Loading...
1995-18697-Minutes for Meeting October 05,1983 Recorded 12/21/198314 95-1869% DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSONERS.4, OCTOBER 5, 1983 - COURTDAY MEETING } I1/ 3 83 r V0t E 51 fru Chairman Young called the meeting torder at 10:00 Commissioner Prante and Commissioner Tuttle were 999%Syfe 1QLL0W; AltRK Amendments Chairman Young read the amendments to the agenda. to the Agenda There were no changes or additions. Public Hearing Chairman Young explained that the Board of Commis - on Hydro sioners would not be acting on the draft Ordinance 83-058 at this time but would be accepting public testimony. Chairman Young opened the hearing. Rick Isham, Deschutes County Legal Counsel, explained that this ordinance would amend the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance of 1979, and provides for a Deschutes River Combining Zone. This ordinance effects areas outside of the Urban Growth Boundaries and outside of City limits. A map was presented by the Planning Department. Mr. Isham showed on the map the areas that would fall within the overlay zone (a one-quarter mile wide corridor on each side of the river's tributaries). The purposes set forth in the ordinance were taken from the various parts of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans in an attempt to put in one place goals and policies of that plan that relate to the Deschutes River and its adjacent areas. The ordinance provides for a study period, which in the original ordinance would be 12 months, but the Deschutes County Planning Commission has recommended an 18 month study period. The ordinance provides for the studying of cummulative effects of individual projects or uses of the river, stream flows, and provides that uses within the overlay zones are conditional uses. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for hydro power projects has the authority of giving licenses and permits for the development of the hydro power project. The State Water Resources Department processes applications for the use of stream flows. At the present time Water Resources does not have any policy or plan that would implement state wide planning goals with respect to the Deschutes River. The state wide planning goals within the jurisdiction of Deschutes County are vested in Deschutes County and vested in the Board of Commissioners; with the Cities inside of the urban area; and outside of the urban areas, with the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Isham.explained that there is no jurisdictional problem with the Board of County Commissioners considering the type of regulation proposed at this time. ..."4 " 1995 MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 1 Vol, 51 Chairman Young opened the hearing to those in favor of the ordinance. Tim Ward, 2151 N. E. Division, Bend, testified in favor of the ordinance. He is a real estate developer in the area and is interested in the maintenance of this environment as a source of personal enjoyment and for economic reasons. He stated that people move to Central Oregon because of the quality environment of which the rivers are a vital part. The potential for profound, negative, every lasting consequences exist without the ordinance so the right decisions need to be made, which can only come from good information as a result of careful study and the ordinance, before the Board would provide for this. Bill Meyer, P. 0. Box 6661, Bend, testified that he had been active in hydro for the last year and a half in Deschutes County. He stated that the Deschutes River is not over appropriated and is only over appropriated during the summer irrigation months, but the balance of the year there is a very minimal appropriation. The total appropriation of the river is sought by turning it into a hydro electric indus- trial area. Mr. Meyer explained that he spoke with the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and there is no state or federal body dealing with the problem of compatibility with hydro electric develop- ment in the Deschutes River basin at the present time and no legislative bill made any attempt to take away existing water rights. FERC has said that unless the communities enters into their deliberations, they only take the word of the developer and this ordinance will assure that this community will enter, if it wishes, into the FERC deliberations and ask for an environ- mental impact study. Fish and Wildlife has had no power to protect the river, but are now getting it. Mr. Meyer stated that this ordinance was not a mora- torium, it in no way effects local developers. According to the Department of Energy's Legal Counsel, Larry Epstein, this ordinance could be thrown out by a federal court where it refers to permit; but, you can, however, say you are granting a letter or certificate of compliance. He asked the Board to consider some reference to high tension lines and to consider the effects this ordinance may have on residential and resort development. If it is determined that this Board of Commissioners has no jursidiction, the Water Resources Department's present executive proposals ask for the same information as does FERC, so the county will still be fulfilling the facts regardless of the jurisdiction. He strongly recommended the passage of this ordinance. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 2 im vOt 51 Ac,, 347 Ron Ross, 1415 N. W. 4th, Bend, Chairman of Citizens for the Deschutes River testified that at this point we have a choice, either leaving the river as it is today or opening it up to hydro electric development. If hydro electric is allowed, standards need to be set; but, based on criteria and data we have to date, setting the standards would not be possible. He stated that no one would be against a study on hydro except those who are involved in the development of hydro electric. He asked the Board not to delay any longer the passage of this ordinance. John Wojack, N. W. 2nd Street, Bend, representing Deschutes River Kayak and Canoe Club testified that the club would like to see the ordinance adopted as quickly as possible because this group benefits recre- ationally by a free flowing river. He asked that the Board adopt the 18 month study period. The boater boats 4 seasons out of the year and is not limited to a summer activity. The longer study period would allow for that seasonal change and an evaluation in a relaxed atmosphere. By slowing down the push for hydro development, we will be able to address some existing conflicts of interest. Because of the City of Bend's proximity away from Mt. Bachelor, every winter visitor to Bend has to come into the Bend com- munity and if anything is done to the river to leave these people with a bad taste it could effect the tourist economy. Richard Lance, 33 N. W. Shasta, Bend, Vice -chairperson of the Citizens for Deschutes River, expressed his support of this ordinance and explained that it calls for a comprehensive study of the river, which is a very valuable assest to our county. He explained that during the Planning Commission hearing on hydro, lawyers representing irrigation districts brought up several problems that they had with the ordinance and the timing. One item brought up was that there wasn't a need for this kind of in-depth study, that basically FERC and the Water Resources Board and other govern- mental agencies that exist, have standards, so the study was not necessary. There are a lot of different standards and there is nothing that we can use that will give us an idea of how a multiple number of hydro projects will effect the river. Fish & Wildlife has standards for minimum stream flows that they think are necessary in order to preserve the fish and wildlife, but there is no legal impact to those standards. The MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 3 Water Resources Board has different standards; water is appropriated legally and there has been a debate with what the Water Resources Board says we ought to leave in the river, given the competing uses, which is quite different from what Fish & Wildlife says needs to stay in the river in order for the fish to live. FERC considers one permit at a time and doesn't have any detailed enviornmental standards that they look at; they look at engineering factors and each project rather then an entire basin. He stated that there is no standard for stream flow and we need a study that looks in detail at what happens if there are multiple projects, the impact of taking the water out of the stream running through a pipe and put back in; the impacts it will have on water temperature; and the impacts it will have on recreational uses. To obtain meaningful information there needs to be a comprehen- sive study, a start-up time, a local committee to oversee the study and the results of the study needs to be combined with results of other studies; for example the Northwest Power Planning Council's two year power update study (due to come out in July 1985), which will have valuable information about the need for power and factors that need to be incor- porated. The Northwest Power Planning Council will select a number of rivers and look at the potential impact of hydro on fish and wildlife (due out in January 1985). Mr. Lance suggested that these studies be combined into a comprehensive study which would give us the information needed; but, we would be looking at a two year time frame. The 18 month period recommended by the Planning Commission could be suf- ficient provided that there is a 6 month extension, which means there would be an opportunity for over- sight procedure. He strongly urged the Board to pass this ordinance as it stands with the suggested changes that strengthen it. Lynn Mathisen, Regional Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, came forward and submitted to the Board a letter on behalf of the department which he read. The Department Fish & Wildlife support the adoption of the ordinance. At this time there was a request for a 15 minutes extension for testimony from each side. Commissioner Tuttle recommended an extension and reconvening at 1:30 this date to finish the items on the agenda. He recommended 50 minutes for each side. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 4 yoz 51 otu Robert O'Brien, a River Specialist reperesenting Timberline Reclamations, Inc., Bozman Montana, testified that they are the corporation that has proposed a study that the representative of Fish & Wildlife mentioned. Timberline was originally called in to evaluate the COI project for Brooks Resources Corporation. They were concerned over the aesthetic degradation that the project may or may not have. After reviewing the application they felt that this particular project was extremely feasible and probably a monumental project in terms of its environmental quality. They have since proceeded to see what they could do through study, which has been accepted by the Department of Fish & Wildlife, to maintain both the fishery and the aesthetics of the Deschutes in that Region. Cumulative effect studies are expensive and limited to only generalized information because rivers are essentially indeterminate systems, extremely difficult to model and study. Hydro geometry must be studied in detail. This does not mean looking at existing information that is currently in the files of the U.S. Geological Survey; but, means monumenting a number of cross sections, which requires a great deal of manpower and financial resources. The results cannot be correlated because it would be an attempt to correlate without existing project designs. Itis more practical and logical to set up a study guide- line, which must be performed by all developers, that will address to the satisfaction of the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish & Wildlife, the County Commissioners and any other concerned parties, water quality, aesthet- ics, recreational use, and the effects on the fishery resource. By having study guidelines, projects could be judged on their own merits, as per the FERC requirements, the County concerns and the project in relation to other existing projects. In this way, detrimental projects can be dismissed on basis of fact and everyone will know what is required. He is in favor of the cumulative effect but doesn't believe the current procedure is going about it in the right way. The practical way to go about it would be to develop a study guideline that all developers would have to follow and as each project goes through the permit process on federal, state and at the local County level, developers must relay their projects specifi- cally to the river and all the other projects that currently exist. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 5 'VOL 51 wu Bob Robinson, 20368 Rae Road, Bend, came forward and testified that the Planning Commission was addressed by a number of attorneys for the irrigation districts and some of the points made were indicating that some permits had been dropped, which seems to imply that there is no but, as he t again be pic were express enough time had hearing: been intens] organizatior address the opment to o( excluded. 7 involved wit governments) concerned wi committee tc issue and wt throughout t is not unigc pushed into these permit The subcommi interested in the earll trying to pi procedures t development information them in thei minimum lenc serious con( months. He to be passes MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 6 longer concern over this particular site; nderstands, permits are returned and can ked up. Mr. Robinson stated that people ing some concern that there hasn't been to consider this item; but, the city has on this issue for quite some time and has ey covered by the local media and local S. This ordinance does not seem to ability for resorts and residential devel- cur along the river and they may be hey have tried to work with all levels h this issue (federal, state and local . He has contacted Congress who is very th this issue and has appointed a sub - specifically look into the hydro electric at is happening to local communities he United States. What is happening here e, except in the sense that we seem to be the forefront by the speed with which s have been developed in this local area. ttee has indicated that they would be very n working with this county, specifically part of next year, and are currently t together some comprehensive licensing hat will eliminate some of the serious problems that are occuring here. Any that can be developed locally will assist r project. An 18 month study period is a th of time that is needed to develop some erns which cannot be resolved in 12 supports this ordinance and would like it in a timely fashion. VOL 51 wn 351 Julie Rechtin, 33 N. W. Shasta, Bend, wanted to bring out the point that back in May the hydro lawyers said that,a two year study would be no problem, they just were not interested in three years or four years. She continued that she had participated in studies such as this and is aware that we have to a grant is needed for the Northwest Power Planning Council to do the study and if it is done by ourselves it is imparative to use other peoples information. The two studies that would be necessary to use are the environmental effects study (January 1985) and the two year update of the Power Plan (July 1985), in which the Power Council is going to try to reconcile some of the pro- blems that have developed between its needs and PURPA. Ms. Rechtin continued that the lawyers will probably appear to state that there is a need for power evidenced by the fact that they have been able to draw contracts so far for the hydro projects which have been proposed. This is only because the PURPA law requires this. PP&L has no choice because they have to buy the power and buy it at avoided cost and that avoided cost is set by a formula over which they have no control. She stated that it isn't that we need the power (it will be sold to California for a penny to a penny and a half a killowatt hour) so we are degrading our river for the sake of California. The power, according to the Power Council, is not going to be needed from any hydro until 1990, and two years is a short amount of time to study the river. Mike McKeever, 65620 Cline Falls Road, testified that he supports the ordinance. It is one of the better ideas local government has come up with in a long time. The main issue that he wanted to stress is the purposes section of this ordinance, which is the heart of the ordinance. There is a provision in the ordin- ance for any project which can satisfy those purposes to be allowed to be built. If all persons agree on the purposes, it is really a question of how we get to that end and what means do we choose. There are two important issues which make this ordinance very sensi- ble. The first is that there is currently a lack of information and most of the studies done on the river have been flawed because they have not looked at the cummulative effects of several projects on the river and have been conducted by firms which have a direct economic interest in promoting development on the rivers. By adopting an 18 month study period, time will be allowed for more of those sorts of objective studies, which you can rely'on to make good decisions in the interest of Deschutes County citizens, some of these being done by the Power Council. You have to look at the regulatory environment in which you are MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 7 making this decision. If there is adoption of this ordinance, you have made an extremely smart strategic decision because you have tied into the state level land use planning process and and have tied into a federal piece of legislation (the Northwest Power Planning Act). Mr. McKeever encouraged the Board to adopt this ordinance and the problems that have been created by the State and Federal governments will have been dealt with at the local level. Chairman Young opened the hearing for those persons opposed to this ordinance. Jim Jarvis, representing Brooks Resources Coporation, read to the commissioners a letter which was submitted as evidence from William Smith, President of Brooks Resources Corp. Bob Lovlien, representing Central Oregon Irrigation District, came forward in opposition to this ordin- ance. He testified that they recognize that the COID project is not affected by this particular ordinance since this would be within the urban growth boundary of Bend, but the concept being addressed by this ordinance is the same concept that is being applied to that section of the urban area. He felt this is a prohibition against small hydro electric projects during the term of the study period. He pointed out that in section 1(A) Purpose "To maintain and improve existing stream flow at present quality and quantity ...11 a small scale hydro electric project is going to take water out of the river for a stretch and then return it, reducing stream flow. This purpose can not be fulfilled with a small hydro electric project, which amounts to a prohibition. Mr. Lovlien also point out that in Section 1 (K) of the purposes section "To ensure that the individual and cumulative effects of development on or affecting the Deschutes River have no significant impact on the Deschutes River, its tributaries, and stream flows". An indi- vidual developer can not guarantee that subsequent hydro electric developments will not have some cum- ulative negative impacts on the river. No developer is allowed by law to zone the Deschutes River, so there is inconsistent purposes in the ordinance and some purposes which would specifically prohibit hydro electric. He suggested that the purposes section be reviewed and the language used in the ordinance be reviewed. The overlay zone has serious and unintended affects, because as he reads the ordinance, any exist- ing use within the overlay zone becomes a non -conform- ing use, about the worse status you can have under zoning laws. Mr. Lovlien said that if we are trying to address hydro electric to do so, but to not impose MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 8 va 51 n 35 serious consequences on other uses within the county. COID's position is that their project needs to be studied and they have agreed to be bound by the results of the Timberline Reclamation study, if it is to be performed, but the ordinance does not allow such a result. Any study to be of any benefit is going to have to study primarily those stretches of the river that are going to be directly impacted by the proposed hydro electric projects and most of those projects have not been finalized with the respect to design. Mr. Lovlien requested that the Board review this ordinance on the basis of the comments of Timberline Reclamation as being the more appropriate way to handle the questions that have been raised and a more appropriate way to study the river. He continued that PL -11 doesn't allow application to be made for a small scale hydro electric project, which causes a problem, and no application could be made under the terms of this ordinance as proposed. This ordinance could become counter-productive. There are groups willing to have studies done and willing to spend money to have studies performed, but if this type of ordinance is enacted the incentives to have these studies done is diminished. COID is willing to have its project studied, but not studied to death. There are a number of studies that could be used such as an in -stream flow incremental methodology, which is a computerized study of the entire river. A 30 mile stretch of river would cost between $3,000 and $4,000 and it is very generalized information which will not provide the specific information that is needed to address indivi- dual projects. Mr. Lovlien asked the Board to reeval- uate the methodology of how these studies get done and if a developer can present studies that show the pro- jects can show a net benefit to the community, a net benefit to the river, and a net benefit to the habi- tat, the developer should be able to proceed with some type of small scale hydro electric project application at that time. There are incentives available and types of studies that can be done to serve the purpose the seems to be expressed. COID would agree to have reasonable controls imposed upon the development of the project by the County in terms of what it looks like, how it is built, etc., which he feels this body has the power to regulate. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 9 Vot 51 rm 354 Neil Bryant, Gray Fancher Holmes and Hurley, repre- senting Arnold Irrigation District testified that they are attempting to study and decide whether or not to go ahead with two possible projects; one of these being where the existing flume take-out is south of Deschutes River Woods; the second is in conjunction with Arnold and JED above Bennom Falls. Arnold has approximately 4200 irrigated acres, which Affect about 2,000 people in Deschutes County. Arnold Irrigation is interested in hydro because they feel they could conserve water in that way. They lose 40% - 50% of the water through absorbtion and evaporation and do not have money to adequately repair their system. The income that they would share from a small hydro pro- ject would enable them to make the needed repairs. They serve primarily farm and domestic use and con- sider themselves environmentalists. They are not trying to destroy the river. He opposes the ordinance because it is vauge, ambiguous, and overreaching. Arnold Irrigation District wants to work with the County in developing a fair ordinance, but the ordin- ance in question is not it. No district, during the study period, would have a chance of meeting the specifications and requirements, but the goals that are proposed preclude the development of hydro as it is presently recognized. Mr. Bryant stated that the County is ignoring FERC and other state agencies in what it is proposing. Arnold Irrigation is awaiting an Attorney General's opinion to determine who has priority when water resources and the County might disagreee on whether or not a license should be allowed. This ordinance is saying that the county is not interested in hearing what the irrigation district is trying to do. Arnold Irrigation has environmental concerns and studies will be done addressing these concerns. One project that Arnold has is estimated to cost 16 million dollars, bringing that money into the economy; estimated property tax $200,000 a year; pro- viding good water flow to the people on Arnold; fire protection that would not be available in certain areas because of insufficient pressurized water. He suggested the ordinance be studied by a nine member committee with representatives from the Planning Commmissions and people expressing interest and try to adopt an ordinance. Most of the information necessary to develop the specifics of a good ordinance are avai- lable today. This would create a working relationship between the districts and the County, which is necess- ary. If a license is granted to them and they do not complete the projecct within 2 years, they then lose their priority and any one can file for that license. Deschutes County would be better served in dealing with a local irrigation company rather than an MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 10 VOL 51 PAa, .3 55 outsider. Mr. Bryant represents the Inn of the 7th Mountain who has a concern on the overlay one. They are in the process of a trade with the forest service for approximately 230 acres, which they intend to develop into a golf course, and falls within this overlay zone. Their message is that if you want to affect hydro, affect hydro, but limit the ordinance so that it doesn't affect the other types of development. Commissioner Tuttle asked Mr. Bryant to explain where the two locations are of the Arnold Irrigation projects for the record. Mr. Bryant explained that one is where the existing flume take out is just south of Deschutes River Woods and the second is in conjunction with Arnold and GED and above Benham Falls. Jim Curtis, 63735 Johnson Road, Bend testified that he has a nuetral position in this matter. He quoted from LCDC Goal 5, Goal 9 Goal 13 of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and the Bend City Comprehensive plan as it relates to the conservation of renewable resources. It appears to him that they have been collected to look at some of the beneficial impacts of hydro development and are looking at the adverse impacts of it. LCDC Goals 5, 9, and 13 refer to the conservation, protection and development of renewal energy resources. Goal 5 specifically indicates that required sites for the generation of energy (i.e. hydro, solar, etc.) should be conserved and protected. Goal 9 discusses the availabilty of renewable resources and development of activities which promote economic development in the area. Goal 13 specifi- cally states that local plans should provide for dev- elopment, utilization and proectection of renewable with energy resources. The Bend Area's comprehensive Plan Goal 13 specifically provides for potection and development of energy resources. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goal 13 is to protect local and national with energy resources and to assist as appro- priate in the provision for adquate local energy supplies. Under the policies, it states that the County shall review and promote the development and use of local alternative and energy resources in order to prepare for future and distorted use and to reduce the outflow of local dollars to buy the energy. Mr. Curtis suggested that these goals and polices be looked into at the time the ordinance is being put together. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 11 VOL 51 FACE 3W Commissioner Tuttle explained that one of the elements of Goals 5 is that when there are conflicting uses, i.e., recreation and other economic uses, they have to be balanced. One of the important parts of this entire ordinance is a balancing process where there are conflicting uses that need to be mitigated. Jim Curtis explained that he looks at the river as a renewable resource and hydro is kind of a non - consumptive use. He stated that when the ordinance is written, there is a need to look at the impacts of what you have to balance (economic impact of tourism, recreation and hydro) . Douglas Wilkinson, representing North Unit Irrigation District, testified that they have filed for two pre- liminary permits in Deschutes County. One being Wickiup and the other Crooked River Power Project. With respect to Wickiup, a license has been filed and is in the licensing procedure. He explained that the primary reason they got into the hydro electric notion was because they want to control the discharge of water from Wickiup to the North Unit Irrigation district. They were also concerned with another dev- eloper getting in and perhaps hydro electric would receive a preference in later years over irrigation, which is why they have filed and are persuing the pro- ject. The irrigation district is located in Jefferson County and have aobut 50,000 irrgated acres and 700 land owners. He stated the main canal is approxi- mately 60 miles from the storage area at Wickiup and the Bend diversion by the Riverhouse Motel. It takes two acre feet of water diverted from the Deschutes River in order to get an acre foot of water in Jefferson County because of a tremendous amount of lost water going out through the bottom of the canal. When the canal was originally built, water went about 12 miles and didn't go any further because of the various lava faults and things absorbing it. The second consideration of the District was that they could use the revenue from the hydro electric site to line the canal. To line the canal it would cost in the neighborhood of between $750,000 to $1 million a mile, which is a tremendous cost that farming could not support. They are in the process of licensing Wickiup with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; the County has intervened, the City of Bend has inter- vened and they have not objected, nor do they intend to object to any of the interventions. They are opposed to this particular ordinance for the reasons set forth by the previous two attorneys because it is too vauge. They probably have the cleanest project that has been proposed in Deschutes County. To satis- MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 12 C.` 51 war 357 fy the first purpose, which is to improve existing stream flow, they would treat the water or somehow get the water quality better but they don't know what they could do different with the project. It will not hurt to stream flow, but how do they affirmatively show that they are improving it, unless there are some kind of standards that they will have to meet. Fish and Wildlife have reviewed their plans relating to how it will conserve and protect existing fish, and they say it will not cause any damage. The environmental study said that there were some chipmunks, shrews and other mice in the area but how can they enhance the production of wildlife unless they plant bitterbrush. Mr. Wilkinson stated his concern is that he doesn't know what he has to tell the Board, the engineer, or the planner to do in order to meet the standards that have been set forth in the ordinance the way it is written. There is already a system of planning and (the comprehensive plan) and their site is one of the sites listed in the comprehensive plan, requiring a conditional use process. With respect to environ- mental concerns, FERC requires a detailed environ- mental statement where they require recreation be addressed. If a FERC license is issued, Water Resources board holds a hearing for the hydro electric permit, at which time the County Board of Commiss- ioners can intervene, giving them the opportunity to request further studies. Charile Hemphill, President of Bend Title Company and President of Central Oregon Economic Council, testi- fied that there are some provisions in the Comprehen- sive Plan for this matter to be dealt with. He expressed his concern with the land restrictions in the Comprehensive Plan and is concerned with the section of developing and maintaning public access to the Deschutes River and fish & wildlife resources. He believes the Comprehensive Plan contains a corridor easement which indicates along a major artieral there will be a setback from the river for visual consider- ation. When there is a piece of land between that corridor and the river itself, if visual easments are coming from both ends, it could possibly make that land useless. Once studies begin one may lose site of a time goal and unless there is a time goal it could be studied until eternity. He expressed his concern with the vagueness of the ordinance. Deschutes County is beginning to come around again economically and he doesn't feel this particular ordinance will be condu- sive to that continued turn around. Chairman Young closed the hearing. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 13 VOL 51 pAv- 358 MOTION: TUTTLE moved to continue this hearing for two weeks. Motion lost for lack of a second. It was the concensus of the Board to set a work session by announcement for some time next week. At this time the Board recessed until 1:30 this date. Lease Agreement Chairman Young explained that this is an addendum with Frank to the lease increasing it $3 a month for garage Rencher service. Jim France, Sheriff, recommends that this be signed contingent upon the leasor signing the lease. MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign the lease contingent upon the signature of the leesor. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Signature of Chairman Young stated that the lease and grant of Grant of access has been executed by the State of Oregon by Access - the Department of Transportation Highway Division and Rosland has been signed by the Assistant Attorney General but Road needs the signature of the State. Commissioner Tuttle explained that Mr. Hudson had expressed to him that if there were any questions regarding this grant of access, he had no objections to holding it over for two weeks. MOTION: PRANTE moved to hold this item over for two weeks. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL COCC Clinical MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign the COCC Clinical Affiliation Affiliation Agreement. Agreement TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 14 va 51 w 359 Approval of Mike Maier, Administrative Services, explained that a VWA Grant for summary of information on this program had been given D.A. to each member of the Board. The legislature approved House Bill 2482 which allows for reimbursement to counties and cities for a victim witness assistance program. For ever misdemenor or felony conviction money will be reimbursed to Deschutes County at a rate established by the State for funding the Victim Witness Assitance Program. The District Attorney's office has operated a program on a volunteer basis for approximately six months and has been very successful. The District Attorney would like to enter into this agreement with the State. At this point we are unsure of the projected revenue to be received, so the revenue projection was set a little higher than the expected expenditures on the assumption that the revenues received would be matched in line with the expenditures. MOTION: PRANTE moved to approve the grant for the Victim Witness Assistance Program. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Jay Turley, Assistant City Manager, explained that along with the County's program the cities of Bend and Redmond will be levying these Witness Assistance fines. He stated that there interest is in combining a Witness Assistance Program with the County and turning over the revenues received to the County so that it will operate the program. Otherwise, there will be three or possibly four programs that would be better coordinated out of the District Attorney's Office. A conservative projection from the City of Bend is about $10,000 a year, but if they are able to collect 100% it would be approximately $25,000. Resolution Rick Isham, Legal Counsel, explained that Brooks 83-063 Resources exchanged property with the County which Delaring the has subsequently been donated to the Bend Park & Rec Intention of for public purposes. Bend Park & Rec would like to Exchanging trade two parcels with one piece of property, which he a Possibility showed to the Board on a map. Since the County has an of Reverter interest in the parcels, the County has to transfer with Brooks that interest onto any property that they would Resources and acquire in exchange for property that the County has Bend Park & donated. Mr. Isham explained that they are asking that Recreation the reverter for public use be exchanged for a District reverter for public use on another piece of property. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 15 vo. 51 PAa 3M MOTION: PRANTE moved to adopt Resolution #83-063 and sign the notice of publication. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Awbrey Butte MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign the sub -lease agreement Sub -lease with the City of Bend Fire Department. Agreement PRANTE: Second with City of VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Bend Fire Department Reaffirmation Chairman Young read aloud a letter to the Oregon of Resolution Economic Development Commission reaffirming the #81-072, Board of Commissioners Resolution #81-072. Approval of Industrial MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign the letter reaffirming Development the Board's approval of Acu-Edge. Revenue Bonds TUTTLE: Second of Acu-Edge VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Inc. Consideration Chairman Young explained that the Housing Authority of Appointment requests the Bob Lutz be appointed to fill a vacancy to the Central on the Board. Commissioner Tuttle explained that Oregon Regional there are currently two vacancies on the Housing Housing Authority Board to be appointed by the Board of Authority Commissioners. Mr. Lutz had once been on the Board but resigned because of business committments out of the area but has returned to the Sisters area. Commissioner Tuttle continued that he had an opportunity to work with Mr. Lutz and he is a very conscientious member of the Board. MOTION: TUTTLE moved that Robert Lutz be appointed to the unexpired term of Lyle Farley to the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority Board. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 16 r va 51 PAGE 361 Signature of Commissioner Tuttle explained that this is the third BPA Geothermal round of funding from the Bonneville Power Admini- & Solar Grants stration in which the County made application for the evaluation of geothermal as a possibility for space heating (industrial area heating). The primary portion of this grant will allow the evaluation of direct application process where water is run through converters to heat a building or several buildings. The second part of the grant allows the County to complete the computer programs on the solar access that has been started. The last part is entering into cooperative agreements with local utilities in consideration of energy issues. The consultant in this particular contract is Eliot Allen & Associates, who has completed a report for Harney County, which were very pleased with the outcome of that report. MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign the BPA Grant and moved to execute the personal services contract with Eliot Allen & Associates. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Discussion Commissioner Tuttle explained that when the County cut Regarding back to four days a week, the Board went to twice Meeting monthly meeting (first and third Wednesdays) and Structure there seems to be some impacts on the public that are not easily adapted to. Commissioner Tuttle also felt that there was some continuity to having meetings weekly or four times a month, which would require an ordinance revision. MOTION: TUTTLE moved that the Board return to weekly Commission meetings beginning with the 19th of October. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Commission Tuttle stated that the Board could better serve the department heads and they could better serve the Board if there is an opportunity to meet with them on a regularly scheduled basis. This would not replace the one-to-one contacts that the Board has with the departments, nor would it replace the regular Commission meeting, but would rather be an information sharing opportunity. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 17 a later date. MOTION: TUTTLE moved to execute the Mental Health Agreements with the section regarding third party and fee reimbursements being deleted in the contracts. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Request for MOTION: TUTTLE recommended that one the second, Refund third, and fourth Wednesday of the month in the afternoon at 1:30 the Board resume and Ratification have an opportunity to meet with the of Consent to Department Heads on a scheduled basis and Assignment leave the first Wednesday of the month open of Lease for to special meetings with Department Heads. John & Judy PRANTE: Second Howell VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Signature Rick Isham explained that there were a number of of 1983/84 deletions on this contract and while reviewing the Mental Health contracts he noticed that the revision dates were Division not the same as the original contracts and a new Contracts provision has been added. He is concerned because he is not sure how sophisticated the County accounting system is and whether we have the ability to account under this new provision. Mr. Isham suggested that the section in question be deleted and initialed by the Board and if necessary an amendment can be done at a later date. MOTION: TUTTLE moved to execute the Mental Health Agreements with the section regarding third party and fee reimbursements being deleted in the contracts. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Request for Before the Board of Commissioners were the following Refund refunds: Darrell Morganti, $30; Lee Land, $50; Richard Hastay, $39; and Kelly Hamilton, $35. Ratification MOTION: PRANTE moved to ratify the Consent to of Consent to Assignment of Lease for John & Judy Howell. Assignment TUTTLE: Second of Lease for VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL John & Judy Howell Rick Isham explained that in conjunction with this assignment, one of the assignments that will be filed on this property is going to appear outside of any recognition of transfer of any interest to the County to the leesor. In order to tie that chain together, he has prepared a memorandum of the original Shielding Research lease assigned to Mainline Sales Company. This will then give chain of title to "the consent to assignment of lease" that was ratified, and requested the Board so execute that so it gives meaning to the document ratified. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 18 va 51 PnE 363 MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign the memorandum of lease to be recorded with the County Clerk regarding Shielding Research Inc. and Mainline Sales, Inc. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OLCC Liquor Before the Board of Commissioner was an OLCC Liquor License License Application for Mini -Mart in LaPine. Application MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign thO Liquor License for the Mini -Mart in LaPine. TUTTLE: Second VOTE:. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL The Board recessed and will reconvene at 2:30 this date. Discussion Susie Penhollow, County Clerk, explained that Regarding according to the State Archivist, the County Purchase of needs to purchase a camera which has to be a Camera and dual headed planatary camera and a new reader Reader Printer printer. The camera is approximately $6,000 and the reader printer is $10,000. Commissioner Tuttle explained that there was $7,000 allocated for a reader printer but did not have anything allocated for a camera. Ms. Penhollow continued that the Archivist recommended a Minolta Dual Head Planatary camera which has the capability to update the camera for a system of retreval when computer is required. The reader printer is required to have an archival print and they has been looking into a Minolta reader printer which have the lowest cost per copy. MOTION: PRANTE move to authorize purchase of the reader printer and camera for the Clerk's Office. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL The Board recessed again and will reconvene at 3:00 P.M. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 19 0 Helen Rastovich explained that the Tax Department will need approximately 50,000 outgoing envelopes for statements and receipts, which is $750; 40,000 returns, which is $750; postage will be $7,000; extra help $4,000; overtime $4,000; 60,000 inserts for supplmental and the original statement, $500; additional posting, paper, microfilming tax roles, and running addition tax roles will, $1,000. She continued that the staff time will be about $15,000 and the total cost to the Tax Department will be $35,000 making each supplemental tax account run about $1.50. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 20 VOL 51 PA -GE 364 3:00 Reconvene Mike Maier, Director of Administrative Services, Discussion re- explained that this will be the first supplemental tax garding role that the County has had to send out and the possible involved departments were not sure about the supplemental procedures or expenses to be incurred. The involved tax role departments (Data Processing, Assessors Office and Tax Department) have been trying to piece together how they will handle a supplemental tax role. Helen Rastovich, County Treasurer, explained that it had been discussed holding up the tax role until after the Bend School District supplemental levy on November 8, 1983 but that other districts could not be penalized by doing this. At the present time they are calculating taxes which takes about 40 hours, tax statements will be printed which takes 24 hours a day for a week. After calculating and printing, stuffing the tax statements will take a full week. The statements should go out October 17, 1983. Persons have to be allowed at least 14 business days for their discount and need to be notified at this time that there is a possibility of an additional tax statement. A note will be on the original tax statement and notice will be attached making people aware of this. If the levy is approved on November 8th the earliest supplemental tax statements can be processed would be after December 15, 1983 which would mean that these would have to be out by December 20 for a January 15th discount date. Oscar Bratton, County Assessor, explained that there are approximately 42,000 accounts and they will be running slightly less than 24 hour shifts. It will cost the Assessors staff time 72 hours which will run approximately $3,000 and the clerical and appraisal time will come to approximately $4,500. Mr. Bratton approximated the total cost to be somewhere around $7,500. Helen Rastovich explained that the Tax Department will need approximately 50,000 outgoing envelopes for statements and receipts, which is $750; 40,000 returns, which is $750; postage will be $7,000; extra help $4,000; overtime $4,000; 60,000 inserts for supplmental and the original statement, $500; additional posting, paper, microfilming tax roles, and running addition tax roles will, $1,000. She continued that the staff time will be about $15,000 and the total cost to the Tax Department will be $35,000 making each supplemental tax account run about $1.50. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 20 t , 1 f. VOL 51 % 365 Ross Brown, Data Processing, stated it will take 300 hours in addition to what is normally done by the office. He has estimated about 100 hours of programming time to get everything together, which will ripple through the whole year of tax collection. The extra cost of computer operation will be about $13,000. Chairman Young recessed the meeting until 10:30 A.M. October 6, 1983 to consider acceptance of vehicle bids. (See October 6, 1983 minutes) DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ALB RT YO G, IRMAN R STOW PRANTE, COMMISSIONER URVW. A. YUITLE, CONIISSIONER BOCC:ap MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 21