Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-29 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 1 of 15 Deschutes 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, APRIL 29, 2013 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Nick Lelack, Wil Groves, Cynthia Smidt, Peter Russell and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Unger opened the meeting at 10:04 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT 3. Before the Board was a Presentation of the Annual Report on the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Program. Nancy Dorn, of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife; Ryan Huston, Executive Director of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, and Steve Johnson, Manager of Central Oregon Irrigation District, came before the Board. Mr. Johnson gave a presentation to the Board since one had not been done for a couple of years. He said there is a small power-generating plan on the COID canal between Redmond and Bend, and another hydroelectric generation facility southwest of Bend. (A copy of the presentation is attached for reference.) He said that over $1 million has gone towards mitigation and enhancement of habitat, from the proceeds of this power generation plant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 2 of 15 Ms. Dorn stated that this is a unique relationship , and part of her responsibilities is to work with the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Program. There is a well-rounded group of people on the group’s board, some of whom are appointed by the Commissioners; these members make decisions on projects, policies and funding. They have about a 1.5 match to every dollar they contribute to make projects more effective. The scope of work on any project can be very different. They have accomplished about a dozen larger projects in all parts of the area, in conjunction with a variety of partners and agencies. The biggest current project has to do with fish monitori ng and restoration. At this point they are going into the second year of gathering data. Ryan Huston talked about leverage and the County’s involvement. He explained where funding has originated (federal, state and local), and the in - kind investment of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, the U.S. Forest Service and others. They try to leverage funds wisely so they can do as much as possible. Commissioner Baney asked if there are other partnerships like this in other parts of the state. Mr. Johnson said that he is not aware of anything similar elsewhere. Mr. Huston added that the partnership and the power generating component are unique. Commissioner DeBone thanked them for explaining the program and projects. Chair Unger asked why they maintain about $500,000 in reserves. Mr. Dorn said there was some transition with staff and there has been a lot done on the lower Deschutes. The middle and upper areas is the most difficult due to fluctuations in the river flow. They are waiting for the proper conditions. Ms. Dorn added they want to make it as meaningful as possible. Mr. Huston stated that there are some big challenges in the middle and upper Deschutes, so they want to make sure they have the right place to invest. Other groups are looking at the upper Deschutes River and they need to coordinate with them. Mr. Huston stated that fish monitoring may continue for another three years. They also need to watch what the DEQ is doing regarding water quality. The committee may want to invest in this process since the State has not been able to move forward on it. Chair Unger stated the role of the County is to approve part of the group’s membership, and he is pleased with this partnership. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 3 of 15 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Deliberations on a Board-initiated Review of the Planning Division’s Approval of a Land Use Permit to Establish Two Farm-help Dwellings in the EFU Zone (Applicant: Simpson). Cynthia Smidt gave an overview of the issue. The biggest controversy seems to be in regard to the south additional dwelling. There are two farm-help dwellings, one for family and one not. Two letters were submitted after the time for comment had expired. One was in support and one wasn’t. Ms. Craghead said that the Board would have to decide whether to accept these documents or specifically reject them, as a finding. The Board has not seen them yet. The Board indicated it is not interested in seeing documents that came in after the final date. Commissioner DeBone asked if the two dwellings went into Code enforcement at the same time. Ms. Smidt thinks that there was a complaint about one and the other came later. One still needs to be permitted. The north home is lived in by family members. The south home is used by a family that is providing help with the ranch. There is an argument that this is a replacement home to a lawfully established home. The Board would have to determine if this is the case, and if the farm help is principally engaged in the farm operation. Ms. Craghead stated that the argument has been made that one is the replacement dwelling, which had electrical power and four walls. To her, the argument of a conditional approval does not mesh with the legal requirements. Chair Unger asked if this is because it did not go through the permitting process. Ms. Craghead said that the law does not specifically indicate that permits were needed. Ms. Smidt stated that the previous dwelling was legally established and permitted, but the new home was not placed with permits. Commissioner Baney asked if there is a timeline given for how long someone has to replace a dwelling. Ms. Smidt said it needs to be immediately replaced and permits should be obtained before the original structure is removed. Chair Unger said that the ranch was owned by other individuals, and was then purchased by the Simpsons; so some of the work in question was what the past owner wanted to do, and they removed it; and it took a while for the new owners to decide what to do as well. Time was needed to de cide what to do and when. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 4 of 15 Ms. Smidt said that the new dwelling was established in 1996, but the new owners did not think they needed to go through the process for a replacement dwelling. Ms. Craghead said they are not deciding whether the house can stay, just how to get there. Commissioner DeBone feels it is basically a Code compliance issue. He does support that it was lawfully created originally. Chair Unger said it was a manufactured home so the process that was missed was the electrical and septic part. Mr. Lelack said the reason it is important to know whether the replacement home is appropriate. If it is, they can obtain the necessary permits. This is the biggest issue, whether the structure is grandfathered in. This means that the occupants do not have to be involved in agriculture. Chair Unger says there is a bigger issue of challenges of State law, farming in general and the frustration with how this relates specifically. Farming here is a bigger challenge and it is hard to meet the bar the State established for other areas. People who farm here have to have outside jobs since it is difficult to farm in this area. The State has allowed other areas to look at farming in a more regional fashion. Commissioner DeBone stated that the replacement dwelling, a manufactured home built to Code, probably met the requirements at the time, except for the inspections and permits. It seems the dwellings are appropriate for this type of operation. Mr. Lelack stated that it was an allowed use but they just did not get the proper permits. The next question is, if it is not a replacement dwelling, they have to show the occupants are involved in farm work. Commissioner DeBone does not want to see the lack of permits set precedence so that others might try to do the same thing. Chair Unger stated that there may be others like this out there, and the County won’t know unless there is a complaint. Mr. Anderson said that from a practical standpoint, Code enforcement won’t change, but they need to determine if the gap in time between dwellings and the time that lapsed before getting permits is an issue for the Board. There may be other situations out there where these time gaps exist. Each complaint would be approached more generally; this is a more spe cific question. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 5 of 15 Chair Unger asked that if they determine it met requirements, would it create problems for Code enforcement if there is a similar situation. Mr. Anderson said it would only be an issue if they have to determine whether a structure is grandfathered, since it is supposed to exist continuously. The opponents argue there was a gap that broke the chain; the applicant says there was not a gap because of the unknowns of ownership at the time and whether the lack of permits is the problem. The precedence potentially would be whether a gap in time would be allowed between one dwelling and the next. Ms. Craghead stated that it is not considered interrupted or abandoned for a year. Ms. Smidt said that it is not considered non-conforming unless it is not on EFU land. The original could be non-conforming but the replacement would not be. Mr. Lelack said that if it is a replacement there is no limitation on who lives there. If it is a replacement dwelling, it has to be tied to the care of the farm. Ms. Craghead said that the original could have been lawfully established even if not permitted, depending on the timeframe. It could mean the use was established before permitting or the laws changed after it was established. Ms. Smidt said that she feels the permits are required. Commissioner Baney said that they can get to the point of there being a replacement, but she doesn’t feel it is lawful until permitted. Commissioner DeBone stated that it was lawfully established in 1977, but there are per mit compliance issues since then. If it is a replacement dwelling, it is okay for any use. Ms. Smidt stated that she thinks it was established originally for farm help. Commissioner DeBone does feel this is for farm help. Chair Unger said that it was lawfully established in 1977 but not lawfully established after that due to a lack of permits. It is important to have dwellings permitted. They don’t want to make that kind of exception. Commissioner Baney can’t get past the permitting part either. Mr. Lelack went over the idea that the use was allowed but the replacement was not established with required permits. There was consensus on the replacement not being lawfully established due to the lack of permits. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 6 of 15 Ms. Smidt said people are living in the home and the proponents say both are involved in the farm use. The opponent says that they are not principally engaged. That term is hard to determine. DLCD has commented on this and gives the County discretion. Often this means there has to be physical farm work that requires them to live on the farm. Commissioner DeBone said that physical farm use is not appropriate anymore. There are other operations of the facility that need to take place. There is not going to be someone out baling hay all th e time. The jobs that were presented are appropriate and necessary. Commissioner Baney struggled with this, but since they are tracking calving and other activities, it needs to be done on site. It is important to have someone on the property during those times. She is supportive of the scope of the work being done. Chair Unger said that the term “physically engaged” is archaic. A ranch or farm has a lot of things that need to take place, but the operation is more than working the fields and animals. Cities have agreed that an industrial site allows for a caretaker on site to secure and monitor the site. Agriculture should allow this as well, especially when there is inventory like animals. There should be a broader definition of what makes sense here. The Commissioner agreed that this criterion has been met. Mr. Lelack said this means finding that the occupants are principally engaged in the operation of the ranch. Ms. Smidt asked if the Board wants to go further with this. Chair Unger feels that there needs to be a bigger, more holistic look at this issue and how it has been addressed in other areas, but not at this time. Ms. Smidt asked if the Board wants annual reporting on the activities, which are listed as conditions. Mr. Lelack said they are willing but he is sure they don’t really want to do this if not necessary. Ms. Smidt said they would have to report as to who is residing there and what they are doing; both the family dwelling and the farm help dwelling. They also would be required to show the gross annual sales and what assistance the residents provide to the operation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 7 of 15 There need to be conditions of approval recorded with the Clerk prior to them being able to get permits for the buildings; and that the dwellings would be removed if no longer needed. Commissioner DeBone asked what the requirements are for family dwellings. Ms. Smidt said it could be for a medical need if not n ecessary for help on the ranch. The Board agreed that these conditions should be met. Staff will draft a final decision and present it to the Board at a later date. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 2013-008, to Change the Ratio of Overnight to Residential Units in Destination Resorts Outside the Bend Urban Area. Chair Unger read the opening statement. The Commissioners had no conflicts of interest to disclose. William Groves provided a presentation on the details and background of the Ordinance. The County has more restrictive requirements regarding housing ratios, and to change to a different ratio requires a change in Code. This amendment would lower the mandatory number of units required in Pronghorn, Eagle Crest and Thornburgh, and any others that might be established. One concern is off-site impacts, so the CMP (conditional master plan) would have to be adjusted as well. Staff feels that this process would provide a forum for an analysis of potential impacts. Staff feels that this won’t have an impact on transportation. For each residential unit, the change means 1/10th of a night overnight unit, which is small. It should comply with State law, and this change would do so. It provides the resorts with greater flexibility on how their units are utilized, and would not allow for an expansion of the property. This change may change the type of units but not the number of visitors. The Planning Commission had a split vote on this issue but generally was in favor due to the economic aspects, allowing more flexibility for resorts, and felt that there would be fewer off-site impacts. Some think the resorts have been allowed too much flexibility already and that this would lower barriers for future resorts. Central Oregon Landwatch has indicated these concerns. The applicant asked for an emergency approval so they can apply for permits sooner. They are trying to build units during the proper timeframe for construction. The Board can take testimony; and could close testimony. Representatives of the Sunriver Owners Association asked that this be left open for thirty days for comments. There are three areas zoned for resorts in that general area. They would not have received specific notice. Mr. Lelack said they were aware some time ago but did not meet for a period of time as a group. Liz Dickson, attorney for Pronghorn (the applicant) came before the Board, with a representative of Pronghorn. Ms. Fancher said they have worked with the Planning Commission and staff to address concerns. They have reviewed the record extensively, and it has been an interesting discussion. One has concerns about destination resorts in general. It is a worthwhile discussion, but that is not the question today. The question is whether destination resorts in their allocation of resources should be able to allow for more flexibility with fewer overnight dwellings required. The question is how many overnight units to build to go along with the residential units. This is not the place or time for deciding whether destination resorts are a good idea. Destination resorts are to provide recreational facilities to visitors and residents. There are lots of different people using destination resorts. The most difficult part is the infrastructure and recreational facilities; this is a big up front expense. IYou build the overnight facilities when there is a demand for them. If there is no demand, you are draining your resources. This kind of thing negatively affects the entire hospitality business in the area. Having excess supply brings Idown the profitability for all in the area. You don't want to build excess units unless there is appropriate demand. This change would allow the operators to I !build what makes sense for their industry, depending on the market. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 8 of IS Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 9 of 15 In this case, timing is important. There is an agreement with the County that needs to show what overnight units are going to be built and where. The applicant needs to know how many to build. They finalized the amended agreement in January and filed this application the same time. They also looked at the request from Sunriver Owners’ Association asking for this to remain open for thirty days, but they were aware of it a long time ago. Pronghorn wants to meet the obligations of the agreement and move forward with planning. There was an issue raised by Planning Commissioner Powell regarding destination resorts in general. Planning Commissioners are supposed to think like this, the bigger picture, but he had asked whether Pronghorn was open to the public. It is not a gated community. There is a greeter gate. Ms. Craghead said this is irrelevant for this discussion , and there is nothing in Code that means a destination resort can be a closed and gated community. This is a general issue raised by the one Planning Commission but is not relevant for the ratio discussion. Ms. Fancher stated that they are looking for a way to be flexible with the number and type of units. Pronghorn is a high-end resort and they don’t want cookie-cutter units; some would be small and some large. Some units will have lock-offs for this purpose. The units can be adapted to the individual users. Ms. Fancher said that another issued was raised was compliance with the TPR (Transportation Planning Rule). It is hard to determine whether this change would have any impact at all. Only another building phas e might change the transportation impacts. In the case of Pronghorn, they are maxed out by the total number of structures allowed. Steven Hultberg, representing Sunriver Partners and Caldera Springs, explained that as with Title 19, this is straightforward. LCDC changed the ratio years ago to 2.5:1. They are trying to mirror this. A lot of the discussion on this subject has been on other aspects. Caldera would allow a ten unit difference at most. The opposition seems to think this changes a resort into a rural subdivision, but the change would be minimal. He agrees with what the State has determined is appropriate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 10 of 15 Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver have no overnight obligations, yet they function as resorts. Also, supply and demand is important. Overbuilding does not just affect the price but also the quality. Less money coming in means less to support the resorts in general. There needs to be a proper balance of supply and demand. The request to keep the record open is unnecessary. This has been open for months. The SROA Board met in January and March, but did not send anyone to the Planning Commission meetings, nor to this meeting today. They have not appeared to bring up their concerns. Also, this has to do with ratios and not density. They have a maximum density requirement already. They won’t be adding to the infrastructure or transportation impacts. The Board had no questions or comments. Paul Dewey testified that this is a replay of the Title 19 discussion. He is concerned about the expansion of flexibility, or a windfall for resorts. Usually there should be some quid pro quo to the public. There is a lot of variability today and he does not think the impacts are that small. No one is talking about Thornburgh where the difference might be hundreds of units. The resorts want changes that affect them but it will be applied to other resorts. There is no analysis of these impacts on the ones that are not built. This is a broad decision based on two resorts. Staff has done a good analysis but has not looked at the overall impacts. Caldera is substantially different from Thornburgh. He also said the Board should limit the number of residential units. They all say they want flexibility on the overnights. Thornburgh has not said they want this done. If they say they don’t plan to do this, they should have to apply for this at the time. Most who are concerned about the resorts don’t want other resorts getting too large and creating another residential subdivision. There was a lot of talk about supply and demand, and flexibility. They already have substantial flexibility. It is an easy to make argument but is not justified. He questions as to whether this would just add value to their properties so they can flip them. There needs to be firm information on supply and demand. He said he submitted a letter in February on Title 19 and could not attend the Title 18 hearing, and wants to know if it is included. Mr. Groves said it has been. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 11 of 15 Commissioner Baney feels that overnight units are important, but the idea seems to be that there will be more tourists if this is done. Mr. Dewey said that State law calls for one thing and the County another. He feels that this market is saturated and it is a loss for destination resorts to build overnight units. Markets change over time, and so does demand. It is difficult to say what is necessary for the market. There is an array of units in the area, so he does not know how it can be said that one resort’s inventory can affect another’s. Everyone points to Sunriver, but Thornburgh will not be the same. It may be gated and exclusive. He said he can’t make the argument without more background information as to whether more overnight units are needed in this area. Ms. Fancher stated that she appreciates Mr. Dewey’s comments and consistency. The important thing is that there is a well -used, very developed land use process in place for the CMP. Every time there is a situation regarding a new development, it is an extensive process and not an easy one. The concerns brought up regarding Thornburgh are hard to analyze. It is a big unknown. There is a concrete reason for dividing what is now in place and a possible future development. She thinks the protections are in place in the existing process for future developments. To put something in place would constrain the planners when they are dealing with the different developments. It needs to be the same for all. In regard to TPR, there was a submittal on this in the record and there is no problems with it. Also, regarding supply and demand, there is information in the record, and she also read a document in this regard. When there is oversupply, service levels are impacted. If they look at destination resorts which are here already, the Board should decide whether it is appropriate for the County to match State and other county Code, to allow more flexibility regarding overnight units. Commissioner Baney asked if a destination resort could come in today and ask for more units, and Thornburgh if it survives. Mr. Groves said it depends on whether the destination CMP is still alive, they would have to amend their request. If they came in with a new one, they would have to go through the whole process again. There is no scenario where they would not have to show the impacts, and it would go to a hearing and at least a Hearings Officer. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 12 of 15 Chair Unger asked for deliberations. He said that SR requested it be left open. Commissioner Baney feels there has been ample opportunity for this. The other hearings also presented an opportunity. It should not be left open for this reason. Commissioner DeBone noted that there was opportunity to participate and agrees that this request be denied. Chair Unger agreed. The group took a five-minute break at this time (11:45 a.m.). Chair Unger asked if they can move forward today. Ms. Groves said he would have to revise Exhibit C. Commissioner Baney asked about a previous discussion regarding the emergency clause and the 90-day adoption period. Ms. Craghead said that in toweled years there has not been a request for an appeal during that timeframe. There is the potential of shortening the time, adopting by emergency and making the effective date in thirty days, but a finding is necessary. Commissioner Baney stated that this does not allow for more density and there are firm rules in place, with the CMP process and others. She understands supply and demand, but this complies with the law. She is not supportive of extensions in the past because the units need to be built in a certain period of time. She thinks this goes the right direction. Commissioner DeBone says this was vetted by the State, and it has taken years for it to come on line in the eastern counties. He supports proceeding with this. Chair Unger also supports this. Goal 8 was authorized by the State years ago and Deschutes County took a more conservative approach. The extensions were allowed due to needs for flexibility and the economy, and wanting to make the resorts successful. When the rule was written, there were a lot of ways to go. A lot has to do with the economy and how resorts operate. It will help them to move forward with their next steps. This keeps a level playing field with the urban areas. Chair Unger said that counties have a 90-day adoption and effect rule, and cities have this for 30 days. The emergency clause is requested so they can move forward more quickly. He feels 90 days is a very long time and 30 days is appropriate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 13 of 15 Commissioner DeBone is hesitant regarding emergency clauses, but does not understand why it is 90 days. People can petition within 30 days. Commissioner Baney feels this is a good compromise. It is land use and it can be contentious. The Board closed the hearing, and directed staff to draft the Ordinance and set an emergency clause with an effective date of thirty days. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 6. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2013-035, Approving an Assessment and Taxation Grant Application with the Oregon Department of Revenue 7. Board Signature of Document No. 2013-203, an Industrial Lease between Deschutes County and Kaufman (La Pine Industrial Bare Land) 8. Approval of an Economic Development Grant to the Oregon Youth Authority in the Amount of $350 9. Approval of Minutes: Work Session of April 22 and 24, 2013 Business Meeting of April 24, 2013 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $25,324.69. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 14 of 15 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $355.92. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $308,333.32. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 13. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. DATED this Zq-'!; Day of ~ 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. oJ~u..r= Al ~ Ta y ey, Vice hair ATTEST: Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting ~onday,ApriI29,2013 Page 15 of 15 -------------------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 11: \ ~-I Date 41 ~(I 3 ~~~~----------------I Name LA "2. ().cJvn~ Address 7 tf7 [tV ))d({/(R4J 41u; /;tr-£( 0 ~ r7702­ Phone #s (571) 212 -»)0 !­ E-mail address tjr/t-d< J OH cQ It t~-1f!7 -~(~ ~ InFavor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes D No /1.-{) I jIJ N Ie , BOARD OF COMM SSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _l)~_--=--t....L.!)~D:........-______ Date '1/2'/ 13 bL--t ~ Name S~ ~u \~eY() Address ~O m 2col ~ 9l'04 Phone #s Jtl In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes 0 No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 13 -t _(4 -=----=_______ DateAgenda Item of Interest ___-I --'-"""'--------'-~ Name _____~~A ~_~~~e ~¥-----------------=U \=w ~~ Address ___-----'-S 3---'-'---__i <---='-----'u J L--_____________I--=-_C,'-----....:..N V_ _k s \:;>"'-''-''l Phone#s 6'-/1 -31'1-1'113 ----~~~~-~=----------------- E-mail address __-I{2 .-.--.E:...;:=-..:..!......lyo......:==_._=____.cA <-~..::.....:.....'_<4 ____________.-..oI w ~1?<S./\.~__=_C>-I.o l . ----'-.'YI D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided [ZJ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes RIVER STEWARDSHIP GUIDE STEWARDSHIP "dealing with man~ relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.)) Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) FOR PROPERTY OWNERS: UPPER DESCHUTES RIVER p LITTLE DESCHUTES RIVER SUNRIVER ~ FAlL RIVER ~ SPRING RIVER Page 1: Introduction Page 2: Upper Deschutes Rivcr: A 1nique Arca Page 2-3: Habitat amI \X%lIifc Page 4: As essing Property and Habitat Page 4: Restoring tJ1C Riverbank Page 5: Pr' en ing .atural l ,'eatures Page 6: Getting Help Back Cover: cknowled~cmcnt . This stewardship guide is jor landowners who IJJant to be good stewards of the Des chutes RJ ver, Little Deschutes Riller, Fall lVver, S Ilt/ri ver and Splillg Rillel: A gencies and organizations that share concern jor these rivers JJJClIlt to J.vo rk with landolJmers to preserve the beauty, II/ater qllf.l lit;, an d IIl1ique structtlre and jtlllction of habitat along these rivers within the Upper D eschutes Watershed. TlJis gllide describes lvhat landowners can do to protect, ill/prove and preserve riverside conditions. The guide indudes sil1'Ple steps and recommendations from experts in the cO!1l,,"mity. Each prop er!), has unique elements that are important jor the river co rri dor and wildlife living i17 alld aIOlZ~ the river. W hen needed, some resto mtiotl projects can be acc omplished simpb' u)ilh garden tools and th e use of the right vege tation . For bioaer projects, it lllQ)' be necessa~J' to seek professional assistance. In many cases, p ermits are required before adding or remo ving plants, soi~ rocks, wood or in-stream strtlctures. See page 6: G etti17,-~ He lpJor a list of agmlJi names and iriformation about where to seek advice and permit injormation. Riveifront properlJ' COlI.ferl'ation and restoration will preserve the value of the prop er!)1 and protect tbe wildlife, fish, water quality, and habitat that we aff treasur e. The U.S. Cong ress d es ig n ated th e U pper D eschutes Ri ve r a s a Wild and Sce ni c Ri ver , w hil .e th e people of O r ego n designated it a State Scenic Wate rway. These des igna ti o n s all ow for th e p ro tec ti o n and pres erv atio n of this m ajes ti c ri ver an d it s ba n ks, which prov id e im portant habitat for fis h , bird s an d o th e r w ildlife. The ri ve r al so prov id es a se rene setting for p eople w ho live a nd recrea te a lo ng its b a n ks a nd ri ve r side forc s rs. Durin g fall an d win ter, mos t of th e wa ter fro m th e h eadwa ter s of the D esch u tes Ri ve r is co Uec ted a n d store d in Wi c kiup Reservoir and the fl ow in the ri ver below th e r ese rvoir is r e duce d to lo w levels. In spring and summe r, th e rive r's fl ow is in creased to provid e water for irrigation to agric ulrural la nd s arou nd Be n d, Red m o nd and Madras. These managed fl ows acce le ra te n a tu ra l eros io n o f th e riverb anks and slow the estab­ li shm e nt o f vege tati o n. Erosio n an d s p ar se v ege tation affect riverside properties an d assoc ia ted fi sh a n d wildlife habita t. Proper care of native vege tati o n alo n g th e ri ve r, including p rese rving tree s and shrubs whose roots stabili ze th e ri ve rba n ks an d se dges an d ru sh es tha t thrive in wet ar eas, ca n h elp re du ce the e ffec t s o f eros io n. Areas a lo ng th e ri ve r ba n k a n d m ar s hy areas s u pport a g rea ter dive rsity of wil dli fe tha n areas beyo nd the r ive r ba nk. H abi t a t alo n g ri ve rb a nk s is limi ted, espec iall y o n th e eas t side of the Cascade M o untains . Approxi ­ m ate ly 80 p e rcent o f a ll wild life s p ecies d e p end o n h abi ta t al o ng ri vers and streams, lakes an d we tl ands. More t h an 50 p erce nt o f the song bird s in th e wes tern U nited Sta tes use th ese areas at so m e po int during the yea r. H ealth y r iver sys tem s and fis heries d e p e nd o n healthy ha bi ta t al o ng ri ver­ b ank s and in m arshy areas. Riverine Habitat The Upper Deschutes, s liding thro ug h rugged lava fi e lds and r ibbo n s of willow and pine tree s, repre sents n a tural rive rin e h ab ita t (ri ve rin e r e la tes to or resembles a river and is lo c ate d o n o r inh abirin g th e b anks of a river). The species and conditions fo und in an d alo n g th e rive r re fl ec t the Upper Deschutes' histor y of fl ow flu c tu a ti o n and d eve lopm e nt. Introduced fish, such as brown and brook tro ut, ar e avaiJab le a long with native redband rainbow trout, sculpin, minn ows and d ace. The character of the Upper Deschute s changes from sm all stream s and channels to large, deep pools and wate rfall s, whic h provid e a dive r s ity of habitat for many sizes, species and life s ta ges of fi sh . T he fi s h o ft en closely foUow insect populations-from caddi s fl y lar v ae in c hing alo ng a stone to mayflies floating to a n e arby w ill ow. Ri ve r o tte r s sli p into th e water in search of fish and crawfi sh and u se ri ve r side trees a nd b an ks to mark their territory and find m a tes. Ri ve rin e h ab ita t conta in s wate r, food and shelter for an entire community o f fis h , in sec t s an d w il d li fe tha t inhabit the river and nearb y are as. Wetland Habitat Wetland habitat links the la nd and w ater a n d is we t m ost o r all o f the ye a r. Often called "nurse ri es of life," we tl a nd s p roV id e ha bitat for thou s and s of sp ec ie s o f aquatic and land -b ased pl a nts a nd a n ima ls. Wetland s help reduce dam age and loss fro m fl ooding by se rving as a fl oodplain fo r excess wate r during p e ri o d s o f hi g h fl ow. We tl a nd s provide habitat fo r a va ri ety o f amphibia n s, s u ch as frogs, toads and salamanders, and feed a nd s helte r fi s h at va ri o us life stages. B eaver, commo n wetland r es id e nts, p rov id e b e ne fit s to we tl a nd h a bi ta ts by d amming wa te r th a t ke eps we tl a nd s intact a nd intro duc in g wood in to the s tream fr o m adj ace nt ripari an and upl a nd a reas. Riparian Habitat Riparian habitat is the tran siti o n area berwe e n the river or \'vedands and the upland s. Plant communities o f riparian areas are generally woody species s uch as willows, alders and cottonwoods, whose roors serve to stabili ze th e banks of Strea m s. The canopy along the s tream provides shade to help regulate water temperature and cover for fish hiding near the bank. Riparian shrub s provide ne s tin g and foragi ng habitat for birds Like the willow flycatcher. Tree s and shrubs o f different sizes and ages provide layer s of habitat fo r s helter and fee ding. Decomposing wood from riparian plants provide s food fo r insects; fallen uees provide shelter for fi s h. Logs or large wood with attached tree roots change the flow of water to create new p ools a nd s helter fo r in sec ts and fish. Elk and deer often use cool, den se riparian area s for birthing, sheltering and feeding their young. U pland Forest and Meadow H abit at Upland habitat ha s drier soil and le ss plant growth than riparian and weda.nd habitat. Older ponderosa pine and other tre es provide important perching and ne sting areas fo r birds s uch as owls, osprey and eagles. In se ct-foragin g and cavity -ne s ting birds ofte n use dead, sta nding trees (s nags) in upland and riparian habitat. Oregon Spotted Frog: A U nique Upper Deschutes Species Ri parian and wetland area s often provide important habitat for se nsitive or rare species, which are generall y considered indicators of e nviro run ental health because of their nee d for pri stine habitats. The O regon sp o tted frog (Rana pretiosa), a candidate sp ec ies for Li s ting under the E ndange red Species Act, is hi g hly dependent on the pper D e schutes an d L itcle Deschutes rivers and associated wedands. Oregon spotted fro gs are the most aguatic native frog in th e Pacific Northwes t and hi storically ranged from southwestern B ritish Columbia to northeast California. In Oreg on, the species remains present in only three out of ten hi stori cally occupied counties: Deschutes, Klamath and Lane. The frog is usuaUy found in small ponds, isolated weLl ands or near a body of wate r that has continuous, year-round flow and includes zones of shallow water and abundant emergent or fl oating aquatic plants, which the frog s u se for basking and protective cover. Habitat with no predatory fish and bull frogs is especially desirable. Riverine areas that contain permanent standing water, but are no longer directly connected to the river, such as oxbows, provide essential overwintering and breeding habitat for th e Oregon spotted frog. In the Upper Deschutes and Litde Deschutes rivers, Oregon s potted frog survival is threatened by the loss of marsh habitat due to vegetati o n succession and the invasion of reed canary grass and e ncroachme nt o f lodgepole pine into wedands, alteration of river flow s, interactions WIth non-native fish and bull frogs, and degraded water quality. Livc ~toc k grazing can also pose a threat to the O regon s potted frog if it dcgrau cs frog habitat structure or water quality. To assess property, walk around and record the cliversity, habitat type s and conclition o f the prope rty throug h notes and photographs. Share t:xamples with neighbors and local expe rts. Consider feature s th at are uniqu e to the property and improvements to care for the vegetation and water quality. Things to look for when a sessing property • Runoff and erosion from hard surfaces or bare soil Any spo t where fl o win g water meets exposed soil is a potencial sou rce of eros ion and pollution: dirt roads, driveways or parking areas, earthen drainage clitche s, over-gra ze d pastures or corrals, and areas of bare or s parsely-vq;ctated earth. • Riverbank failure or erosion Riverbank erosio n is a natural process, particularl)' where swi ft fl ows occur and riverbanks are sparsel y vege tated. Managed hi g h summer and low winter flo ws o f the Deschutes River al so contribute to bank erosi o n problems. Vertical concrete wall s and riprap re taining structures often change the direction and velocity o f water fl o w, re sultin g in e rosion at the ends of these features or on adjacent property. • Lawns and removal of r iverside ve getation i\fa.intaining a manicured lawn up to the edge of the river and rem o ving native riverside vegetation reduce s habitat and riverbank s tabiliry, which may put property at greater ri sk for floodin g o r riverbank ero sion. Re moval of ve geta­ tion al so decreases ho meowner privacy. C st: o f fertilizers and pesticide, o n lawns and vegeta ti o n near the river can reduce water quality and harm wildlife. Avoid usin g harmful chemical s or dwnping waste along o r in th e river. • Document the types of vegetation and general "health" of the riverbank Keeping a photographic or other tall y of the kind s and concli tion of th e veg­ etatio n helps id e nti~' and target where )'o U need improve me nts. Rating your ove rall riverbank "health" can help identify whether preve ntion or interven­ ti o n is your bes t option fo r lo ng term health and stability of your riverbank. • Livestock and domestic animal Graz ing domestic lives tock and pet waste along th e bank can red uce or e\i.mina te healthy riparian vegetation and a ffect water quality. Grazing ma l' cau se soil deg­ radation; soil compaction might break do wn the riverbank, adding to erosion problems. Roaming pe ts can disturb ne sting and b ree ding fish and wildlife. After gathering inform a ti o n about the proper ty and definin g goa ls for improvements, consid er the options available for restoracion to: • Enhance habitat for migracin g insects (butterflies) and \.vildlife, improve vegeta tion b y adding native specie s th at have been lost • Remove no n-nacive specie s to preve nt spread downstream • Add vegetaci o n or limit a ccess to stop erosion problems With the help of loca l profe SSIO n als, stabilize banks w ith carefull y­ placed logs, or plant trees to use the benefi ts their roots provid e . 7hillk abollt em:h roll! flllri fompOllel1f ofthe habitat fWrl elJl,isioll lil'i/lg {liong {I betllltifitl flnrl benlthy riller system. Cmftillg (/ thoughtflll desig1l with the support of10mI P/'ofessiollllis flilows Itll/rlol/mel's to III/del'fltlll! bigger restomtioll pmjects miff obtaill tbe permits IIlld INlbittlt compollellts neerlerl fOl'tI rivel'side l't'stol'i1ti(J/l pl'Oject. It is a lway s easier, and le ss costly, to prevent e rosion and decline of the river than to repair damage. Pro per care o f riverfront property will i ncreas e it s value. When damage has occurred, the techniques avail­ able for restoring the riverbank var), in cost, aesthetics and longevi ty. Regio nal agencies, o rgani za ci ons or experts are available to suppo rt res­ toration metho d s. Qualified professionals should d esign and implement the restoration methods, bu t property owners can h elp. Befo re contacting so meone for support, go through thi s 5-step checklist: 1. Did you capolre conditions on the property with photographs? 2. What are the common native species and weeds of concern for the property? 3. What are the concerns for the health and stability of the riverbank? 4. What are the goals to improve the areas and conditions for the river? 5. What resources are availabl e to work on the restoration? Work with community experts to plan for improvements, res to re clisturbed sites and create more natural conclitions along the rive r. M o re ideas available from : WW\v.udrc.org Vegeta ti o n , soil and s tructure, such as wood y material , s upport many needs and roles . For e xa mple, it is imp orta nt to protect again s t forest fir e, while leaving la yers of nati ve n:g etario n to attract bi rd s and insects. D ead s tanding trees (snags) p rovid e opportunities fo r in s ect -fo raging and cavity -nesting bird s ; they mig ht a ls o pos e a ha za rd to people and homes . Knowing ab o ut the Li v ing thin g s o n private property and adj a­ cent forc s t and river le ad s to informed d eci s ions about pres erving and c nhancing natural feature s. Guid e lines to pr eservi ng and e nhancing natural fe atures • Leave s trea mside vegeta ti o n in tac t A healthy riverbank n ee ds undisturbed so i.l and vege tati o n. Native shrubs, trees a nd gra,s e s provide wildlife habitat. Vege ta ti o n provides s hade, which lo we rs ,vater temperature and creates cover for waterfowl , fi s h a nd other o rg ani sms. Leaves and insect s th a t drop from ne arby trees and shrubs s uppl), food for the aqu a tic community; plant roo ts stabili ze th e bank and re duce erosio n. H ealthy vege tatio n filters sedim e nt and ab sorb s so me harmful nutrients. Prop erly manage o r eliminate s tre amside .lives to ck g ra z in g . Lcave snag s standing wheneve r the y do not po se a haz ard to people or s tructures. • Monitor and m an age Liv e . to ck. and domesti c a nim als To av o id excessive ero sio n , carefully m o nitor and m a na ge river acc ess points for d omestic anim als. • Keep wood y mate ri al in the ri ve r Fall e n trees provide cover a nd food fo r fish, in sects, amphibian s, and other wild.life. This materia.l creates hiding places and p ool habitat fo r deeper wate r fish . Logs and wood prote ct ri verbanks by slo wing the curre nt and allowing th e deposit of se diments. L ea ve woody mate ria.l s found in o r a.l o ng the ri ve r in place. Leave dcad trees standing where th ey d o not p ose a hazard. D ead s tanding tr ees fall into th e ri ve r. If lo gs ar e cau sing exce ss ive erosion a.lo ng the bank, see p age 6: G e ttin g Help, for info rmation on who to co ntact. • Reco g nize and remove in vas ive we eds Beco me fami.liar with common invas ive we ed s th at occur a.l o ng th e river. Aquatic invasi ve wee d s can quickly spread to riparian habitat, b eco ming a nuisance and having th e potentia.l to o utcompete native veg etation. So me noxiou s weed s, such as wes tern waterheml o ck, are poiso n o us to hwnans, Lives tock and wild.life . Rem ova.l of invasi ve weeds is important; exerci se care when using an y herbicide near the river. Small amounts o f any yard or garden chemica.ls c a n be letha.l to plants and anim a.ls . These ch emica.ls can enter th e river as spray res iduc or s torm runoff. Av o id using these p ro ducts near th e ri ve r and exercise caution when appl ying them. Read the label carefull y and choos e safe products fo r use a.long waterv.cays. Inform a ti o n about keeping property fre e fr o m invasive wceds is available from: www.dc ~chutes.org/ Ro ad / Citizen-I nvo lvemen t/N oxio us-We ed-Con tro l.aspx • Ir ri gate wise ly The soil s o f the Upp e r Deschutes are hi g hl y porous a nd drain rapidl y. Although th ese characteri s tics improve the soil's filterin g ability, they a lso contribute to the need fo r frequent irri ga tion to maintain lawns and o th er non-native landscaping . In a n arid climate , e ven on a river, water is pre ci o u s and mus t be u sed sen sibly. Over watering caus es exc ess fertili zer and che mica.ls to leach into the ground water and rive r. Makc c\'e r y drop count; land scape with n a tiv e or droug ht-tolerant plants and install drip irrigation sys te m s. Informatio n about water conservatio n is availabl e from: WW\v.d es chutesswcd .c o m • Dis pos e of wa s te s p roperly Keep the riv e rside cl ean. Disposing o f an)' materia.l in o r along th e river, even grass clippings or garde n ,-vas te s, can harm riversid e vege tation and wa ter qu ality. D o no t dispo se o f antifreeze, oil , p aint, solve n ts , d e tergents o r o ther che mica.ls anyw h ere near th e river. Remember, chemica.ls us ed in ev ery day activities Like wa shing a car or cle a ning a d o ck can pollute th e river. Conse­ que nces o f imprope r disposa.l can be far-reachin g, es pecia.JJ y w hen mu.ltiplied by th e many househ o ld s using these co mmon substances . Informatio n abo ut di sp os ing o f waste is available from: www.d cschutes.org/solidwastc.as px • Ch e ck, eptic sy s tem En sure that se ptic sys tem s functi o n properly. Bacteria and di sso lved nutrie nts from poo rly-functioning septic system s p o llute the river. Rep!' cing leakin g se ptic tanks o r clo gged leach fi e ld s and time ly pumping o f all s ystems can help keep thi s source of r ive r contaminatio n in check. Informatio n a b o ut septic sys t e m s is available from: W\vw.d e schutcs.o rg / c o mm u ni ty -d eve lo p men t / en viro n mental-soi.l s.as p x Local city, county, s tate or federal agencie s can help a ss es s the condition of a riverbank and recommend the mos t cos t-effective solutions fo r a particular situatio n. Most riverbank restoration activities on the Upper Deschute s will need approval from one or more agencies. Agencies will work closel y with landowners and each other to keep a project running smoothly in the permitting process. Frequently Requested Improvements for Property Owners Probl em: Cont ac t: Phone: Jdenrify weed ' and con 'ider Dt:schutes County 5-11 -322-713 5 the pr pt:r treatment vegetation marutgt:r Stabilize b ank s to prevent De schutes Mitigation and 541 -633-11 12 e rosion and de si!!O larger E nhanceme nt Program re s toration projects fo r ri"erban ks _\dd steps or dock fo r [) schutcs County planner 541-388 -6575 ri 'c rs idc ac e 's OR Deparrrnc nLOf State Lands 541 -388-6112 \Vo rk with wildlife affecting Oregon D e partme nt of 541 -388 -6363 a home o r property Fish and Wildlife Top Commllnity Resources for Rh'erside Property Owners D e . c hute s C ounty www.deschute s.o rg , 541-388-6560 County zo nin g . land use permits, planning s taff, weed control, we tl and inventory Deschu te s C ounty Mitiga tion and Enhancement Committee 541-63 3-1112 lnformarion and help on iss ue s dealing with r esto rin g , developing, and imple ­ mentlng riv erba nk and wildlife habitat in the Upper Deschutes Ri ve r Basin. D e sch utes N a tional Fores t www.fs.usda.gov / deschutes , 541 -383-5300 Wild and scenic river man age ment, NW Fores t Pass, camping, technical assistance for ri ve rbank restoration O regon Depar tme nt o f Fis h and W ildlife wW\v.dfw.state.or.us, 541 -388-6 363 Information on fish, wildlife, habitat management, fi s hin g/hunting licen se s, monltonng u.s. Fish and Wildlife Ser vice \Vww.fw s.gov /oregonfwo, 541-383 -7146 Thre atened and end a ng ered speci es , Panners Program fo r Fi s h and Wildlife ha bitat restoratio n o ppo rtunities U pper D e s chutes Water hed C ouncil \Vww.re storethedeschutes.org, 541-38 2-6103 Re s toration projects for river s and riverbanks, educati o n ptog rams, monitoring D e s c hutes River C o n s e rvancy ww\v.de schute sriver.org, 541-382-4077 Re storati o n of stream Aow and water quality, water banking, water rights planning Department of S t a te Lands www.oregon .gov/DSL, 541-388-6112 Soil removal or fill pe rmits, management o f land s, water ways, and wetland s Des c hutes So il and Water Conservation District www.d es chutesswcd.com. 541-923-2204 Conserving soils, \Vater quality, preserving wildlife and habitat, planning U pper Des chutes Ri ver C oali ti on www.udrc.o rg, 541-390-9798 Suppo rting neigh borhoods fo r fir e preve ntion , habitat cons ery a ti o n, river clean ups O rego n Department of E nvironme n t al Quality www.oregon.go\-/ OEQ/WQ, 541-388-6146 Protecting and e nhancing air and water quality, monitoring, planning n.e Opper Oacbula R1_ Coal ltl oD TROUT UNLIMITED Upper D eschu tes Rive r Coalition www.u<lrc .org P.O. Box 042, Sunrive r, OR 977 07 0 111.20 12  Annual revenues from power plant go to M & E fund  COID to use revenues for water conservation improvements in the canals of the District  Mitigation program to be jointly administered by COID and ODFW  Arrangement incorporated into FERC license through 2035 Agreement between:  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)  Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) Unique relationship between developer and agency M & E Committee Committee made up of representative stakeholders with a focus on their area of interest or expertise COMMITTEE PURPOSE: “…review plans developed and submitted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for mitigation and enhancement of the Deschutes River in connection with the COID hydroelectric project.” POSITION MEMBER Conservation Org (2) Ryan Houston – Chair Scott McCaulou Fish (2) Bill Seitz Darek Staab COID (1) Steve Johnson Member at Large (2) Matt Shinderman Patrick Griffiths Non-Voting Members: Jeremy Giffin Tom Walker Peter Gutowsky Nancy Doran Deposits $1,392,000 (not including interest) Account Balance (February 2013) $498,860.60 Direct Project Expenditures (since 1989) ~ $500,00+ PROJECT SUPPORT, SUPPLIES, SERVICES, etc… (since 1989) ~ $1,000,000 Amount Leveraged (estimate) ~ $2,000,000 2011-2013 Budget ODFW personnel $71,112.00 Direct project costs $33,700.00 Program overhead $23,342.00 Total $128,154.00 Balance of funds in account (as of February 2013) $498,860.60  Landowner Contact •Identify project objectives •Partner obligations •Secure lease or easement •Outreach  Funding •Grant writing •Presentation  Project Implementation •Planning (office/ground) •Permits •Construction/Material bids •Material acquisition •Construction (in house/contract) Post-Project •Follow up with landowner •Project maintenance •Biological evaluation •Physical habitat monitoring Reporting Annual Monthly Project Summary Other •Outreach •Budgeting •Equipment maintenance Representative Project Accomplishments South County Wetlands Inventory La Pine water quality study M & E Strategic Plan for Upper Deschutes Tumalo Creek restoration - UDWC Streambank restoration projects Spawning gravel placement North Unit Water Feasibility Study Roadmap to Restoration – USFS UDRC River Stewardship Guide Splitter dam at Crane Prairie Reservoir Upper/Middle Deschutes Monitoring Project Gather baseline data Partnership to leverage resources and funds most effectively and efficiently Sampling activities Entering second year Upper Deschutes and middle Deschutes River FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT CASH/IN-KIND OWEB funding $145,400.00 cash ODFW $41,600.00 in-kind COID – M & E Fund $72,394.00 cash ODFW – R & E Fund $25,000.00 cash USFS $4000.00 in-kind TOTAL CASH $242,794.00 TOTAL IN-KIND $45,600.00 OVERALL TOTAL $288,394.00 Questions? 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, APRIL 29, 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. A PRESENTATION of the Annual Report on the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Program -Peter Gutowsky, Community Development 4. CONSIDERATION of Deliberations on a Board-initiated Review of the Planning Division's Approval of a Land Use Permit to Establish Two Farm­ help Dwellings in the EFU Zone (Applicant: Simpson) -Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Suggested Action: Render a Decision ifappropriate. 5. A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance No. 2013-008, to Change the Ratio of Overnight to Residential Units in Destination Resorts Outside the Bend Urban Area -William Groves, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open hearing and take testimony. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 1 of7 CONSENT AGENDA 6. Board Signature of Resolution No. 2013-035, Approving an Assessment and Taxation Grant Application with the Oregon Department of Revenue 7. Board Signature of Document No. 2013-203, an Industrial Lease between Deschutes County and Kaufman (La Pine Industrial Bare Land) 8. Approval of an Economic Development Grant to the Oregon Youth Authority in the Amount of $3 50 9. Approval of Minutes: • Work Session of April 22 and 24,2013 • Business Meeting of Apri124, 2013 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Resolution No. 2013-026, Transferring Appropriations in the Extension and 4-H County Service District Fund 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 14. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 29,2013 Page 2 of7 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.) Wednesday, April 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, April 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May I 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 2 7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel Monday, May 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, May 7 3 :30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 3 of7 Wednesday, May 8 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session( s) Thursday, May 9 7:00a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council-Redmond Council Chambers Wednesday, May 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 16 7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel Monday, May 20 -Friday, May 24 Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Meetings and Hearings Monday, May 27 Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day Wednesday, May 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session( s) Thursday, May 30 7:30a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel Monday, June 3 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, April 29, 2013 Page4of7 Tuesday, June 4 3 :30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, June 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 12 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session( s) Thursday, June 13 7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel Monday, June 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Friday, June 21 7:30 a.m. State of the County/Forecast Breakfast -Bend Country Club Monday, June 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, June 27 7:30 a.m. Legislative Conference Call with Public Affairs Counsel Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 29, 2013 Page 5 of7 Monday, July 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, July 2 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, July 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, July 4 Most County offices will be closed to observe Independence Day Wednesday, July 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30pm. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, July 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, July 11 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council Redmond Council Chambers Monday, July 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, July 24 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, April 29, 2013 Page 6 of7 I Monday, July 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, July 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, August 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, August 6 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, August 7 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) (b), 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, April 29, 2013 Page 7 of7