Loading...
1995-17272-Minutes for Meeting May 16,1984 Recorded 5/23/19841 I L� 9S-17272 Y2 3 1-984 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS r &JE �'` MAY 16, 1984 - REGULAR MEETING kw, Co. CIO/( Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 10:02 A.M. Commissioner Prante and Commissioner Tuttle were also present. Amendments to Chairman Young read aloud the amendments to the the Agenda agenda. There were no changes or additions. At this time the Board of Commissioners recessed and reconvened as the 7th Mountain Service District Board of Directors (See attached minutes) . Bid Documents Chairman Young explained that three bids were for Tractor with received on the "Invitation to Bid" for a tractor & with Flail Mower flail mower for the Public Works Department. The (action item) tractor will be used for weed and grass mowing along roadways. The bids received were from: Jefferson County Coop, $26,500; B. J. Ford, $27,402; and Yeager Ford, $28,152. The Public Works Department recommended awarding the bid to the low bidder, Jefferson County Coop. MOTION: PRANTE moved to award the bid to Jefferson County Coop for $26,500. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Opening of Chairman Young explained that the architect for the Bids for project, Marshall Ricker, will be opening the bids Recarpet and the Administrative Assistant, Mike Maier, will of Justice be announcing the bids. The contract will be Building awarded at the next Board meeting. There were only two bids received. The bid received from Rubenstein's in Eugene was in the amount of $19,989 and alternative no. 1 at $2,287. The bid received from FCCI in Bend was for $24,065 and alternative no. 1 was $10,794. F1'P RA yFQ 1995 MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 1 U Discussion with Dave Jaqua, attorney for Robert and Dawn Burton, Bob Burton explained that the Burton's are requesting that the Board pass a resolution to indicate that the prior resolution (approved February 25, 1981) remains in effect. Mr. Jaqua explained that he understood the Commissioners may want some additional language in any such resolution, which he has discussed with the State of Oregon and Howard Rankin, Bond Counselor in Portland, who have indicated that the language would be acceptable. Mr. Jaqua said that the Board of Commissioners is not being asked to approve an extension, to set an extension period, or approve the project, but are being asked to indicate to the State of Oregon that the prior resolution remains in affect. Mr. Jaqua said if the Board wishes they can state as part of the resolution that they are in no way indicating they are in favor of the project or endorsing the project or the applicant. Mr. Jaqua stated that the only reason they are requesting this resolution is because before the State can complete its deliberations, this step needs to be gone through with the County according to State law. Commissioner Prante stated that as she understands it, the County states in a resolution that this particular type of development is allowable according to the Comprehensive Plan in the specific area as described. Mr. Jaqua stated that this is basically what the requirement is. Commissioner Prante continued that she had checked with the Planning Department to make sure that it was not contingent upon the couplet which was shot down in the Sisters area and it is not. Commissioner Prante continued that the County would not assume any liability, or make an endorsement of the project, or pass judgement on the project or the applicant. This in no way would constitute approval of a site plan or of any facet of the development. The resolution should state that the only issue here is that according to our Comprehensive Plan this is an allowable development to take place. MOTION: PRANTE moved to confirm our prior resolution and that it remain in affect allowing the State to make a decision. This decision would not be made on the part of the county. YOUNG: Second MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 2 Commissioner Tuttle state Commissioner Prante in wh Commissioner Tuttle conti resolution does a great d says that in fact the Cou in the conf iguration and to the Commission at the resolution was passed, an changes in circumstances. the ownership entity. It rather than either a prop between Mr. and Mrs. Burt original resolution. Com that there is some additi been brought to the Count into account. There is s the way the project could I that he disagrees witn it the resolution does. cued that the prior ?al more. The resolution ity supports the project Ln the circumstances known :ime the February 25, 1981 1 there are significant One change is that of is now a corporation 7ietorship or partnership >n as disclosed in the nissioner Tuttle stated )nal information that has r that has to be taken ignificant hinderences to proceed and by the County approving a resolution a signal woula ae given ouz to the community in general that says that things are probably proceeding fine. Commissioner Tuttle stated that this is taking the Board's responsi- bility too far. By not passing this resolution the County would not foreclose the opportunity for Mr. Burton to proceed. He could directly resubmit an application to the State, thereby answer the contingences that the State has held out in their initial and subsequent reviews before it comes to the County for resolution. For these reasons, Commissioner Tuttle is not in favor of renewing the prior resolution. Commissoner Prante stated that she concurs with certain aspects of Commissioner Tuttle's comments in that no way does she feel that the County should go on record endorsing the project, standing in judgement on the project, or standing in judgement on the developers. The resolution states only that a development of this type is allowable in this location according to plan. If it is allowable according to plan, that should be the sum of the statement. Commissioner Prante said that it is imperative that the County go on record that this in no way implies and endorsement or approval of the project or the development. Commissioner Prante continued that if the County needs to define what the situation is by law, that is what needs to be done. If it was not allowed under the plan, we would have an obligation to not approve the resolution. Commissioner Prante stated that she would have problems with the wording of the resolution that the County continues to support this particular project. The County needs to make a statement whether or not the Comprehensive Plan MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 3 allows this kind of development in this location. This is the only condition on which Commisioner Prante would approve a resoltuion. Chairman Young stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tuttle's summation of this project. The question is not whether it is allowable or not allowable; but the question is financing. Chairman Young stated that the financing in this project is very questionable and he does not wish to have the County's endorsement under these circumstances. Commissioner Tuttle stated that from his experience dealing with revenue bonding, everything that is official action of any body relating to a project becomes part of the record for the bond sale. This is the reason the resolution is required. Commissioner Tuttle stated that the County should approve the resolution in the form that the State has indicated and the form of all other projects that have been brought before the Commissioners. In this way there is a consistency of applications of the County's willingness to sign resolutions on bonding projects. Commissioner Tuttle stated that what the Board has required of themselves for other projects requesting bonds should not be tampered with. The County should not get into a situation where it makes conditional resolutions on every project because all of the information that is known to the Board is going to become part of a debate process. If the County can endorse the project in the form submitted to them and suggested by the State, the County should proceed. If not, there should not be a list of conditions that the County is willing to proceed under because it is necessary to maintain some level of meaning of the resolutions as they are submitted with applications to the State. Dave Jaqua asked the Board for time to comment. MOTION: TUTTLE moved for previous question. Motion failed for lack of second. Chairman Young granted an additional fifteen minutes for comments. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 4 vi 53 xwa 5 Dave Jaqua stated that the function of the County Commissioners is to deal with unique situations. Mr. Jaqua stated that if ordinances are taken from the State of Oregon and either approved or disapproved, there isn't a need for a Board of County Commissioners to listen to imput and make case by case decisions. Mr. Jaqua said that they are not asking conditions be put on the resolution. Mr. Jaqua continued that the reason they went through this effort and time was spent with Howard Rankin and representatives from the State of Oregon Economic Development Commission was to clarify the County's position and the County will not be held liable. Mr. Jaqua said that Howard Rankin specifically said that the County needs to understand this does not impact the County bond rating and it is no debt obligaton by the County. Commissioner Tuttle asked if Mr. Rankin is counsel to Mr. Burton? Dave Jaqua said that Mr. Rankin was appointed by the State Treasurer to review this matter. He receives no fees for any advice that he gives. Commissioner Tuttle asked if Mr. Rankin would receive fees if the bonds were issued? Dave Jaqua said that was correct. Mr. Jaqua said that Mr. Rankin has in the past represented Deschutes County and his advice has been accepted. In this particular case he has been appointed by the State Treasurer and asked to render his opionion on this partiuclar bond sale. Mr. Jaqua stated that he thinks Mr. Rankin is well respected state-wide for his legal opinion in bonding. Mr. Jaqua stated that there is a Chapter 11 proceeding on file. The Chapter 11 was filed because of one particular creditor. Mr. Jaqua said it is very clear in his discussions both with the people placing the bonds and with Mr. Rankin that the proceeding will be settled prior to purchase of any bonds. In addiiton, the Chapter 11 proceedings and other financial matters have been fully discussed with the people who have indicated their interest in purchasing the bonds, as well as with the entity that right now is reviewing the guarantee of the bonds. Mr. Jaqua said that by Mr. Burton going around the County and going directly to the State is not feasible because State statute requires that this approval is given from the County. If approval is not received from the County and the MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 5 53 Economic Development Commission doesn't approve it, it will come back to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Jaqua said that they are asking to give the State the opportunity to make the decision on whether the project is going to go or not. Mr. Jaqua said he didn't think the financing is as shaky as everyone thinks it is and that he is very aware of Mr. Burton's situation. The only question at this point is the guarantee, which has received the local approval and is now being pursued for final approval. Dr. Marvin Persinger, Beaverton, Oregon, stated that he has a complete and detailed knowledge of the project before the Board. Mr. Persinger stated that the Board's concern with Mr. Burton financing is very well taken. Mr. Persinger explained a little of the history and present status of Industrial Development Bonds. The State of Oregon has had only 30% of all of the bonds ever authorized in the last eight years receive final funding. Mr. Persinger said that the rich companies got their funding and the little people did not. The history of industrial development bonds, which began in Mississippi in 1931, was intended for little companies, little communities, little men and little projects. Last year there was $16,384,000,000 worth of bonds authorized and sold in the United States. Oregon has issued industrial development bonds amounting to $12 per capita of citizens. Mr. Persinger stated that this project of 4 million dollars for the convention center includes $1,200,000 for labor. The labor is so depressed in this region that the carpenters union has locked its doors and a number have moved out of the community. Mr. Persinger said that the money to be spent on labor will be circulating in the community about six times making the roll-over close to 8.5 million of impact on the community. Issuing this bond of $4,200,000 allows the construction making it the highest tax payer in the Sisters region and one of the highest in Deschutes County. Mr. Persinger said that the City of Sisters has no public water supply nor does it have public sewage. Mr. Persinger stated that Mr. Burton's project abutts the city limits and has enough fields available to allow the City to connect its drainage fields and put sewage in. Mr. Persinger urged the Board to allow Mr. Burton to proceed with his project. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 6 VOL 53 FACE 7 Dave Jaqua said that the attorney handling the Chapter 11 is here if there are any questions of him. Mr. Jaqua requested that the County continue its prior resolution and if it wishes to indicate that it is not indicating its support economically or otherwise. Mr. Jaqua said that if the Commission does not take the action requested by of State statute and the requirement that the County take this action in order for the project to proceed, the project will not be done and the various economic problems will not be resolved. If the Commissioners allow the project to proceed, which does not mean it is going to be approved, it will give the State the ability to make a final review and make a final decision. Commissioner Prante stated that her understanding is that the essential aspect of this is that the County find that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the state-wide planning goals adopted by LCDC and the County request that the Economic Development consider the financing. VOTE: DISAPPROVAL - PRANTE APPROVING Signature of Helen Durant, Director of Home Health, explained Personal that this contract is for back up services for Services vacation and sick leaves for social services Contract with already in affect. Karen Forte for Home MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign the Personal Services Health with Karen Forte for Home Health services. (action item) PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Signature of Richard Isham, County Counsel, explained that this Memorandum memorandum is for the practical experience for of Clinical student nursing. Affiliation Agreement MOTION: TUTTLE moved to approve the memorandum of for Training Clinical Affiliation Agreement for in Health training in health occupations for the Occupations General Health Nursing Department. (action item) PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Signature of MOTION: TUTTLE moved for the first and second Grazing Lease readings of Ordinance No. 84-019 by with Lane title only. Thomas and PRANTE: Second Ordinance VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL No. 84-019 MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 7 JL FACE (action item) Chairman Young read aloud the title of Ordinance No. 84-019 for the first and second reading. MOTION: PRANTE movd to adopt Ordinance No. 84-019. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL MOTION: PRANTE moved to lease the land to Lane Thomas. TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Marine Safety MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign the Marine Safety and and Law Enforce- Law Enforcement Contract. ment Contract TUTTLE: Second for fiscal year VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL 1984/85 VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL (action item) Chairman Young read aloud a letter to the State Orders No. MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign Orders No. 84-060 84-060 through through 84-145 refunding taxes. No. 84-145, PRANTE: Second Refund of VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Taxes Comprehensive Plan. (action item) Appointment Chairman Young read aloud the letter received from to the Adult the Adult & Family Services Advisory Board. They and Family recommended: Vera Wilson replace Donna Gordon, Services who resigned from the Board; Robert Volkenand to Advisory the position of Jim Peterson, whose term expires Board June 30, 1984; and Joyce Embery to fill the position of Jean Beake, whose term expires June 30, 1984. MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 8 MOTION: TUTTLE moved to make the appoints to the Adult & Family Services Advisory Board as read. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Resolution Chairman Young read aloud a letter to the State Approving Juvenile Services Commission recommended adoption the Deschutes of the 1984/85 Deschutes County Juvenile Services County Commission Comprehensive Plan and read the title Juvenile of Resolution No. 84-013 Approving the Services Comprehensive Plan. Commission Comprehensive MOTION: PRANTE moved to adopt Resolution No. Plan 84-013 and sign the accompanying letter. (action item) TUTTLE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 8 Discussion Chairman Young explained that construction had Regarding begun, permits taken out, and fees paid. Because Waiver of of a death in the family construction was halted. Fees for Chairman Young read aloud a letter received from Robert Mr. Haig. Mr. Haig has gotten another permit and Haig paid full price of $928.01. Commissioner Tuttle explained that the building permit fees could be refunded except for the plan check fee of $235.25. MOTION: TUTTLE moved to refund all of the fees paid on the last permit except the $235.25 plan check fee. PRANTE: Second VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL Being no further business, the meeting was ajourned. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Alb?fiCair i ristow Prante, Commissioner Laurenc'e-�'"A. TJttle,j Commissioner BOCC:ap MEETING MINUTES - PAGE 9