseer of Oregon, LLC,
and the owner of the property at 24350 Dodds Rd. and 24360 Dodds Rd. in Bend, Oregon. He
purchased the property on 11/16/2016. 1 believe the submit date for the permit was 02/07/2018. In the
two years that Peter Windsor lived at the property neighboring ours, he made absolutely no contact
with me or my wife. He (the company) had ample time to contact neighbors, and to ask questions
regarding land use. It is not my requirement to notify neighbors that we have a youth activity center
on our property. The County Commissioners and The Land Use Board have already determined that
my property (24432 Dodds Rd. Bend, Oregon) is a youth activity center. LUBA was concerned that
there is no way to determine which property owners operate youth activity centers, because
registration is not required by the County. Waveseer of Oregon, LLC could have easily contacted me
by phone, mail, or simply by walking up my driveway.
If this property was purchased with the intent of building a marijuana growing facility, the title
company would be unable to close the loan. Due to the conflict between federal and state laws
concerning the cultivation, distribution, manufacture or sale of marijuana, title companies are not able
to close or insure any transaction involving land that is associated with these activities. Was the
property purchased by Peter Windsor privately, or did he purchase the property as an employee of
Waveseer of Oregon, LLC? I am concerned that laws were broken in the acquisition of this property.
If the owner intended to use the property for the purpose of marijuana, he would have needed to "mis-
inform" the title company.
The owner of Waveseer of Oregon, LLC stated at the last meeting that the property was in escrow.
As far as I know, there are not title companies which handle properties to be used for the cultivation,
distribution, manufacture or sale of marijuana. I would like to request that the Board looks into this
issue.
Chris Olsen, President
Bauer Electronics
(541) 389-7755
62935 Layton Ave
Bend OR 97701
http://www.bauerelectronicsinc.com/
Matt Martin
From: Corinne Celko <corinne@emergelawgroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 4:39 PM
To: Matt Martin
Cc: Gretchen Reuter
Subject: Waveseer Remand; Case File Nos. 247-18-000128-AD, 247-19-000870-A
Attachments: 2020.02.05 - LT Patti Adair - Waveseer of Oregon, LLC - Applicant's Submittal in First
Open Record Period.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi Matt,
As you know, this law firm and I represent the Applicant in the above -referenced remand proceedings. Attached please
find the Applicant's letter, which is timely submitted within the first post -hearing open record period. Please include this
letter in the official record for this proceeding, and please place this letter before the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Please also confirm receipt.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter.
Best,
Corinne
Corinne S. Celko I Attorney
EMERGE LAW GROUP
621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
Portland, OR 97205
O: 503.227.4525 1 D: 503.467.0396 1 E: corinne@emergelawgroup.com
Assistant: Gretchen Reuter 1 503.467.0321 1 gretcien@emergelawgroup,carl-I
}}} emergelawgroup.com
This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or confidential information intended for a specific individual and
purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication and any attachments,
and are notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication and any attachments, or the taking of any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
1
CORINNE CELKO
Admitted in Oregon
(503)467-0396
corinne@emergelawgroup.com
621 SW Morrison St., Suite 900, Portland, OR 97205
February 5, 2020
VIA E-MAIL ONLY (mutt. martin@deschutes. org)
Patti Adair, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes County
PO Box 6005
Attn: BoCC
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC;
Case File Nos. 247-18-000128-AD; 247-19-000870-A
Applicant's Submittal in First Open Record Period
Dear Chair Adair and Members of the Board:
As you know, my law firm and I represent Waveseer of Oregon, LLC ("Waveseer") with regard to the
above -referenced application and LUBA's remand of the County's decision denying Waveseer's proposed
marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Fann Use (EFU) zone. Waveseer renews and incorporates by
reference all of its arguments, testimony, and evidence relating to the youth activity center buffer requirement and
odor requirement in the proceedings below. Waveseer also requests that the entire record of the proceedings below
be included in the record of this remand. As demonstrated in the record, and for the reasons provided at the remand
hearing and stated below, Waveseer meets all of the approval criteria for a marijuana production facility, and the
Board should approve this application.
A remand hearing was held before the Board on January 29, 2020. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Board held the record open for additional evidence and argument. This letter is timely submitted within the first
open record period and provides a response to the issues raised at the remand hearing. Please place this letter in the
official record for this proceeding and approve this application.
A. Procedural Issues.
In its Final Opinion and Order, LUBA found the Board's interpretation of the term "youth activity center"
to be unreasonable, and it remanded the decision back to the County to try to interpret the term in a way that was
not contrary to law. Specifically, LUBA stated:
"[W]I"ile we doubt whether a youth -oriented fain" use u" "esidential use could )unit
a farm use on property that is zoned EFU, it may be that, under different facts and
circumstances, the county could interpret the undefined phrase `youth activity
center' in a manner that would not violate ORS 215.416(8)(a) and ORS 475B.486."
LUBA Opinion and Order, p. 19.
EMERGE 1 AW GROUP
February 5, 2020
Page 2
In essence, LUBA's remand requires the County to adopt different findings using an interpretation of the term
"youth activity center" in a way that complies with the law.
At the remand hearing, neither the applicant nor any opponent submitted new evidence.' In addition, no
opponent requested that the record be left open to submit new evidence. In fact, the applicant expressly requested
that the hearing and the record be closed because no new evidence was necessary to comply with LUBA's remand.
Nevertheless, on its own, the Board kept the record open for an additional three (3) weeks to allow the parties to
submit new evidence. The Board also suggested that opponents specifically submit new evidence relating to what
the former owners of the subject property told the applicant to notify them of the youth -oriented activities taking
place on the Gallucci property.
It is the applicant's burden to demonstrate compliance with all applicable approval criteria, and the
applicant has done so in this matter. By keeping the record open at its own whim and soliciting new evidence in
opposition to the applicant, the Board has become an advocate for the opponents, which is contrary to its role as
impartial and unbiased decision -makers.
B. Waveseer Complies with the Youth Activity Center buffer requirement.
In its Final Opinion and Order, LUBA stated as follows:
"We agree with petitioner that the county's broad interpretation of "youth activity
center" is unreasonable because there is no way for an applicant to determine if a
particular EFU-zoned property could be used for marijuana production. Instead,
the county interpretation would allow the county to deny a marijuana production
application when any neighboring property owner testified that youth -oriented
activities regularly occur on a neighboring property within the separation buffer.
Those youth -oriented activities may occur outdoors, or in a farm structure, as part
of an existing farm use, or may occur in and around a residence as accessory to a
residential use. In any event, a property owner or applicant would not have any
practical way of identifying whether those youth -oriented activities are occurring
within the separation buffer surrounding any particular EFU-zoned property. As
applied in this case, the county's interpretation of youth activity center is so
amorphous and uncertain that we conclude it is unreasonable."
LUBA Opinion and Order, pp. 18 - 19.
Despite LUBA's findings, at the remand hearing, Chair Adair suggested that the applicant had notice of the youth -
oriented activities taking place at the Rhinestone Ranch as evidenced by photos in the record below of at least
fourteen (14) children wearing helmets and riding horses. She also noted that she recalled seeing a sign at the
entrance to the property that read, "Rhinestone Ranch." In addition, Commissioner Henderson inquired about what
due diligence the applicant engaged in prior to purchasing the subject property. He also asked if the seller informed
the applicant about the activities taking place on the Rhinestone Ranch and if the applicant knocked on the
neighbor's doors to inquire about what they were doing on their properties. However, these suggestions and
questions are misplaced.
First of all, there is no evidence that such youth riding photo was taken from a public road or that any of
the youth equine activities could be seen from a public road. Even if youth equine activities could be seen from a
public road, as LUBA alluded to, there is no practical way for an applicant to know whether such youth activities
are part of an existing farm use, are neighborhood kids having a piaydate, or if they constitute a "youth activity
center" occurring within a separation buffer. Additionally, a sign that reads "Rhinestone Ranch" denotes nothing
about youth activities. In fact, it more accurately denotes a permitted equine farm use. It is common for people to
' It is worth noting that the original appellant in this matter has sold their property and did not appear at the remand hearing
or otherwise oppose the application at the remand hearing.
February 5, 2020
Page 3
name their properties or boats without suggesting some sort of commercial business associated with such things.
With regard to the 4-H club meetings, there is similarly no practical way for an applicant to identify whether youth
activities on rural residential property are part of the existing residential use or constitute a "youth activity center"
occurring within a separation buffer.
Secondly, as LUBA also already alluded to, the appropriate method of identifying a particular "youth
activity center" cannot rely on the lay opinion of neighboring property owners. An applicant should not have to
rely on a seller of property to determine what lawful activities are happening on neighboring properties and to
accurately convey that information to the applicant as a potential buyer. An applicant should also not have to rely
on a neighbor to determine what lawful activities are happening on their own property and to accurately convey
that information to an applicant. The method of identifying whether youth activities constitute a "youth activity
center" should be practical and objective, such as by referring to a specific definition in the code or by review of
publicly available land use approvals or permit records. LUBA has put the onus on the County to interpret the term
"youth activity center" in a way that ensures an applicant can practically and readily identify such use.
Thirdly, assuming that youth -related equine activities occur at the Rhinestone Ranch, such activities are
part of the existing primary farm use and, therefore, cannot also constitute a separate primary use of "youth activity
center." Again, in this instance, an applicant has no practical way of identifying whether particular youth -related
activities on EFU land are part of a primary farm use, whether they constitute a "youth activity center," or whether
they are both. The applicant argued at LUBA that the youth -related activities occurring at the Rhinestone Ranch
cannot be both a farm use and a "youth activity center" use, and the applicant renews and incorporates that argument
here.
Lastly, even if it were possible to be both a primary farm use and a primary "youth activity center" use,
there are commercial youth -related activities on the Rhinestone Ranch that go beyond equine farm use and are
unpermitted, unauthorized, and illegal. At the remand hearing, Assistant County Counsel, Adam Smith, testified
that the County had previously made an oral land use decision determining that all of the activities taking place on
the Rhinestone Ranch were allowed outright and that no land use approvals or permits were necessary. Mr. Smith
also testified that the time to appeal such oral land use decision had passed. We strenuously dispute Mr. Smith's
assessment, and the applicant has filed a Code Enforcement Complaint with the County. The Code Enforcement
Complaint and supporting evidence is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
As the Code Enforcement Complaint demonstrates, there are numerous youth -oriented commercial events
and services offered at the Rhinestone Ranch for a fee that include scavenger hunts, crafts, games, hay rides, a visit
from Santa, birthday parties, and a school. These commercial activities and events are not permitted outright on
EFU land. Despite all of these commercial activities, there is no business registered with the Oregon Secretary of
State with the name "Rhinestone Ranch," there is no business license under such name, there is no evidence of
insurance for such business, and there are no County land use approvals or permits for such agri-tourism or
commercial events or activities offered at the Gallucci property.
Based on the discussion in LUBA's Final Opinion and Order, the 4-H club and youth -oriented equestrian
activities on neighboring properties cannot qualify as "youth activity centers" because there is no evidence in the
record identifying any publicly -available notice of the authorized existence or siting of such "youth activity center"
uses. There is no evidence in the record identifying any publicly -available notice of any authorized youth activity
center within 1,000 feet of the subject property.
For these reasons, Waveseer complies with the 1,000-foot Youth Activity Center buffer requirement, and
the Board should approve this application on remand.
C. Waveseer Meets All Odor Control Standards.
As discussed at the remand hearing, the County's challenged final decision stated that the Board adopted
and incorporated by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the
November 16, 2018 Administrative Decision. The Administrative Decision found and concluded that Waveseer's
application complied with the County's odor control standards. Notably, the Board's findings in the challenged
February 5, 2020
Page 4
decision did not reference any evidence rebutting the applicant's expert. Based on the Board's findings in its final
decision and the adoption and incorporation by reference of the prior Administrative Decision, the Board has
effectively found that Waveseer meets all odor control standards, and this application should be approved.
Alternatively, even if the Board did not adopt and incorporate the findings and conclusions of the
Administrative Decision with regard to odor control requirements, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates
that Waveseer's application complies with the County's odor control requirements. At the remand hearing,
Waveseer's engineering expert, Roger Whitaker, testified that the proposed odor control system meets the
requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) and will serve as an effective odor control system, which will at all times
prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Mr. Whitaker also stated that
ionization would not create any hazardous waste that could leak into the ground or water supply. Mr. Whitaker
explained that ions attach to odor molecules, making them drop to the ground like dust, which can easily and
effectively be harmlessly removed via sweeping.
For these reasons, as well as those provided in Waveseer's application materials and submittals, Waveseer
complies with all odor control standards, and this application should be approved.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, at the remand hearing, and as set forth in LUBA's Final Opinion and Order,
we believe that Waveseer's application meets the "youth activity center" buffer requirement and odor control
requirement, in addition to all of the other applicable standards and approval criteria, under the County's code for
a marijuana production facility. Therefore, we respectfully request that you approve this application on remand.
Sincerely,
Corinne Celko
Attorney
Enclosure
cc: Client (via e-mail only; w/encl)
CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM
Instructions: In order for your complaint to be accepted, you must fill in all questions completely and
sign on the back of this form. It is important that you supply as much detail as possible. If you have
any questions, call code enforcement at 541-385-1707.
Date: February 3, 2020
Address of Violation(s): 61311 Williamsen Ranch Road
City: Bend State: Oregon Zip: 97701
Nearest Cross Street: Dodds Road
Subdivision:
Residents Name: Phone:
Owner of Property: David and Sheri Gallucci
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Details of Complaint (be specific): See attached Code Enforcement Complaint Statement.
ARE THERE ANY KNOWN OR SUSPECTED HAZARDS AT THIS LOCATION?
IE: Dangerous or unstable residents, dogs, criminal activity, etc.
( ) YES ( ) NO (x ) UNKNOWN
If yes, please identify the hazard in detail:
**** Continue on reverse side *****
The top portion of this side is required and must be completed.
[NOTICE: Pursuant to ORS 152.502(4) and, as applicable, ORS 192.501(1) identification of, and
information provided by the Complaining Party(s) is kept confidential and is not subject to public
disclosure until such time as the code enforcement case is deemed closed.]
Complaining Party(s): (Your Name)
Name: David Rosen, Waveseer of Oregon LLC
Address: 1248 West Altgeld street
City: Chicago
Daytime phone #: 503.227.452
State: IL Zip: bUb14
Email corinne@emergelawgroup.com
(Waveseer's legal counsel, Corinne Celko)
Can violation be seen from the road? ( ) Yes ( ) No If not, what is the best inspection point?
Unknown
Is the Complainant a neighbor? FXJ Yes ( ) No
The complainant gives the Code Enforcement Technician permission to use their property for
viewing the violation: ( ) Yes tx* No If not, why: ,o because pt lic roads at 1d other pdiaceeLt_
properties are c oser t ant a complainant property.
Will you, the complainant, testify in court, should the need arise? (XJ Yes ( ) No
(Note: your complaint may not be accepted without your being available to testify.)
If you have photos, or other related information, that can be used as evidence of this violation, please
submit them with this form. The submitted documentation will not be returned and will become part of the
complaint file.
By signing below, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that all information submitted on and with
this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
COhn"'l.t�INA T
2/3/2020
DATE
Thank you for assisting in making Deschutes County a better place to live.
Your Code Enforcement Stab'
Code Enforcement Complaint Statement
I am submitting this Code Enforcement Complaint regarding unpermitted activities at the Rhinestone
Ranch. The Rhinestone Ranch appears to be a facility for the training and stabling of equines, which is
allowed outright on EFU land. However, it appears that other commercial, non -equine activities occur
on the property that are not allowed outright on EFU land. Here is a summary of the commercial, non -
equine activities that occur on the property, with attached numbered exhibits:
1. Summer Camps. According to the Rhinestone Ranch website, summer camps include scavenger
hunts, crafts, t-shirt decorating, and swimming/water play.
2. Spring Break Camp. According to the Rhinestone Ranch website, this camp includes crafts and
games.
3. Thanksgiving Break Camp. According to the Rhinestone Ranch website, this camp includes
Thanksgiving crafts and games.
4. Santa on the Ranch Day. According the Rhinestone Ranch website, this event includes hay rides,
Christmas crafts, and a visit from Santa. This website page also includes sales of clothing, like
the "Rhinestone Ranch Childrens Jacket."
S. Pony Party. According to the Rhinestone Ranch website, this event is meant for birthday parties
and includes party table time, games, and western party hats and bandanas.
6. Homeschool Class. According to the Rhinestone Ranch website, the ranch offers an "Academy"
to children who don't live on the property in exchange for payment of tuition. This is essentially
marketed as a school, with "games and ranch playtime."
All of the camps and events listed above appear to be commercially available to the public and require a
fee to participate. There do not appear to be any land use approvals or permits for the above -
referenced activities. Testimony and argument in the record of Case File No. 247-18-000899-A provides
additional support that these camps and activities are taking place on the property.
4811-7310-1747. v. 1
2020 Summer Camp
Sessions will run weekly from June thru the end of August.
Children ages 5-18 are welcome to sign up for a session.
Riding Sessions will start promptly at gam and run until 1 pm.
2019 Summer Camp Dates:
Session 1:
Session 2:
Session 3:
Session 4:
Session 5:
Session 6:
Session 7:
Session 8:
Session 9:
All sessions run from 9-1 M-TH and 9-12 on Friday.
Session Costs:
WEEK SESSION - $325 per week if registered before June 1,
2019
$375.00 per week if registered after June 1, 2019, (Available
June thru August; Monday thru Thursday 9-1 pm, Friday 9-
12pm session concludes after our "mini horse show') Online
store prices include 3% credit card fee,
MINI SESSION - $85.00 per day (Available June thru August;
Munddy, Tues, Wed, Thurs.)
AFTERCARE- 1:00-3:30pm M-TH $150 per week or $407day
ADVANCED HORSE SESSIONS: These will run M-F from
1:30-4pm and will be reserved specifically for kids ages 7-18
who ride regularly and would like to improve in specific areas.
THE FOLLOWING ARE REMINDERS TO ALL PARENTS 8r
t"if"Y7E 3 :> EC7'i "i(,I[ ! f' 45..19)
Shop
EXHIBIT 1
dmti ., o�i^
RIDERS:
Orientation
9-9:15A - Every Monday come get to know our staff & camp
procedures! Let us know of any questions or special requests.
We will do our very best to fulfill special requests but we can't
promise to accommodate all of them.
Waiver Form
Many registration forms get sent in without the mandatory
Waiver forms having been completed properly) Waivers are
good for the entire year during which it is completed (i.e. it's
good for the year 2014 not necessarily for 12 months after
you complete it). If you came to a summer session last year
you need to complete a new waiver. If we don't have a current
waiver on file, you'll HAVE TO fill one out at drop-off time
Monday morning, no exceptions.
LUNCH, SNACKS, HAT, HELMET & LOTSA WATER!!
Be sure your child brings LUNCH, SNACKS, HAT, HELMET &
a LOT of WATER! Due to liability, staff are not allowed to
provide lunches to riders, if they forget one and due to time
constraints, a microwave is not available for heating
everyone's lunches. Make sure to provide riders with water
bottles that have a long strap to go everywhere they do! Also,
your kid's bike helmet works great!
13001' s
tders s aic- requiroO to wear BOOTS w;ih .s :.r Y e,e.l fcl foo;
sa:irety Save V by going to consignillent stores K, p,rrcY,2sc
,ised Loots- NVr also h ire: o supply of I:}Dots of the; ranch It
your Child needs to bcxro•t 'a pair fo- ;hc. weeL< OIC_•s ;let us
knov,i sc we carp 'utc: tic WC lawe th '1- S ze on nand
EXTRA CLOTHES
Pack riders an EXTRA change of clothesl Clothes can get
dirty, sweaty, wet or lost. Make sure to LABEL ALL
belongings! Bring a swim suit and towel each day.
FABULOUS FRIDAY HORSE SHOWS
Our FABULOUS FRIDAY HORSE SHOWS are from
approximately 11:30-12pm. Arrive at 11:20 to enjoy our
performance and children are dismissed from their session at
the completion of the show.
DAILY ACTIVITIES & NECESSITIES: (Subject to change.
Check weekly)
Please have your child bring a swim suit, towel, and sandals
each day In case we decide to get wet after our hot horseback
rides.
*MONDAY Bring your questions & smilin' faces to our opening
meeting from 9-9:30am. Also, bring water for your rider, their
lunch & any Medications or Instructions for rider's medical
needs.
Summer Session 2(,Juno 22-26)
$331 `.50
! fC_"+L7C,t J. i. h{; !J( PLrcl,�;e Anti c ,"siotl 1
Shop
Surnmor Session 3(Jutic �P -July 3)
>3 i, 501
I i; duct will be hlc. rcr unit! _t ss�or� is at
Shop
*TUESDAY Super fun activities from Scavenger Hunts &
Horse Crafts.
*WEDNESDAY Wet Day- Swimsuit, towel, change of clothesl
*THURSDAY T-Shirt Day... T-shirts will be given out & all
riders have the option of decorating their shirt if they would
like.
*FRIDAY HORSE SHOW DAY ..bring t-shirts to wear in the
Show(11:30-12ish) Remember to stay through the end so you
can receive your child(ren)'s Riding Achievement Certificate.
Riders will be dismissed to go home at the conclusion of the
show.
We will have the following available to our riders:
Ongoing Sunscreen & Water, Water, Waterl
However... we still recommend that you send each rider with a
supply of their own, just to make surel!!
Our staff is so excited to teach your children the ways of the
west! l
Thank you for the opportunity to meet you & your family!
We welcome you to many Storybook adventuresl
Rhinestone Ranch
urns ;ear'Si •Rci«r r,(,.)t It f G�10)
Pmdt cl 'M tie' I,< d:ftA Tmti' lz� at
chop
Shop
q
EXHIBIT 2
Spring Break Camp:
Spring Break Horse Camp
March 23-27
Beginners Camp: 9am-12pm. Age 5 and up. Have fun in a camp like setting while learning the fundamentals of horseback riding. If you've never been to camp, or if vou've
been but still have a tot to learn, this Is the place for you. Camp will include horseback riding, horse education, crafts and games,
Cosil
Early Registration by March 1: $3001wk or $801day
After March 1: $3501wk
Horse Show Camp: 1:30-4prn. Ages 6 and up This camp is for our more experienced riders looking to brush up and learn more about showing their horse. We will work on
Showmanship, Hunt Seat Eq(English Eq), Pleasure classes, and Western Horsemanship. We will conclude our camp with the opportunity to participate in a judged horse
show(Saturday the 28) with ribbons through 61h place. Campers are encouraged to bang their own horses, but if you don't have a horse, you are welcome to use one of
ours. This is the perfect apporiunity to get ready for the upcoming show season!
Cost:
Early Registration by March 1: $300NA
After March 1: $350,'wk
Camp Registratinn Form
spring_break_registration putt
For more Information or Call Trisha @ 930-6BB-4780
Sprinc. Break Horseback Riding Camp Begirmer Morning Seseinm
9
$309 OG,
Mil",ch 23-2-�
Shop
EXHIBIT 3
Thanksgiving Break Camp
Looking to get your children outside during Thanksgiving Break? Excite them with a fun filled horsemanship program at Rhinestone Ranch! We have a large indoor arena to
get out of the weather and ride the day away)
Who? Children ages 5 and up
What? Horseback riding, crafts and other fun flames
When? November 25. 26, and 27 from 10am-ipm
Cost? $2501Child
Please call Trish @ (530)588.4780 or email @ Trish@RhinestoneRanchBend.com for sign up and information
T i;mI {Jlvin 13 rtak ! € ae! wi-, Add to Cart
EXHIBIT
Ufa Iil 01c F"Im il,
(,'alf r,,sh C(530)L5541i60lo sjx)l of em ail tier m—: dwwl, Gpwus are ftm,t.cl R1.5w- your spot
Mdayll
1 —'Ili, f� lo, nt� ,- "i, 1, f,., u,fI. ; V—:c.. ,,-�) ""0 e, f IIIW,o, s �r,11 ",1 -'M"W
R, i 1 s t C) I I e R o, n C, h C, h i I d I e n s Jac k in
kanch `42-, rd
Shop
EXHIBIT 5
Have a barn party for your little one!
Elvis, our little pony, is the perfect addition to your cowboy or cowglrl birthday party! We can haul to you or host your
entire party at the Rhinestone Ranch
Pricing and Details -
Mini Party Package;
` One hour of pony time with THREE guided poniesfhDrses for rides and games
One hour of party table time.
" Up to six attending children
$200
Deluxe Party Package.
One hour of pony time with FOUR guided poniesfhorses for rides and games.
One hour of party table time.
Up to eight attending children.
Western party hats and bandanas to each guest.
$275
Pcny „ocw to /our nlacc�
`Typically one hour of pony rides with one or two ponies hauled to your location.
._,ultVi
EXHIBIT 6
Fall/Spring HomeSGhool Class
New to our Horseback Riding Program this year, we have developed a Homeschool program with the goal of
combining basic through advanced horsemanship with equine studies to create a complete education. Students
progress at their own pace with the focus on developing a solid foundation both physical and academic. Students
will attain practical experience working with horses.
The program consists of several levels, beginning with level 1. Level 1 provides the student with a basic
introduction to horses, riding, and safety. Each level provides opportunity to explore a different discipline of
horseback riding. This enables our students to receive complete well rounded horsemanship skills.
On the first day, Academy student receive a level one study book. Students should read at least 15 minutes every
day in order to learn what is needed to pass their levels. Each level has its own study book and homework.
Students turn in homework each week, which is graded. Students progress at their own rate; they can pass as
quickly or as slowly as needed. Students that have learning disabilities can have their test orally and/or broken
down into smaller sections when testing. In addition, a pretest is required before testing in order to insure that
students have a good understanding of the academic and lab portion of their level.
Classes are three hours long, this includes; turning in assignments, catching, grooming and tacking horses, and a
one hour riding lesson pertaining to the students current riding level and bookwork, testing, games and ranch
playtime and lunch(brought by the student). Classes will hold up to 12 students with one to two instructors.
To register for class, please fill out a Homeschool Academy Sign Up Form along with a Riding release Form, and
either mail them with your tuition check to Rhinestone Ranch, 24375 Dodds Rd. Bend, OR 97701, or email them
to Trish@RhinestoneRanchBend.com and pay tuition by purchasing a "Homeschool Academy Session" in our
online store.
1 all 2019 Cllaic su i:fnes:
::IGtobr;,... 1 _N'ovemiber 5 1 O:Hlk3n I prn
Cost: $325/C hIld
Sp,nng;; 2.020 claies tirn�s
l ru,,- l&iys April 7- May 26 i O� lanr
(Excluding Apri' '14)
Cost. $425!Child
Enrollment Form:
home schoo Len rol I ment—form. pdf
Spring Homeschool
Academy 2020
S425.00
1 t J'\Pl
Shop
Fail Home,,chool Academy
$325.00
Add to Cart
Matt Martin
From: Michael Gottlieb <michael@gottlieb-law.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:53 AM
To: Matt Martin
Cc: Chris Olsen (bauerelectronics@yahoo.com)
Subject: Objection to Proposed Land Use Action / File no. 247-18-000128-AD (Waveseer of
Oregon, LLC)
Attachments: 20200204094125864.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Mr. Martin,
Please find the attached letter on behalf of my client, the property owner of 24432 Dodds Rd in Bend, Oregon which is
adjacent to the subject property. Thank you.
M ICHAEL GOTTLIEB
Attorney I Law Office of Michael B Gottlieb PC
(503) 545-0498 (www,poitlieb -law corn
1
MICHAEL B GOTTLIEB, PC
February 4, 2020
Matthew Martin
Community Development
PO Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708
matt.martin@deschutes.org
VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL & E-MAIL
Re: Objection to Proposed Land Use Action
File No.: 247-18-000128-AD
Applicant: Waveseer of Oregon, LLC
Subject Property: 18-14-07 Tax Lot 500 and 18-13-12 Tax Lot 100
Dear Mr. Martin,
ATTORNEY AT LAW
PO BOX 209
LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034
ISM) 546.0498 TEL
I5031 546-0499 FAX
W W W.GOTTLIEB-LAW. COM
This office represents the property owner of 24432 Dodds Rd., Bend, Oregon 97701, which is
adjacent to the Subject Property referenced above.
As described in this office's letter dated February 27, 2018 to Nicole Mardell at the Community
Development Department of Deschutes County, my client conducts activities on their property
which qualify as a youth activity center.
Chapter 18.116.330 of the Deschutes County Code prohibits marijuana -related activities within
1,000 feet of a youth activity center. Accordingly, my client reiterates their objection to the
proposed land use action that would allow a marijuana production facility within 1,000 feet of their
property.
It is my understanding that the Applicant has expressed concerns regarding challenges in
determining whether a youth activity center exists within 1,000 feet of their proposed use, and the
fact that the Applicant has already made considerable investments in furtherance of the proposed
use. Presumably, the Applicant is making this argument to excuse itself from complying with
Chapter 18.116.330 of the Deschutes County Code.
Regardless of the difficulty in determining whether a youth activity center exists within 1,000 feet
of the proposed use, the obligation to do so resLs widi Lhe Applicant. it is the Applicant's fault, and
the Applicant's fault alone, that the Applicant did not conduct proper due diligence to determine
that a youth activity center exists on my client's property.
My client has informed me that the Applicant did not reach out to them in any manner prior to
submitting the land use application. A simple phone call, letter, or visit to my client's property (and
the other properties nearby the Applicant's property) would have fully informed the Applicant of
the activities conducted on the surrounding properties prior to making any plans and spending any
money. It would not have been difficult, time consuming, or expensive for the Applicant to mail a
handful of letters to neighboring property owners asking if their properties have a youth activity
center.
Chapter 18.116,330 of the Deschutes County Code was crafted to protect properties such as my
client's property, and that protection should be upheld regardless of the level of difficulty for an
applicant to comply with its terms.
Sincerely,
AMichael B. Gottlie
michael@gottlieb-law.com
ES co
01
i'.'
..-1
Date: March 10, 2020
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator
Re: COVID-19 Discuss Plan for County Employees
At tomorrow's Board meeting under "other items," Tom and I would like to discuss with you
COVID-19 and its current and potential impact on employees, the County's Leave Policy, and
telecommuting.
Current Policy
l . Employees who are sick are encouraged to stay home. An employee who is ill can use their
Time Management Leave (TML) or other accrued leave (some employees have a sick back,
others may have hours in their "comp. time" banks). An employee who does not have accrued
leave may request unpaid leave.
2. The County's Leave Policy, HR-14 (attached) allows for a supervisor to require an employee
with an illness to leave the workplace. If the employee disagrees with the supervisor's
assessment, the County may require the employee to visit urgent care. If the employee receives
documentation from the physician to immediately return to work, the County shall pay for the
urgent care visit and the visit shall be counted as time worked.
3. Employees are allowed seven "unscheduled" absences (calling in sick as opposed to requesting
a day off in advance for vacation or other scheduled activity). After the seventh unscheduled
absence, an employee may be disciplined.
4. Leave Donation Policy, HR-13 for OFLA/FMLA qualifying leave. Employee must have
minimum leave hours (40) when the leave is requested.
Current/Possible Scenarios
1. Employee has cold symptoms or flu symptoms.
2. Employee wants to stay home to avoid undefined/general exposure.
3. Employee thinks they were exposed to Corona virus and would like to self -quarantine for 14
days.
a. TML or other accrued leave
b. Employee requests to work from home
c. Employee is out of accrued leave and their job does not allow for working from home
4. Employee needs to stay home with sick family member or to watch a child due to school/day
care closure, or other reason.
a. TML or other accrued leave
b. Employee requests to work from home
c. Employee is out of accrued leave and their job does not allow for working from home
5. Employee tests positive for COVID-19.
Potential Options — May Depend on Severity of Outbreak
1. Waive Leave Donation requirements (FMLA/OFLA qualifying illness, minimum 40-
hours of leave, etc.).
2. Telecommuting.
3. For certain duration of time, don't count respiratory illnesses or flu like symptoms as an
"unscheduled absence."
4. If an employee is out of leave time, he/she can apply for special disposition
a. Borrow against future leave accrual.
b. Limited number of Countywide bank of leave hours
5. Paid administrative leave.
Thank you.
i 300 '\.VV V a 1 St, e e t ;eii 0rc pnn )1lt):
'"`� `� 4 i 38 ()584 U'W', .Otg 9
r`',� �°c, Deschutes County Administrative Policy No.
:A "' ?., Effective Date: December 9, 2009
o i
LEAVE POLICY
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to provide paid leave to employees for vacation and sick time
and to require that employees responsibly manage their leave.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all regular County employees that accrue leave. Departments may adopt
stricter leave policies that are consistent with this policy. In the event of a conflict between this
policy and a collective bargaining agreement, the terms of the collective bargaining agreement shall
prevail.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
General
Time management leave is a combined leave bank for vacation and sick leave. The program is
designed to eliminate abuses of sick leave while rewarding employees for faithful attendance.
Employees are encouraged to maintain a reasonable leave balance in the event of an illness.
Employees who are ill are encouraged to use leave to become well and to prevent spread of the
illness to co-workers (if applicable). A supervisor may require that an employee with an illness
leave the workplace. A decision to send a sick employee home must be based on observable
symptoms and behaviors that lead a reasonable person to conclude that the employee is unable to
perform their basic job duties or presents a threat of infection to co-workers or the
public. Supervisors should consider the seriousness of the illness (for example, a common cold
generally would not be included) and the relative risk to the work group. If the employee disagrees
with the supervisor's assessment, the County may require the employee to visit urgent care. If the
employee receives documentation from the urgent care physician approving an immediate return to
work, the County shall pay for the urgent care visit and the time associated with the urgent care visit
shall be counted as time worked.
Procedure
Scheduled Leave
The County shall make reasonable efforts to grant requests for leave, but shall have no
obligation to do so, except for FMLA/OFLA qualifying leave and other protected leaves as
defined in Chapter 3.36 of the Personnel Rules.
Scheduled leave includes vacations, personal appointments, and other leave that is
requested in advance of the leave. Employees are required to request scheduled time off
from their supervisor at least one work day in advance. Department operations may require
more notice depending on the amount of leave requested and to maintain minimum staffing
levels. Employees must confirm that their time off has been approved prior to taking time
off.
Policy # HR-14, Leave Policy
+ Supervisors shall only approve scheduled leave for hours that are currently in the
employee's leave bank (leave banks are credited with that month's leave at the beginning of
the month, as reflected on the employee's time sheet). Leave accrued in the month is
available to be used anytime during the month. However, supervisors shall not approve
scheduled leave contingent upon future accumulation/credit to the leave bank.
Leave Without Pay
• Leave without pay is discouraged and may not be requested or granted until all accrued
leave, including compensatory time, has been exhausted.
• Leave without pay shall only be used in situations such as the death of an immediate
family member (as defined in ORS 659A), a personal or family medical emergency (as
defined in County Policy HR-12, Family and Medical Leave), or an extreme hardship
(such as an employee that has severe fire damage to their residence). A department
head may grant a leave of absence without pay up to 30 calendar days (or up to 90 days
when contained in an applicable collective bargaining agreements). Leave without pay for
periods in excess of 30 days must be approved by the County Administrator — except for
FMLA/OFLA qualifying leave. Factors that will be considered for leave without pay are
the nature of the request, the employee's previous leave use history, relevant discipline (if
applicable), probationary status, and workload.
• Except in cases of FMLA/OFLA qualifying leave, an employee on leave without pay for
more than 40 hours in a pay period shall be required to pay a pro -rated portion of their full
health insurance premium. Employees on leave without pay status shall only accrue paid
leave on a pro -rated basis for actual paid hours during the pay period.
Unscheduled Leave
• Employees are responsible for regular attendance at their jobs, per Chapter 3.20 of the
Personnel Rules. Excessive unscheduled absences create a burden on the other members of
the work team and can negatively impact service to our customers.
• Unscheduled leave is any non -qualifying FMLA/OFLA leave (as defined in Administrative
Policy HR-12, Family and Medical Leave Policy) that is not approved in advance.
Unscheduled leave is most often related to an employee or a family member becoming ill,
but it also includes unexpected events that result in an absence. If an employee is required
to leave work due to an illness, the incident shall be considered unscheduled leave.
Supervisors are responsible for closely monitoring unscheduled leave.
• Supervisors have the discretion to waive an incident due to extenuating circumstances.
• Supervisors may require documentation from a health care provider for any unscheduled
leave equal to or greater than three consecutive regular work shifts.
• Inappropriate or excessive use of unscheduled leave may be cause for disciplinary action.
Inappropriate use includes feigning illness, deceitful use of sick leave, or failure to provide
requested documentation for an absence. Excessive unscheduled leave is defined as seven
occurrences during a rolling twelve month period. FMLA/OFLA qualifying leave shall
not be included in calculating excessive unscheduled leave.
• An employee who takes excessive unscheduled leave, as defined above, may be required to
provide documentation of the reason for any additional unscheduled leave of any length of
time within a 12 month rolling period.
• For Performance Evaluations, an employee must have no more than six unscheduled leave
occurrences, as defined above, to receive a "Meets Standards" on the Attendance factor.
Policy 4 HR-14, Leave Policy
• An absence of more than one day for the same reason is considered one occurrence. If the
days are not consecutive, a doctor's note may be requested to establish that the absences are
linked.
oved by the De lutes County Board of Commissioners on December 9, 2009.
Dave Kanner
County Administrator
Policy # HR-14, Leave Policy
Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. HR-13
Effective Date: September 24, 2008
EMPLOYEE LEAVE DONATION
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to allow employees to voluntarily donate time management
leave, vacation leave, or compensatory time to other employees who are out of leave due to an
Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA) / Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) qualifying event.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all regular County employees who accrue leave and have completed their
initial probationary period.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
General
To be eligible to receive donated leave, an employee must have been approved for OFLA/FMLA
leave. OFLA/FMLA requires that the employee or employee's immediate family member have a
serious and extended illness or injury (immediate family member and serious/extended illness are
defined in the County's OFLA/FMLA policy).
Procedure
Elieibility for_Emoloyee to Receive Donated Leave
An employee interested in leave donation shall contact the Personnel Department. The Personnel
Department will determine whether an employee is eligible for donated leave. A physician's
statement may be requested of the employee requesting donated leave. The employee requesting
the donated leave must first use (or plan to use and have available) 40 hours of paid leave and then
exhaust all available paid leave including time management, sick leave (if applicable), floating
holidays, and compensatory time.
If an employee does not have a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave accrued (when the leave is
requested), they are not eligible for the donated leave program. The County Administrator may
waive the 40 hour requirement in unusual circumstances where an employee falls below 40 hours of
leave due to one occurrence of OFLA/FMLA leave and does not have sufficient time to build up
his/her leave bank before another occurrence of OFLA/FMLA leave.
Employees with a serious and extended illness are encouraged to apply for long term disability if
the illness is expected to last for several months. An employee using donated leave will continue to
accrue benefits and leave time, but must exhaust all leave as accrued.
Policy No. HR-13
Leave Donation Program
Eligibility for an Emoyee to Donate Leave
Employees who would like to donate leave must have a leave balance of at least 80 hours remaining
(this includes all types of leave, with the exception of the floating holiday) after the donation. Part
time employees must have a minimum prorated balance (for example, an employee working as a
0.5 FTE would need 40 hours).
Donating Leave
The Personnel Department will administer the leave donations. Solicitations by department heads,
supervisors, or co-workers are not permitted. Once an employee receives approval to use donated
leave, the Personnel Department will send out a notice to County employees of the request for
donated leave. The notice will include the name and department of the employee requesting the
leave.
Donated leave shall only include time management leave, vacation leave, and compensatory time.
It shall not include sick leave or the floating holiday. To donate leave, an employee must sign a
release document (Leave Donation Form — available on the intranet). Donors shall remain
anonymous and all contribution records shall be retained in confidential files. Donations of leave
will be on an hour -for -hour basis. The minimum contribution is eight hours for full-time employees
and four hours for part-time employees. Donations cannot be retroactive.
Once approved, the contributions will be placed in the recipient's leave bank in the order they were
received, but only as the recipient needs leave each pay period. In the event a request is processed
but the recipient does not use the leave, the leave will be restored to the donor's leave bank.
The maximum amount of donated leave that can be received by an employee in a rolling 12 month
period is 480 hours (prorated for part-time employees). If the employee using donated leave is
eligible for long-term disability, the employee is limited to the amount of donated leave that is
required to begin long-term disability. Once on long-term disability, an employee is not eligible for
any type of donated leave.
Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners September 24, 2008.
Dave Danner
County Administrator
Policy No. HR-13
Leave Donation Program