Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-07 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JANUARY 7,2013 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were David Givans, Internal Auditor; Peter Gutowsky, Will Groves and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Scott Johnson and Thomas Kuhn, Health Services; and six other citizens. Chair Unger opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading, by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-004, Amending Code (Internal Auditor). David Givans gave a brief overview of the Ordinance. BANEY: Move second reading by title only. UNGER: second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: No. (Split vote.) UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger did the second reading at this time. Minutes of Board ofCornrnissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 1 of 12 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 2 of 12 Commissioner DeBone said he feels that they are in a good position without this, and also have an outside auditor to watch over things. This gives more formality to the Internal Auditor position, but he does not support it in the way it is written. BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-004. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: No. (Split vote.) UNGER: Chair vote yes. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First Reading, by Title Only, of Ordinance No. 2013-005, Approving Amendments relating to the Ambulance Service District Code. Chair Unger opened the hearing. Regarding potential conflicts of interest, the Commissioners had none to declare. No challenges were offered. Doug Kelly, Redmond Fire Department, and Thomas Kuhn of Health Services came before the Board. Mr. Kuhn said this was discussed with the Board at a work session previously. Mr. Kelly said he chairs the ASA Committee, and a need for these changes was determined. The Committee has about eleven members representing non- emergency transport. Other changes clarify language to comply with statute. Commissioner Baney asked why it is important to adopt this by emergency. Mr. Kelly said they took due diligence and does not feel it has to be done by emergency. Commissioner DeBone would like them to take the extra time. Being no other testimony offered, Chair Unger closed the hearing. DEBONE: Move first reading by title only. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger conducted the first reading. The second reading will take place no sooner than two weeks from the first reading. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 3 of 12 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of a New Behavioral Health Assessment Process in the Health Services Department. Scott Johnson and DeAnn Carr explained the item, regarding providing services to those people who need behavioral health care. The staff report explains they deal with about 25,000 people on the Oregon Health Plan plus others who are not insured or are under-insured. There needs to be a process to engage services as soon as possible. With a marked increase of people on the OHP, this is a challenge for all health care providers. They have been trying to refine their process to handle these cases more effectively. This is a matter that the Internal Auditor reviewed, and came up with a number of findings and recommendations. The new process helps to put these into place. Ms. Carr said that they want to allow for more immediate access to assessment and treatment, by reducing the number of steps. They plan to implement an evidence-based model similar to those being used elsewhere. This requires a dedicated team of highly qualified specialists who can react quickly. In order to coordinate a team like this, a strong supervisor is needed. They also have to work well with community partners and the CCO. It all needs to be customer friendly. Mr. Johnson stated that they hope to have four masters’ level clinicians to be part of the team. They also need a dedicated supervisor to work full time with this team and other agencies and partners; this would be an additional position. He is mindful of the budget and cost increases, but they could use some reserves to solidly underwrite this plan for three years. Commissioner Baney thanked Mr. Johnson for this work. Quick treatment for clients is needed. She asked if there would be access available to those who are working 8 to 5; also, whether the ones who will take on this work have an existing caseload. Ms. Carr said that they have some part-time positions who are involved, and 4.5 FTE. This would allow two full-time positions. The third position is currently unfilled. They are looking at strong assessors, and the workload will be adjusted as well as possible. They will try to institute non -traditional hours as much as they can, but that affects building staff as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 4 of 12 The Health Services building will be the primary location, but they may end up at other locations eventually. They also will look at the potential of using technology for some consults. Chair Unger asked about contracting versus providing County services. Mr. Johnson said they need to find out what people need. They have a fairly large staff but also work with outside agencies. People will have a choice at the conclusion of the assessment. If it is not a highly specialized service, the customer may be able to identify another group and location to be used. Mr. Anderson stated that the County Administrator normally has the authority to approve this kind of change; however, he thought it would be a good idea for the benefits and services to be described to the Board. Also, they hope to report back on the success of the program sometime soon. Mr. Givans will be at Behavioral Health this spring to review what has been done and the steps taken in the process. BANEY: Move approval of the new Behavioral Health process. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2013-001, Accepting a Conservation Easement and Approving a Request to Add a Well on Property Subject to a County-Held Conservation Easement. Will Groves gave an overview of the Order. One use contemplated in the conservation agreement was for a well, providing that certain findings were made. He believes they are eligible for this well. The original easement would be upgraded to accept the previous Planner’s signature and allow for the well. BANEY: Move approval of the Order, with the adjustment of the signature block. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 5 of 12 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2013-001, Repealing Ordinance No. 2011-017, regarding Large-Lot Industrial Land Needs. Chair Unger read the opening statement and indicated that the hearing would cover this item and the next; both Ordinances. No Commissioners indicated there was a conflict of interest, and no challenges were offered. Peter Gutowsky provided an overview of the need for the Ordinance. He entered the case file into the record and included a letter of support from Redmond Mayor George Endicott. Mr. Gutowsky did a brief PowerPoint presentation at this time. (A copy is attached for reference.) Mr. Lelack explained the reason for the emergency clause. With consensus of all of the parties except one, it is key to move this process forward so the cities can begin their work. Chair Unger said they have worked through this for about five years, and feel there is a good understanding of the issue. He asked for public testimony. Pam Hardy of 1,000 Friends of Oregon said it is good to be getting near the end of a long and difficult process. They believe that the settlement is good; not everyone got what they wanted, but it appears to be fair. They did a good job of drafting the settlement to take into account anticipations for the future. It will be easy to bring in new large lots if justified. This took some really hard work. The one thing that she feels was missed is the larger opportunity for Goal 9 conversations. Goal 9 requires they look at the region and larger trends nationally, and how to identify the most likely path to a prosperous area. She feels this did not happen. This originally started when Business Oregon and EDCO felt as if businesses are not coming here because of the lack of large lots. The REOA and Goal 9 process is supposed to allow for due diligence. The question is whether this is borne out by the data. The large businesses targeted are the ones who in recent years have been laying off people, while the mid- sized and small businesses are doing better. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 6 of 12 The other issue is that for the size of the area, they were requesting more large sized lots than any other region in the country. In looking at Portland, in more than twenty years they not used as many large lots as is being requested locally. She is not sure the evidence is correct. They never had a chance to talk about this, but are not planning an appeal. They recognize there are differences of opinion. There is good experience here saying that this is needed, but the data does not support that concept. They want to move forward in the best way possible in good faith. They hope the evidence is true. There are continuing concerns. A chart on Page 53 of the large lot analysis talks about infrastructure needs. The chart was developed after discussions regarding what kinds of businesses need what infrastructure. The only businesses needing large lots also need a population of 300,000 or more, or a seaport. Other infrastructure needs remained the same. But the numbers were adjusted to 200,000 or more and there is no mention of a seaport. It does not seem credible for a brewery that requires 20 acres might also need 200 acres. This chart might be used for planning purposes but the infrastructure might not be adequate. Some city may rely on this chart but find out later upgrades are needed. She knows how expensive sewer systems can be. It needs to be done right the first time. She recommended the analysis and IGA indicate this chart is not to be used for planning purposes. Another concern is the references to “short-term”. According to the actual rule, the kind of land need under the DLCD rule is a twenty-year need, which is not short-term. She recommends the term “short-term” be changed, which would not affect the outcome. They are concerned that this term will conflict with the DLCD rule for a twenty-year need. This protects the integrity of the settlement. The last thing is a concern about the characterization of their perception of the settlement. They never disagreed about the regional partners working together to improve economic prosperity. They think this is a great idea. The only disagreement came up was in regard to the evidence. There will be a lot of taxpayer dollars being used on infrastructure, and maybe there is another way to bring prosperity to the area. In the long run, they will learn whether due diligence matters. They agree on the overall policy. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 7 of 12 She read a quote about conflict being an opportunity for intimacy. They have gotten to know each other a lot better and will work towards a better community. They all need to be better advocates of the quality of life 1,000 Friends is working towards. They want to make this a community where people will want to live. They have the best interests of the area in heart and hope for improved conversations in the future. Brian Meece of COAR (Central Oregon Association of Realtors), a stakeholder and intervener, read from a statement. He has been involved in this process for over two years. The issue is jobs. Although they favor moving ahead with the Ordinances, they are also disappointed with the outcome. The reason Portland does not have industrial lots moving is the same reason, they don’t have any. There has been no way to create these lots in the past because of Oregon’s broken land use process. He commended Deschutes County staff on their handling of adversity. The objective of the process was to streamline it. It has been forced back into a UGB issue and Goal 14 will still come into play; they are not done with appeals at this time. Archaic land use laws left the fox in charge of the hen house. In terms of need, development and job creation efforts have been hindered due to lack of industrial land. The needs they examined throughout the country shows that if they don’t have enough selection, there won’t be any progress. He thanked DLCD staff who taught them a lot of new words, but much was lost in appeals. They have a bureaucratic and political process that may stifle things. 1,000 Friends’ activities have cost them a year. They are in support of the process but want the Board to know the barriers. The process would have worked well if it had not been forced into the UGB scenario. It will otherwise take years. From a market standpoint, cities will have to go through a UGB expansion. If there are industrial M-1 lots, no one will downgrade these to a large lot. The only way this would happen is to have these lots located outside the UGB. The sewer and airport are outside the UGB and the land between the city and those areas might work. They will unfortunately have to go through a UGB expansion first. They will continue to work and support the system, but hope this can be pushed forward. All they wanted to do was create job opportunities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 8 of 12 Bill Robie, representing COBA (Central Oregon Builders’ Association), encouraged the Board to move forward. As 1,000 Friends pointed out, the document is clear. Economic Development for Central Oregon and others indicate there is a need. They are worried mostly about double digit unemployment. A strategy of encouraging food trucks and boutique stores won’t take the place of having large employers. This was specifically targeted at large lot users. This is about a need for this one kind of employer. The project justifies this. They are concerned about how effective it will be in the real world. It is a tool to use to help recruit businesses. The commercial brokers are often the first contact of businesses. All are aware of this need, but it cannot be filled. Whatever the problems, he wants all to move forward and put the negotiations behind them. Mr. Gutowsky said that he feels when it comes to evaluating sites within the UGB, the rule acknowledges if the cities have identified properties, this program does not replace the local need. These are committed already. The analysis and the land use process are not easy to expedite, but it should not be onerous to look at these sites. Later this month , staff will come back to the Board to ask whether they should provide technical assistance to Redmond to help them to get closer to addressing the need for these sites there. He believes this is achievable, and the County has the skillset to provide this assistance. Mr. Lelack agreed with Ms. Hardy that the first report was inadequate. The deficiencies were addressed. However, they believe the table on Page 53 is important to retain and those concerns have been addressed by the consultant . It is also important to keep the phrase “short-term”. That is the whole reason for the work that was accomplished. The intent is six short-term sites that can be replenished over a period of ten years. Commissioner DeBone said this will be routed back to the UGB process. It sounds disheartening. Mr. Lelack said that is correct, and the cities would have to do a buildable lands process to review sites and what can be supported. Commissioner DeBone hopes the cities will look at this soon and support these efforts. Mr. Gutowsky said under Goal 14 if there is a specialized land need not filled within the UGB, they can go outside the UGB. It is designed to allow entitlement of UGB expansion. This process may be able to justify it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 9 of 12 Chair Unger stated that a city needs to service the site with sewer and water, so it has to be within the UGB for this to happen. Laurie Craghead stated that they did a withdrawal for consideration of an appeal of the previous Ordinance, so that case is no longer at LUBA. 1,000 Friends said they will not appeal this. She asked about the comment regarding the characterization of policy and evidence by 1,000 Friends. Mr. Lelack said they have not characterized 1,000 Friends in any fashion. Mr. Gutowsky said that in the findings and analysis, they went to great lengths to make sure all partners were fully informed and all had an opportunity to suggest changes. They incorporated provisions that seemed reasonable and justifiable. They coordinated with them at length. Commissioner Baney stated that it might be a good idea for Ms. Hardy to point out the exact language that concerns her. Ms. Hardy said that in a number of places in the findings and the introduction to the analysis, there is a phrase that says the settlement consisted of policy concepts. Her concern is that her disagreement was not with the policy but the evidence. They see the nature of the settlement that they conceded they won’t object to a lack of evidence, not against the policy itself. Commissioner Baney asked if this is a generalization. Nick Lelack read the wording from the Ordinance. Ms. Craghead said that this doesn’t say that 1,000 Friends objected to the policy concepts. Commissioner Baney stated she understands their sensitivity. In the record there is enough testimony showing the position of 1,000 Friends, and it is understood that there is some concern regarding technical concepts. Commissioner DeBone appreciates the conversation and feels it is valua ble. Both hearings were closed for Board deliberations. Chair Unger said that the first item is action to repeal the original Ordinance. The other deals with the adoption of an Ordinance after lengthy negotiations with parties to address economic needs. Much will be addressed again when cities try to adjust their UGB. The County needs to move forward so the cities can make progress. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 10 of 12 BANEY: Move first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2013-001. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger conducted the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-001, by emergency. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2013-002, Adopting an Updated Large-Lot Industrial Needs Analysis and Amending the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Baney said not everything has a scientific basis, but there is enough evidence in the record to show that this area needs an opportunity for small and large lot lands. This is a great success in regional cooperation. No one got all they wanted. There need to be tools in the toolbox to create jobs. This does not exclude Goal 9. It will provide opportunities for economic prosperity and they have to try. She does not know what businesses will come, or if they will fill every lot, but her job is to help move these efforts forward, and she feels it is a great compromise. Commissioner DeBone stated that they need to believe there can be something out there. Regional jobs will be very valuable and this will support UGB efforts when justified. He is excited to see closure. Chair Unger added that he hopes they continue to move forward so they can address whatever the future brings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 11 of 12 BANEY: Move first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2013-002. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Chair Unger conducted the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. BANEY: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-002, by emergency. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 9. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Baney said that a citizen has inquired about reviewing the approved minutes of the December 17 meetings, so she would like to approve them at this time. BANEY: Move approval of the December 17 business meeting and work session minutes. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. DATED this -Z<;r!;> Day of ~ 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commission~ ~~ Alan Unger, Chair ~ ATTEST: Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 12 of 12 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2013 Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. 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 calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject ofa public hearing will NOT be included in the official record ofthat hearing. 3. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading, by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-004, Amending Code (Internal Auditor) -David Givans, Internal Auditor Suggested Actions: Conduct second reading by title only; move adoption. 4. A PUBLIC HEARING, and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2013-005, Approving Amendments relating to the Ambulance Service District Code ­ Thomas Kuhn, Health Services Suggested Actions: Conduct first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2013-005; move adoption ofOrdinance by emergency_ Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 1 of5 5. CONSIDERATION of Approval ofa New Behavioral Health Assessment Process in the Health Services Department -Scott Johnson and DeAnn Carr, Health Services Suggestion Action: Approve New Assessment Process. 6. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Order No. 2013-001, Accepting a Conservation Easement and Approving a Request to Add a Well on Property Subject to a County-Held Conservation Easement -Will Groves, Community Development Suggested Action: Approve signature ofOrder No. 2013-001. 7. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2013-001, Repealing Ordinance No. 2011-017, regarding Large-Lot Industrial Land Needs -Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open public hearing, take testimony, and close hearing. Conduct first and second readings by title only ofOrdinance No. 2013-001; move adoption ofOrdinance by emergency. 8. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First and Second Readings, by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2013-002, Adopting i an Updated Large-Lot Industrial Needs Analysis and Amending the I Comprehensive Plan -Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open public hearing, take testimony, close hearing. Conduct first and second readings by title only ofOrdinance No. 2013-002; move adoption ofOrdinance by emergency. 9. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA I ! I I Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 20f5 PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. FUTURE MEETINGS: (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. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, January 7 8:30a.m. Swearing In Ceremony -Elected Officials -Courthouse 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -Conference Call with Legislative Representatives 3:30p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, January 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, January 10 7:00a.m. Joint Meeting with Redmond City Council, Redmond City Ball Monday, January 21 Most County offices will be closed to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Wednesday, January 23,2013 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, January 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 7,2013 Page 3 of5 Wednesday. January 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Monday. February 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) 3:30p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday. F ebruarv 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Monday, February 18 Most County offices will be closed to observe Presidents' Day Wednesday. February 20 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, February 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, February 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 7, 2013 Page 4of5 Monday, March 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, March 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, January 7,2013 Page 5 of5 --------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _. "~~~__________-+'rBate I 11 /I~_L '·(J l.I£L 01 J Y~L-~ Name ~16i, I Ad~ess_~{~____ _ eIL " ~~~_~J~~~____1 0 ~__~~___~~~~~_~~~=~~S _ Phone #s 5t/1, ~"q · ~t F ~ d In Favor D NeutraVUndecided D Opposed . , ,/"-Submitting written documents as part of testimony? P Yes D No E-mail address -----=~---~------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest OeJw1Vl CJ(,., '2 ot s " ()O~ Name ~) ) \ fl4)~ Address l 6C[2 Nw sA) eW'l> I)c. il 2 ~e ,,-~ O~ V\ ]7 0 ) Phone #s ~t67--7.JJ6 6 E-mail address hJ )) e cctt (I. Co h ~ In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed /" .. $ubmitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes rsa No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest l axqt LJ JJ VI a h1:>1 ~ Nam-:?"""" }.\()~ Address \15" Uti> Or-u;p", Il\JL it-LI DtM-d. ()~ C{/IO\ Phone #s S"l11 -J \'1-~l.L.l E-mail address 7~.fr;~.s. c>':'\ D G' NeutrallUndecided D OpposedIn Favor , Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Q-Yes 0 No /' ,.­ ./ CITY OF REDMOND 716 SW Evergreen Avenue Office of the Mayor Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 923-7721 Fax: (541) 548-0706 www.ci.redmond.or.us January 7, 2013 RE: Ordinance No. 2013-001 and 2013-002 To: Board of County Commissioners Please accept this letter as the Redmond City Council's support for Ordinance No. 2013-001 and Ordinance No. 2013-002, adopting a Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Need Analysis and amending Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan to include Regional Large Lot Industrial Land Policies for Central Oregon and Declaring an Emergency. For the past two years, staff from the City of Redmond has been participating on the Regional Advisory Committee for this effort. As you know, economic development and job creation is crucial for our region. And Central Oregon is in the unique position of being able to respond to both the regional and state-wide need for large industrial lots through this effort. For Oregon to be competitive on a regional, national and global scale for large employment projects, it needs a reliable supply oflarge lot high value employment sites to attract investment and create jobs for Oregonians. Central Oregon can respond to this need due to its large expanses of publicly held land that is not currently productive, is contained either within urban growth boundaries or contiguous to existing urban growth boundaries and can be reasonably be served by infrastructure. Additionally, Central Oregon has a proven history of successful regional cooperation, and the REOA offers an effective way to identify suitable large lot industrial sites regionally. We appreciate the leadership that Deschutes County has demonstrated on this project and all of the support that the County had provided to make this effort successfuL Yours sincerely, 4:~~ Mayor of Redmond r r-··~~ Centrol Oregon Office· 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • www.friends.org 1000 Portland Office· 133 SW Second Ave, Suite 201 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fax (503) 223-0073 friends of Oregon Southern Oregon Office· PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474-9389 Willametfe Valley Office· 220 East 11th Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 223-0073 January 7, 2013 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 HAND DELIVERY at Public Hearing January 7, 2013 Re: Reflections on tbe Large Lot Analysis Project Dear Commissioners, It is good to finally be nearing the end of a long, and challenging process. Measured in strictly objective terms, our settlement was well drafted. The County and 1000 Friends split the difference almost exactly in half. The county's original proposal called for 17 large acreage lots. 1000 Friends of Oregon's analysis concluded that the data justified few, if any, lots. The settlement allows for slightly more than half the county's original request. In addition, the settlement includes provisions to re-visit the issue of the region's need for large acreage industrial lots in 10 years, or when 9 such lots are developed, whichever comes first. This provides an opportunity for a check-in and re-evaluation. If more large acreage industrial lots are needed then, the facts will support that. And if not, the region will not have spent money on unnecessary infrastructure. Technically, we did a great job of fmding middle ground. What we didn't do is come to a better understanding and regional consensus on what constitutes true economic development, where new jobs come from, and the variety ofresources that must be employed to maintain and grow existing businesses, as well as new ones. The conversation seemed to get stuck on raw land when infrastructure, fmancial capacity, education, transportation, better use of the existing urban land supply, and many other factors are even more important. However, a regional conversation and approach was initiated, and that is a significant accomplishment. As we understand, the initial interest in this process arose from a request by the Economic Development Central Oregon (EDCO), Business Oregon, and others to make more large lots available for large businesses that would like to move into the region, but have been hindered by the lack of large lots. Oregon land use law allows cities and regions to provide land in large lots for industries that need t such sites, provided there is a factual basis for doing so. However, the data did not support the assumptions about a large "exogenous" demand for large acreage lots. To the contrary, the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis (REOA) data demonstrated that the large businesses the consultant I claimed needed the large lots were, in fact, the fastest shrinking sectors of the economy. And, while some businesses were certainly seeking large lots in Central Oregon such as data centers -there was fno information to support the large number of such lots the county proposed. I I I Data in the REOA showed that other cities and regions comparable in size to Central Oregon had fewer large industrial lots per capita than the REOA proposed. For example, we submitted research for the record showing that the Portland Metro region -almost ten times the size of Central Oregon, with interstate freeways and a seaport, had used only about one fifth the large lot acreage over the last twenty years that the REOA said Central Oregon would need in the next twenty years. The REOA did not explain this difference, though it did highlight another fact that makes its conclusions even less supportable. Central Oregon falls behind the Portland region in two important areas for business development: education levels of the local population and availability of industrial scale transportation options. 00al9 is appropriately conservative of both land and a community's fmandal resources. It requires local governments to use technical information, research, trend data, and due diligence -not anecdotes -to determine the most likely routes to a region's economic prosperity. 00al9 asks government leaders to evaluate local strengths and weaknesses and encourages a broad based citizen outreach program to create a sense of identity. Then it asks leaders to look at this in light of state, national and industry trends to determine a region's most likely route to success. By adding new large lots to the region's UOBs we are hoping these large businesses will come to Central Oregon. The public should understand this means the region will incur substantial expenses in the provision, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure. Most of these large lots are likely to be at the edge of the region's cities, requiring extended sewer and water lines and roads. Financial resources invested in this means those dollars are not spent in other ways throughout the region, so we join in hoping that the alleged demand for large lots that started this effort comes to fruition. Continuing Technical Concerns In keeping with the spirit of good faith execution of the settlement agreement, we are not challenging this decision. However, we continue to have some strong concerns about the document. Infrastructure Chart on page 53 The chart on page 53 purports to identify the infrastructure (size of sewer pipe, amount of electricity, amount of water etc.) needed by large lot users. However, this chart is not based on actual research. Therefore, it should not be used to determine what size infrastructure needs to be laid, or what size infrastructure might be considered adequate for a large lot user. The original version of this chart (attached here) showed that the only businesses that need more than 25 acres also need a population of at least 300,000 or a seaport -neither of which is available in our region.1 The next version of the chart kept the exact same numbers for the size of needed infrastructure, removed population requirements and notes about seaports, and enlarged the needed lot I Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook County had a combined population of202,730 in 2012 according to the recent PSU popUlation forecast. r-~D Central Oregon Office· 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • . 1000 (541) 719·8221 friends I sizes to 200+, without an explanation for these changes. The new chart has not changed the infrastructure requirements but has significantly changed the size of the lots needed. It is not reasonable to assume that a food processing plant, such as a brewery, that needs 10 acres to operate would require identical infrastructure as a plant that requires 200+ acres. Yet, that is what this chart says. There are two main risks of using this erroneous information. The first is that lots with inadequate infrastructure will be added to the inventory, but will never be occupied because of the inadequate infrastructure. This will clog up the system, creating unbuildable land. The second risk is that cities will waste precious general fund dollars by installing the wrong size infrastructure. We recommend that you amend the document, the fmdings, and the IGA to make it clear that this chart should not be relied upon for planning purposes. Short Term v. 20-Year need In several places the fmdings emphasize that the nine lots satisfy only a "short term" need. This is not consistent with the settlement agreement, as reflected in OAR 660-024-0045(2)(e), which states "Regional large lot industrial land need" means the need for a specific type of 20­ year employment land need, as described in OAR 660-024-0040(1) and (5)." Because the language is not consistent with the settlement, we request deleting the phrase "short term" from the fmdings and the decision entirely. It is inconsistent with the rule adopted by LCDC to implement the settlement, and it will not change the implementation. The County will still be allowed to reopen the process after nine lots are used, or after ten years. Description ofthe Settlement Issues Finally, we continue to be disappointed by the way county documents characterize the settlement. We reiterate that we do not disagree with the county on policy. Central Oregon needs diverse, sustainable economic development andjobs. We disagreed on whether there was evidence to support the actions the county proposed to achieve that shared policy objective. From the start we have agreed that it is good policy to work as a region to address economic issues. Although we might not agree now on what the right choice is to achieve sustainable economic development, we all have the best interests of central Oregon at heart. Let's work with what we have now to make central Oregon the prosperous, sustainable, vibrant place our grandchildren will want to call home. StaffAttorney & Central Oregon Advocate 1000 Friends ofOregon :,r"'~10-~OO Centrol Oregon Office' 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541)719·8221 , friends i I FIGURE 20: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROFILE MATRIX OREGON ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _btllMflllltt"~"""""Ioy"""od_'I...;k>uudI.UGllIlr~_~IbM"'Iin;_"jM:OA)_'_f-..I"'~~~_"foDPCllttIll1lll"""tcft._'""*PItuorIpIIftW 1.hoII._ ..~1ItMI~1.4.....~.. PWOIUMI1"fTO INmlSTA1I,.l.M1lO Ii Acass.faOl'K(ltnAtt M\GtIWAVOROl'K(It I"lIIJiiOI'l[M'1tftIAI.: 1 IlAM..JnII.I)A«US: ~lOMt.IIIIIf(-. ,~"'-=~I oj :::'::t~. U_IIH (1 ...."'"'I).b1 .i" ' ..... lJ_... (lMIMI.,O",U} .~.. 50,000 ... !:~::;::.":: Pr,"mui 14 1ElB:lMOTT: 0,,..__... l'_S... lh",l...,O ..tt) " ..... !OPOI I.rv,c.\_,... (!_m".!lh,frj CklU "..,-11"'0 ~ .,.t_ D....".._'!·:..~~if IS 1El.KI:w.U"~tAn<1N$, I e.pntty Ihp<o_nc, Wo",.D,,._ftT D...MM-, 'ilNfOll'llc D.,......Il"'1I' ... .... -­ -­ " ...'" ..'" ....,.. ...... ...... ...­ ...... "/"'to ........ _.... oJ .... .."'.. ....... '" ,.. ... ... 16,100 ."... ... '" n .... " ." '" ..... ..... -­-­ -........ -­-­ .... ..".. ,..... :1:0,000 2S,000 ..... fII· fII· fII· fII' -J"III'O fII' fII· .." '" ,0" -....­""..­ ." .' 11,100 ..... '" '" '" '" fII· --­.... .... -_.... _..... -­........ -­......... ........ ""..­ DESCHUTES COUNTY CENTRAL OREGON REGIONAL LARGE-LOT EOA PAGE 25 Written Statement of the Central Oregon Association of REAL TORS before the Land Conservation and Development Commission (I ct\f.;vWlM-::. RE: Central Oregon Regional Large Lot Industrial Lands Rule . J . November 15, 2012 CD; -oi II b~J The Central Oregon Association of REAL T OR S® thanks the Commission for the opportunity to testify on the rulemaking to implement Central Oregon's Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis, a.k.a. the Large Lot Industrial Program. COAR was represented on the REOA's Regional Advisory Committee and was an intervenor on behalf of Deschutes County in the appeal of the REOA by 1000 Friends of Oregon. COAR is the trade association for Central Oregon 's real estate industry. We are the second largest REAL TOR® association in Oregon and represent more than 1,400 real estate professionals and real estate industry affiliated businesses. Our members are engaged daily in residential and commercial transactions providing essential services to their clients and adding value to their communities . They have unsurpassed knowledge of the regional real estate economy in Central Oregon and are often the first point of contact for businesses looking to expand in or relocate to Central Oregon. ~ COAR commends the staff and elected leadership of Deschutes County for their hard work and commitment }o the REOA process and end product. We don 't believe there is a more collaborative anf transparent governmental body in Central Oregon than Deschutes ounty . In particulyr, we 'd like to thank Peter Gutowsky, Nick Lelack and Laurie Cra ead fo heir efforts to shepherd the REOA through a lengthy and frustrating , process. We also appreciate the contributions made to the REOA by the other RAC \ .t& . participants, including Economic Development for Central Oregon, local city and county fiif;,'<::' . governments, Business Oregon , the Department of Slate Lands and OLeO. (IUnfortunately we are unable to support this rulemaking and the end product of this unnecessarily lengthy process. The reason is simple : The rulemaking that would implement a large lot industrial program falls well short of what we expected to come out ofthe REOA project and will make little if any difference in improving Central Oregon 's economy. After more than two years of meetings, deliberation , litigation and countless hours of work by staff and RAC volunteers this process has yielded not a single industrial site, much less any jobs in Central Oregon. [9ther than general agreement on a short-term need for sites accommodating large industrial users the final product of this effort by Deschutes County largely retains the status quo of the existing regulatory process. That was not what we anticipated when we enthusiastically agreed to participate on the RAe. Furthermore, given 1000 Friends of Oregon's vigorous opposition to the very idea of the project (characterized by their testimony at the first Deschutes County public hearing on the REOA) we are not confident that this program will ever be implemented at the local level because of fear of further litigation. Oregon's land use system is the greatest obstacle to economic development in Central Oregon and this rulemaking will not meaningfully change that. The Ce ntral Oregon Large Lot Industrial Need Analysis clearly states the problem we currently face with respect to creating more jobs in Central Oregon and the obstacle posed by our land use system. From page 7 : Central Oregon economic development efforts have been negatively impacted by a lack ofreadiZy available large-lot industrial sites. Manufacturing employment opportunities in particular are needed to establish a diversified and thereby more stable and balanced regional employment outlook. New manufacturing and other high value employment opportunities require an attractive supply ofvacant industrial sites to be competitive in global industrial recruitment pursuits. New land supply methods are needed, too. Communities, regions and states that focus primarily or excluSively on outdated governance paradigms are ill sUitedfor keeping up withfast paced global economic and industrial marketplace changes. Industries must be nimble to be successful in the competitive global marketplace. Government must be responsive to align its regulatory and process requirements ~ to meet market demands if it wishes to capture the considerable benefits ofhigh \ value industrial development. ~c, / ur~g development of he REOA the RAC was encouraged repeatedly by DLCD staff to \ "thirik outside the bo ' and design a solution that would overcome Central Oregon's disadvantages' acting large industrial employers. The settlement negotiations with ~ .nds of Oregon an nt ro osed rulemaking largely gutted that effort t AJld represents Ii . ore than the status quo. . ~IJ..-,t.. ~n--.. t/)t>"""',-r-_ \ ~ GOt-JOUS ~---,a /I ~"\u~~ to. tJ COAR participated in the . he s irit of co Ilabora . th the goal of making -1h \"" I some "industrial land grab", as has been alleged by some opponents. We hoped the \"" REOA process would yield a meaningful change to the land use regulatory system to \AI ~\) \? allow us to attract large job creators to a region with the state's highest unemployment. \\... We were cautiously optimistic during the REOA process that a new program for identifying a regional inventory of large lot industrial sites and protecting them for their intended use would result. In testimony to the county we advocated for a system that would allow industrial uses in the county and not require cities to incorporate industrial sites into an urban growth boundary. That would have been truly meaningful change, but we didn't insist on those policies out of comity and a desire for a consensus-based solution. Despite our growing skepticism we tried to work within the system to make small targeted changes to the land use system that would yield large scale benefits for our region. 2 The proposed rulemaking makes no change to the most significant barrier to economic development in Central Oregon, the Goal 14 urbanization process. As long as cities are required to go through this lengthy and expensive process, with all of its potential litigation, to serve a large industrial lot they will do so only reluctantly. The rulemaking's requirement that cities first look inside their UGBs for large industrial lots is a wasteful bureaucratic exercise intended to limit the program and provide grounds for litigation. The REOA process clearly laid out the need to supply land for an "exogenous" need of large lots not currently being met inside existing UGBs. Presumably, land inside UGBs is already set aside for local, or endogenous, employment needs. The idea of a regional need for large lots is new and additional to the cities' employment needs in their 20-year land supply. The requirement for cities to examine their existing UGBs for large lots to meet this newly identified need is unnecessary and counterproductive to creating a large lot inventory expeditiously. Furthermore, if a suitable site was discovered within a UGB it would not be available. No one who owns developable property inside a UGB is going to downzone to an industrial designation. Involving the regular UGB expansion process in this new program guts any effort at true and mearungfulland use reform . Market economics and a bureaucratic process essentially will kill any economic benefit which could have been derived from this program. The successful efforts of the appellants to recruit the Governor's office to their .side of the debate is unfortunate. They have utilized and aousea t e po itical tools aIldliifl uence · available to them to thwart an innovative program to improve Oregon 's economic ( competitiveness. Whether it's eco-friendly destination resorts or large industrial ___ ~ '-emp oyers, t"fieClefen ers of the status quo In newTHamette-¥al~e-y-have-succeSsfully politicized the land use process to suit their ideological goals at the expense of Central Oregon. Hopefully the pilot project in Josephine, Jackson and Douglas counties and the work of the Governor's UGB expansion task force will result in ll1eaningful and useful changes to a top down regulatory system that prevents regions and communities from pursuing their own paths to growth and development. There is no question in the real estate industry that our land use system is a barrier to Central Oregon's economic success. Unless and until that system changes significantly we will continue to underperform economically. We are disappointed that this promising large lot program has been watered down to be little more than the status quo . That was not the vision that was presented to us when the RAC was convened . But, once again, we see that true reform of the system cannot be left in the hands of the bureaucracy that is its chief defender. We will continue to work with our state association and local legislators to enact meaningful and sustainable reform legislatively. ~nfortunatelY, Oregon's land use and related justice system is broken ) .'" tt~~ ~~~ O)..c,v~ ~ ( ~~~O ) 3