Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-27 Business Meeting MinutesFor Recording Stamp Only 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 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2014 I Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, John Laherty and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Susan Ross and James Lewis, Property & Facilities; Nick Lelack, Cynthia Smidt, Lori Furlong and John Griley, Community Development; two representatives ofthe Sheriff's Office; and ten other citizens. No representatives ofthe media were in attendance. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. r I I I J f Commissioners' Hearing Room -Administration Building -1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-021, a Sunriver Plan Amendment from Forest District to UtiJity District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 1 of 13 Cynthia Smidt gave a brief overview of the item. The word 'utility' was left off but this has been added. UNGER: Move second reading by title only. DEBONE: Second. YOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the second reading by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-021. UNGER: Second. YOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-022, a Sunriver Plan Amendment from Forest District to Utility District. Ms. Smidt explained there are no changes from the first reading. UNGER: Move second reading by title only. DEBONE: Second. YOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the second reading by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-022. UNGER: Second. YOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 2 of 13 5. Before the Board was Consideration of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2014-024, Amending Deschutes County Code 2.37, Public Contracting Code. Susan Ross explained that in the past few legislative sessions, changes were made to State Contracting Code, which is then followed by the County. The County has to be at least as restrictive but can institute other changes. She has coordinated with other departments in this regard. They cleaned up errors and references that do not apply. The main change is on page 4, regarding competitive sealed proposals and how a committee is appointed to review them. This is not allowed since it is a low­ bid process and discretion is not permitted. On page 5, the contract amount allowed by ORS has increased to $10,000. Anything under $10,000 can be directly awarded without solicitation. On page 7, under 080(a), the citation language is not correct. Under (e), it talks about design-builder methods, and criteria can change, so it should just refer to State law. On page 8, it reiterates the contract amounts. Above $10,000, there are other processes to follow. Commissioner Unger asked about the model rules. Ms. Ross said these are the ORS established by the State. Dave Doyle added that they are found in the OAR's as generated by the Attorney General, and are the basis of the ORS rules. Ms. Ross said this change will bring the County into compliance. DEBONE: Move first and second readings by title only of Ordinance No. 2014-024, declaring an emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings by title only, declaring an emergency. UNGER: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-024, by emergency. DEBONE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 3 of 13 VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Document No. 2014-482, the Deschutes County Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. Nick Lelack gave a brief overview, acknowledging the help of County Counsel and the Sheriffs Office. A PowerPoint presentation was then given (a copy of which is attached for reference.) Lori Furlong said the manual included good ideas that were never implemented. Some items were removed if not practical or appropriate. Others were updated to include warnings prior to a citation, as they spend a great deal of time working with citizens to reach compliance. The Sheriff s Office issuing warnings has been an effective tool. Most citations are removed since citizens usually will comply at that time. Injunctions have also been included formally in the manual, and the County has adopted language on who can issue citations. Code enforcement works well with State agencies to protect the rivers and the land. Sometimes it is more appropriate for another agency to enforce a problem. Mitigation sometimes works as well. There can also be a lien placed against the property if it gets to that point. The issue is getting more complex over time. There are a few core issues that the public does not like about the policy, such as the allowable timeline and complaint process. Commissioner DeB one asked when the manual was established. Ms. Furlong said it was adopted in 1996 after the involvement of citizens and various County departments. Commissioner DeBone asked who relies on the manual. Ms. Furlong stated that some citizens have asked for copies, and many jurisdictions have used it to develop their own manual. The Oregon Code Enforcement Association uses a variation of Deschutes County's manual widely. Mr. Lelack said there needs to be consistency and predictability for all parties. The manual helps with that. John Griley spoke about the changes to date. He said they have reviewed the core enforcement procedures, addressing questions and concerns. He developed a decision matrix for reference, and referred to a presentation (a copy ofwhich is attached). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 4 of 13 I He said there is no mechanism to act without a formal complaint. The complainant cannot be anonymous, but some are concerned about ramifications of complaining. Compliance is voluntary and might take longer because of this. Some feel the program should be more punitive. Another issue involves penalties and the amount of the fines. Some people feel that certain or all permits should be restricted if a property is already under a code complaint. The program is citizen complaint driven, and they cannot be anonymous. The County emphasizes voluntary compliance, which requires some flexibility. Citations become a compliance tool rather than punitive. The desired outcome is to resolve the problem. Sometimes, although rarely, this outcome cannot be reached and the courts have to be utilized. He spoke with representatives of other Code enforcement agencies and pooled the information gathered. Most of these agencies were similar in population. He also checked with the other local counties and cities to see how they handle these issues. What they learned is some jurisdictions are similar, especially regarding voluntary compliance and flexibility in timing. They differ in complaint policy; some will take anonymous complaints or will try rigorously to provide more anonymity to complainants. Some use staff-initiated complaints. The biggest difference was in the penalty policy. Some pursue greater fines for repeat or continuing violations. Staff in some areas can cite, while Deschutes County works with the Sheriff's Office. Some sanction violators through an administrative process and not through the courts. Mr. Griley said the manual does not preclude them from using an administrative process if appropriate. He asked if the Board feels they should be allowed to accept anonymous complaints, and whether they should they be more punitive; or should there be more emphasis on sanctions and timelines. He asked if the Board feels fines should differ or be progressive; and if permits should be restricted if the property is already in Code enforcement. This language has been carried over from the previous manual, but it takes a text amendment to do formally adopt and use it. Otherwise, it should be removed from the manual. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 5 of 13 I i f Chair Baney asked how much of an issue this has been. Mr. Lelack stated that Iit is a small issue overall, but can be a big issue for just a few properties. He surveyed other jurisdictions on this, and this information has been made Iavailable in the Board's packet and to the public. He said staffhas not proposed any policy changes in the manual; all have been carried forward. Their questions are in regard to procedures, not policy. Staff will open a case if they discover a violation in their normal course of work, if a safety or health hazard. However, they don't go out looking for problems. I Occasionally staff will handle the citation if they need to protect an individual. IThe complainant's information is generally not made available to the public I until the case is closed. t I ~ There were comments from Matt Day and Mary Ann Moore previously submitted that are part of the file. I Commissioner Unger asked if someone calls in a complaint rather than coming t rin person, whether staff fills out the form. Mr. Oriley stated they could do this over the phone, or it can be done through a letter or e-mail. Commissioner Unger wanted to be sure there are different ways for individuals to initiate a complaint. Mr. Lelack said the form is available on line. At this point, citizen input was taken. Steven Hultberg asked about the issuance ofland use permits. He feels this is problematic and may prevent someone from moving forward, but it could be the complaint may not have enough basis. He does not see this addressed in State law. The County has to issue a final permit in a specific timeframe as well. This is a significant consideration. There are other mechanisms that might be more appropriate. Mary Ann Moore of Sisters submitted testimony in writing, and stated that her view is to support the compliance issue before a new development permit can be issued. The complaint is active but just had not been codified. There are often pre-conditions for developers and the County should not look the other way. This has been done in writing, such as maintaining the 65% open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 6 of 13 Regarding Shevlin Park development, at some point they may want to develop part of the required open space. She does not think this should be allowed. Or, perhaps it is attractive for in-fill development. This is an example of why this should be in Code. This is not just speculation but has happened here. The Code complaint should run with the land regardless of the name of the owner or a sale. It must be enforced or it creates problems with neighbors or unwanted development. There need to be orderly rules for development and this should be in Code. Eleven counties responded to this inquiry and eight of them do. Only one I I t without basis could hold up work. A pennit is needed for a water heater or other small changes as well. There may be no proof of the violation, but it t would take time to resolve. This should not be an issue for all when it has been a problem for just a few. He feels this language should be removed from the Imanual. ! t allows a new pennit if there is an unrelated, unresolved Code issue. She urged this be added to Code, similar to the Multnomah County one. Moey Newbold reiterated that it is appropriate for landowners to be in compliance before new pennits are issues. Andy High of COB A (Central Oregon Builders' Association) said he understands that this has to do with a pending violation. There may be no basis for the complaint but it could hold up the pennit. He agrees it may conflict with State law, but if a neighbor does not like the new development, a complaint Paul Lipscomb of Sisters stated that he is shocked to hear a lawyer and developer suggest there is something wrong with following rules and regulations. Rules and regulations need to be respected. He thanked the Board for the principle of voluntary compliance, but they need to remember that total compliance doesn't work with human beings. There needs to be a carrot and a stick. He is a retired judge and knows that voluntary compliance won't work in a courtroom, not even with judges. On a national level it is not realistic to do this with businesses. Developers know this and want other developers to have to comply. Doing less gives the non-compliant developer an edge. It may not take a Code change to gain additional approvals from the County, but Marion and Multnomah counties have good language in place in this regard. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 7 of 13 William Kuhn said that he has been trying to help the Board adhere to Goal 5 f f , Bill Robie of the Central Oregon Association of Realtors said that he would agree with many speakers today if there was evidence of a serious issue. As he recalls from previous staff reports, the number of Code enforcement issues that end in a citation is about 1%• This change is a draconian step for a problem that does not really exist, and may have unintended consequences. There may be serial Code violators but also some citizens who make an innocent mistake. The County has an admirable record of handling these complaints. He recommends this provision be removed from the manual. t Nunzie Gould said she filed a Code complaint in May 2013 and has not i received a written reply. She is upset and spent a lot of money on pursuing Code complaints. Public safety also relates to the mental health of the I community. She cares about her community and wants to be civil with neighbors, but in her view, the County is the fox guarding the hen house. This is why a text amendment is needed. For the few that are offenders, it is needed. It appears that land use is a lesser priority over other offenses. It is quite complicated and plays in many realms of health and safety, including environment, traffic and others. Within the policy there is a lot of latitude on which complaints will be followed up on. I I i I Ii commitments. He appreciates the comments in favor of the text amendment. As law abiding public, ifhe asks to buy a property that is buildable, it should be buildable. If he had known years ago that the County would ignore the plat map and a homeowners' agreement between parties that he has struggled with, and that the County would twist and tum everything in favor of the other party so they can harass him, he would have moved elsewhere. A flexible timeline should not be for years. There is something wrong with this. A text amendment is needed for this problem. He is appalled that someone would bend over backwards to allow someone else to violate law. There should be respect for the law. If a contractor can't measure distances or read a map that violates requirements, there is a problem. Some people don't adhere to regulations. Law abiding people are asking for this. Otherwise, he will want to get out of here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting VVednesday,}\ugust27,2014 Page 8 of 13 I I She also read 'reasonable time frames', which is not defined. She does not know whether her complaint has been resolved. If an issue is not significant to the County or a priority, some may never get resolved. There needs to be some consideration that violations should not be ignored. There are 85 occurrences of the word 'may' in the manual. This provides a lot of latitude. "Must" only occurs six times. The reason this has come up is that people want the process tightened up. She has heard a change of zoning is not a development issue because nothing changed on the land itself. She feels this is a land use action and should fall within this text amendment. Therefore, if someone is going to rezone land, this should be weighed in the permit process. The behavior of an individual regarding a certain property also needs to be considered on other properties that person has. If they are in Code violation elsewhere, that needs to apply to any others. The dots need to be connected. She feels voluntary compliance has some merit, but enforcement staff is not funded sufficiently and two of them are volunteers. She usually cannot reach those people if she wanted to. The Solid Waste Department is prepared to do this, but she is not sure how this is being funded for CDD. The document still needs more work, and the land use component should be a big part of it. She noted that Risk Management event permits also do not go through CDD and many of those get approved. She feels there is a crescendo of these numbers over prevIOUS years. Mr. Lelack said there has a lot of correspondence with Ms. Gould over the years, and apologized if one of her letters was not resolved. He stated that there have been questions about the text amendment, and his interpretation of this is finding someone guilty of a violation, and just the filing of a complaint should not stop the permit process. He can check with other counties as to whether this is a big issue there. Mr. Griley provided on paper some statistics on the effectiveness of their policies. Chair Baney asked about the Risk Management permit process, such as for events, and whether this is part of the CDD process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 9 of 13 I Laurie Craghead said there will be work done on this, but Risk Management permits in particular are not land use decisions and those uses are permitted outright. She has been supportive of holding permits in abeyance but this needs clarification. If a use is permitted outright, a permit is not required, especially on farm use properties. The new use needs to be compatible. The other issue is the timeframe, and there is a 150-day issue to consider. Other concerns from County Counsel are the unintended consequences. A use permitted outright cannot be held up in this way. The Board closed the oral testimony but kept the written testimony open for seven days, and will deliberate on manual in the near future. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2014-462, Amending an Improvement Agreement between Deschutes County and Weston Investment Co., LLC for the Overnight Lodging Units at the Tetherow Destination Resort. Ms. Craghead said this was held over from Monday's meeting to allow receipt ofa letter from Wells Fargo. There has been one change in section 3, regarding site plan numbers since there was language about having a new site plan. This same correction is in section 2. All documents are ready and the agreement needs signatures today. UNGER: Move approval of Document No. 2014-462. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner DeBone thanked the Dog Control Board of Supervisors volunteers for their difficult work. DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 10 of 13 VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. It Consent Agenda Items J, 8. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-426, a Deschutes County Sheriffs IOffice Contract for the Purchase of Vehicles I 9. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-442, a Restrictive Covenant to Allow 1a Building Setback Exception Adjacent to a County-owned Surface Mine Property i 10. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-451, Amendment #2 to the IIntergovernmental Agreement between Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon and Deschutes County Health Services I 11. Chair Signature of Document No. 2014-461, a Funds Transfer Agreement between Deschutes County and the Federal Highway Administration for the !,Payment of Deschutes County's Share of the Project Costs for the Skyliners l Road Project 12. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-458, a Notice of Federal Interest for Sisters Clinic Property 13. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-472, a Bargain and Sale Deed for Approximately 0.82 acres to ODOT for a Right-of-Way at Wickiup Junction 14. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-473, an Acceptance Deed for a Temporary Construction Easement on Skyliners Road from Tad Hodgert 15. Board Signature of Letters Appointing Stan Robson, Carolyn Airriess, Monica Rendon, Samuel Davis, and Donald Knowles to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors for terms through June 30, 2016 16. Board Signature of Letter of Termination to Patricia Moore from the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors. 17. Approval of Minutes: • Natural Resource Protection Performance Update of August 12, 2014 Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 11 of 13 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District for Two Weeks, in the Amount of $20,073.58. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District for Two Weeks, in the Amount of $6,295.79. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County for Two Weeks, in the Amount of $3,735,329.12. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 12 of 13 21. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. DATED this yA----Day oJ ~ ~ 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissione s. Tamm~ Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 13 of 13 ------------------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest (}Jt Cb \iAllLL Date 6(I-{ Name ~kve.J ttv. A0evr Address ~~Ace:.7 ~0 tt'tO~ Phone #s E-mail address 5>Vt u.\\ls.er-...~CJ\v~,tr . ~ o In Favor o NeutrallUndecided ~ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~No .,,.. , BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUESTT~SPEAK 4fb Agenda Item of Interest CDele. (WI 5 10) \ ~I;: ~ Date J4:z1/l ~ Name f\!\Vv\(Y'-A. \~ 'O()v£ Address Q) f\ -\ k. Cs ~) Phone #s _..........::sv I l -_7;Lf i '--___O ________ ~----'--"'--_----'-----'---bD _h E-mail address (J 0 ~\(..., ----------------~--------------------- D . In Favor o NeutrallUndecided SUbmitting written documents as part of testimony? ---------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest (:O~ en.@CL.QA"\:.:Le.M Date 6/2-3:/1<{­ Name fVl cw (N'eAN \oJ 09 )G< 1"\ bcz;.! '"()'rt.'j~ 1..fltJ1A)cf-(A j Address 52 SVV Bend SJ. & k :1J J R0hd2 ( 0 t( CZ7-iD L Phone #s ,C;-4 r -4 f;o .-trO(Q(S( E-mailaddress M0V'j 0~~~5Cl:QLcw-.J..w~+cf,.0(J D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK AgendaItemOfInterest ___{\_\'~_______ Date 1J\t1-11/'j Name A"cb !1<'§h \ Address lo9Nt! <;-tb 5~ /3 twtd) 9770/ Phone#s ")s!1-1(J~:6 E-mail address D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided MOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~o --------------------------------- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest (d~ ~[~ S)d;>);iDate Name £.11 / lrGCR.~~ Address ,Pr () , <6a,x 0-t;cz Phone#s 3 -/-~ ("2­ S/ E-mail address JiJ.Y:/ --)'lcl)rJ @ 61~lr I CJM ~ ~Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed /' . Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _ -;f_ -""',=---_________ Date 2.dl"6~2,7. $ Name ~(\\\~ (--<uk ------~-------------------------------- Address 70~.y::. ~~ Phone #s E-mail address tAl;(k~~t<.t.sk-F~. --~~---------------------- D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided D Opposed "Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No /' ------ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item ofInterest ()2 L ~h U~ Date ~ Name ~,\\ ~l>h)~ Address t~r; tJ ~ 0 Jt()O k V\'lh D(~ qI"X> ) Phone #s 9:\ )" ~-1066 ------~.~~~---------------------------- E-mail address ____.....:::b :::!!.., -\.-\ \~/~~!.~f/\___________________L-.:e ma:1.JCLJu..({) D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ~ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? D Yes ~NO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE UEST TO SPEAK . /_j r . APA'l DateAgenda Item of Interest lD(.t(J ~tf~.•J Name !\Jum~ G~ Address [93 Lf 5 J lAJ f2oro ~~ ----~--~--~~--~-------------------- io/.A lJ q:Q {) , Phone #s 91./-42-D 3325 E-mail address 6o aLV~ D In Favor Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes D No 1 Code Enforcement Policy & Procedures Manual Update Public Hearing August 27, 2014 Overview •Introductions •Code Enforcement Policy & Procedures Manual •Background & Process •Lori Furlong: Draft Revisions •John Griley: Review of Core Policy and Procedures •BOCC Questions / Discussion •Public Hearing •BOCC Discussion, Options for Next Steps 2 Policy & Procedures Manual •Mission: “…to protect the health and safety of the County’s residents and visitors, and the livability of the community, by assuring compliance with the County’s land use, environmental and construction codes.” •Purpose: “…guidelines are intended to increase consistency and predictability with the County’s Code Enforcement program, and to educate the County’s citizens and property owners about code enforcement and the consequences of violating the County Code.” •Policies establish the program direction •Procedures implement the policies (operations) 3 Background •Code Enforcement Policy & Procedures Manual •Developed in 1990s •Adopted in 1996 •Amended in 1997 •Staff initiated review & update in 2012 with the Legal Department and Sheriff’s Office •Conducted BOCC work sessions in May 2013 & May 2014 •CDD Work Plan Action for FY 2014-15 4 CDD Work Plan •Code Enforcement: “Complete the update of the Code Enforcement procedures manual, including revising sections to reflect current practices, deleting those sections which are no longer appropriate, and adding provisions for updated objectives. One discussion item will be a review of the policy on accepting anonymous complaints.” •Planning Division: “Consider a text amendment to prohibit the issuance of land use and building permits if a property has a pending code enforcement violation or is in violation with conditions of approval from a prior land use decision.” NOTE: This is current Code Enforcement policy but has not been implemented via County Code. 5 Lori Furlong Summary of Draft Revisions 6 John Griley Review of Core Policy and Procedures 7 MOST FREQUENTLY QUESTIONED POLICIES COMPLAINT POLICY Anonymous Complaints/ File Confidentiality COMPLIANCE POLICY Voluntary Compliance/ Timelines for Compliance PENALTY POLICY Fines and Restrictions on Development Permits 8 EXISTING CORE OPERATING PRINCIPLES •CITIZEN COMPLAINT DRIVEN •NO ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS •VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE EMPHASIS •FLEXIBLE IN TIMING, NOT IN CODE •CITATION AS A COMPLIANCE TOOL •INJUNCTION WHEN NECESSARY 9 How Do We Differ From Other Oregon Jurisdictions? Where we’re the same… Compliance Policy •All prioritize Voluntary Compliance •Most have flexibility with resolution timeframes Where we somewhat differ… Complaint Policy •Some take anonymous complaints •Others more rigorously protect complainant confidentiality •Some provide for staff initiated investigations 10 How Do We Differ From Other Oregon Jurisdictions? (continued…) Where we most differ … Penalty Policy •Jurisdictions vary in the pursuit of penalty •Most pursue greater fines for repeat or continuing violation also •Staff in all other jurisdictions issue citations •Most other county jurisdictions surveyed sanction violators via administrative process, not through the courts 11 Matrix Topic #1 COMPLAINT POLICY Should Code Enforcement accept anonymous complaints? Should confidentiality policy be amended? Should complaint confidentiality be more or less rigorously protected? 12 Matrix Topic #2 COMPLIANCE POLICY Should emphasis on voluntary compliance be changed? Should there be a greater emphasis on sanctions? Should there be defined timelines for compliance? 13 Matrix Topic #3 PENALTY POLICY Should fines differ based on severity of violation? Should penalties be progressive? Should development permits be restricted on properties in Code Enforcement? If yes, initiate text amendment to implement this policy. If no, remove the policy. 14 BOCC Options for Next Steps 15 1.Continue the public hearing 2.Close the public hearing and keep the written record open for a specified period of time 3.Close the public hearing and written record, and: •Deliberate toward a decision today; or •Conduct deliberations at a future date 4.Other I " On Monday, December 9, 2013, Community Development Director Nick lelack sent the following request to the Association of Oregon County Planning Directors: NI am writing to ask if your county code indudes iii provision that prohlblts the issuance of land use and building permits if a property has a pending code vlo'.n or is in violation with amditicms ofapproval from a prior)and use dedsion7" The matrix below summarizes the responses provided as of Thursday, December ~20E. County Location County Code PrOvision?ext Marion MCC SectioIl 17.110.680 "No permit for the use of land or structures or for the aJtennlon Of~ofany structure shaH be issued and no land use approval shall be granted if the land for which the permit or a~Is sought is being used in violation of any cond'ItJon of approvat.of any land use action.. Is in vIo1atlon of local, state or fMerlllaw. or is beiflg used or has been divided in violation of the ~of this ordmam:e umess issuanee of ~permit would conett the 'Wiotation." Clackamas N/A No code provisitm ~ 'COImse1 has taken a position. that th~ issuance of a bUJlding permit or land use permit that would otherwise be allowed should not be withheld if there Is an unrelated buUdlng code or land use violation on the propertv." Douglas Chapter 1 Section 1.040­ Compliante SECTION 1.040 Col"nPflance Required 1. IIlo persOn shall engage fhor cause to oa:ur a development which does not comply with these regulations. Neither the Building Offtdal nor any othef stcru! Of lotal official shaft IssUe a permit for a use or the construction. recoflStl'UC;tion or alteration of a strutture or a part of a structure which has not been approved. 2. A deve10pment shal be approved by the Olrector or other Approving Authority .according to the provisions of this ordinance. The Director shall not approve a development or use of land that has been previously divided or otherwise developed in violation of this oo:fina~ regardless ofwhether the appJiamt created the violation, untess the violation can be rectified as part of a d~t proposal. 3. Unless appealed" a decision on any application sbatl be final upon expiratiOn of the period provided for fi ling an appulor~if a~aI$i,upori r~nderlng'of the deciSIon by the reviewing bady. Muttnoman § 37.0560 Code Compliance And Applications ElCCePf as provided in subseCtion ~AJ. the County sbaft rIOt make a land use decision approving development, Induding land divisions and property line adJustments, or issue a building permit for any property that is not in full compliance with all appJicabJe provisions of the Multnomah County Land Use Code and/or anY' permit approvals previously issued by the County. fA) A pernUt Of other approval. Including building permit appIbtions, may be authorized if: (1) it results in the property tomint il1tofuU compliance with aU appUcable provisions of the Multnomah County Code. This Indudes sequencing of permits or other approvals as part of a vofuntarv compliance agreement; or (2} It is necessary to protect public safety; or (3) It is for WOrit related to and within a vafld easement over, (H'l or under an a!fected property. Hood River 70.10(A) I, \ (8) For the purposes of this section, Public Safety means the actions authorized by the permit would cause abatement of COf'Iditioll$ found to exist on the property that endanger the life, health, personal property, Of safety of the residents or public. £xampt~of that situation include but are not limited to issua.nce of permits to replace faulty efectric.aI wiring; repair or install furnace eq"'ptnent; roof repab's; replace or repair compromised utility lnfrastructJJre fOt water, sewer. fuel, or power; and actions necessary to stop earth siope faiJures. Section 7O.OD -CompJiam:e & Enforcement A. Violations of the Hood River County Zoning Ordinance will be mitigated and governed by Chapter 1.08 (Code Enf~rcement) of the Hood River County Code. Sec:Uon 70-10 -FuR Compliance A. tn addition to enforcement actions authorized by Chapter 1.08 of the Hood River County Code, applications for land use actions may be rejected prior to filing or at any point during the application process if any of the following exist: 1. The subject property on which a land use action is being applied for has a County enforcement action pending; or 2. The subject prQPerty on which the land use action is belng applied for is found to contaIn a land use violation while processinS the appflCatJon; or 3. The subject property on which the land use action is be.ing applied for is found to be in violatiOn of a condition of approval from a land use decision that remains applicable to the property. Section 70.20-~ A. Chapter U)& (Code Enforcement) of the Hood River Coutlty Code stipulates that violations of County ordinances are ranked in order of severity and severity of related penalties. The following constitute the severity levels for violations of land use ordinances; 1. Class f Violations· Violations which the Planning Director considers to be major violations that cause or have the potential to cause a danger to life (pers:ons or animals) 0·( property; that pose substantia! and unacceptable impacts on nearby properties; situations which involve individuals disregarding county ordinances; or situations that involve recurring 'lliofations ata single property or by the same individual or company. 2. Class 11 Violations -Violations that do not pose an immediate danger to life or property but which the Planning Dlred;or considers as major violations of county ordinances that impact the quality of life of ~bort.properties or other members of the community. August 27,2014 Dear Board of County Commissioners, I urge the County to formalize its longstanding policy obliging property owners to comply with county code BEFORE they can get a new development permit on the land in question. The county often requires developers to comply with certain preconditions before they get a permit. The issue before you is, if the developer doesn't comply with these requirements, should the county look the other way when the developer asks to do something new with the property? Or should the county enforce these requirements, like retaining 65% open space in a cluster development in perpetuity or until the land is brought into an urban growth boundary? You now have a perfect example of this unfolding, the proposed Miller cluster development near Shevlin Park. The developers are proposing to preserve 75% of the land for the development as open space in perpetuity. These are very reputable businesspeople, but even so, what if, in ten or 20 years, the developer comes on hard times? And there is a great deal of pressure to develop additional lucrative housing on this land? Or the county decides that the open space is the most logical place to do infill development? Clearly, building on this open space would violate the county's cluster development restrictions, which requires the developer to hold at least 65% of that land as open space. But without an enforcement mechanism that's formalized as part of county code, there's little resort but the legal system to prevent future policymakers from allowing a reversal of the open space commitment. This is a very real scenario with a precedent. I also urge you to include a statement that a code complaint should run with the land. Even if the owner changes the name of the owning entity of the property, or the property is sold, a development that is in violation of county code must be brought into compliance before any new permits are issued. When the county does not enforce what is required when a new development is approved, you create conflict among neighbors, false property values, unfair advantages for developers who don't comply, and a cynical citizenry who is more strongly inclined to oppose projects for fear they won't turn out to be what we're told they'll be. It comes down to simple fairness and orderly rules for development: if something is required as a condition of development, then this requirement should be enforced. And compliance can be evaded unless this policy is put into the county code. It's important to note that your Planning Department's research shows that of 11 counties responding, eight have such a formal policy in code, one is undecided, one has a hybrid policy, and only one allows a new permit on property with a code violation so long as it's unrelated to the new request. Please add the language on restricting development permits on properties with pending code violations to the county code. Please model this language on Multnomah County, which includes the provision that this policy applies to any permit approvals previously issued by t~e county: 37JJ560 Code compOance and applications. , The Coun~ shall not approve any 'application for a pe,rmit or other approval. including bUllding pennit applicatio ns , for any property that is not in full com­ pliance with all applicable provisions of the Mult­ nomah County Land Use Code and/or any permit approvals previously issued by the County. A pennit or other approval. including building permit applica­ tions, may be authorized if it resuJts in ,the parcel commg into full compliance with all applicable pro­ visions of the Multn,omah County Code. Thank you for considering my views, ~~~ Merry Ann Moore 69225 Hawksflight Dr. Sisters, OR 97759 '" r 3. Class mViolations -Ordinance lIiofations that the Planning Director considers minor and that have minor impacts on neighbors.. Article 1: SeCTION 1.02:0.Wallowa SCOPE AND COMPUANCtE 01. The provisions of this ordinance set forth standards and criteria regulating the use. division, and improvement of all lands within the un-incorporated area of the County of Wallowa in the state of Oreson. In add"rtlon to complying with the provisions of this ordinance; aflland u.se.land div"rsion, or land improvement must comply with all other Ictal, state, or federsllaws. With regard to federally controlled lands. the county seeks the highest possible deBree of intergovernmental coordination and compliance with the managemeljt of these pubtlC lands consistent with the Wall:owa County Comprehensive land Use Plan. 02. No person shall engage nor cause to occur a use or development Which does not c:ompiy with the regulations contained in this ordinance. Bw!ding. local, or State Officiais shaH not issue a permit for the use or the construction, reconstruction, or akeratfon of a structure or part of a struGture for which an approvai. as reQuired by tbIs ordinance, has not been obtained. fa A use or development shaJJ be a,pproved only by the Planninl Oirettor. Planning Commission, Waltowa County Board of Commissioners. or other designated review authority and only In accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. The Planning Director shal not issue ;I permit 01' approve other uses of tarId wt)left has been dMded or otherwise develQped in violation of this ordinante. rep.-deliS of whether or not the ap:pflcant created the \/iofation, unless the violation can be reaJfled i!5 part of ~devetoprnent review process .." CUrrently researching options as wel!.••Benton NlA Jackson Wasco 1.7.6 Violations Continue SECTION 3.240 Restricting Issuance of Development Permits Any documented violatiOn of previous land development ordinances related to permissible activities or structures on land that also violate, this OrdinaACe will continue to be a vkliation SUbject to all penalties and enfofcelll4imt under this Ordinance. Ukewise. previOUS judgn1ents render.ed under ~t ortfimmces remain enfOrc:eabte. Except as. provided for in Chapter 10, wnen a violation of'this Ordinance exists on a property. the County wiff POt approve any application for buildinl or land use permits on that property unless such application addresses the remedy for the violation. Where a viofatjonof anv attler local ordJnance.,state.. or fedeIal.t:aw has been documented Ol!lproperty to tbe ~ofthe Col,lnty. such violation must be corrected prior to app~for a land use or devetopinem permlt ontbat''ptoperty. un1ess the violatton tan be remedied as part of the ~·lIIDDfication. . It is the County's poItty, to the extent authorized by law, not to !$sue ~ar ~nor to renew or el!tefjopermlts a.nd approval$. for development on any praperty on whic:11 there already l!ldst wcorrected violations. This restriction snail continue until such violations are corrected. tt Is also the County's polley not to iS$l;je permits or approvals. nor to renew or extend permits or approvals, for "accessory" strucw.res, such as prages and outbuildings. on vacant property, on property on which there does not already exist a permitted primary residential ()r commercial use, and Ctl property for Whicb a petmit'or apptovat for a "primary" use is not sought simultaneously with the "a~"use permit or approvaf. this restriction shall contIi\ue until the primary permitted use is estabfished or a permit for It Is sought. If review of Wasco County Planning Department records and/or consurtatJon with Code Compliance staff reveals the existence of unresolved code violations on the subject property, Planning staff $halt not actet:rt applications for requested permlt(s) or .. 'I. -~ appl'OVals or renewals or extensions thereof, nor shalt staff issue permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof. lnstead, staff shan promptly consult with the Compliance Officer to determine whether the permit or approval, Of the renewal or extension thereof, is being sought In order to correct the existing code vioIation(s). If the requested permit or approval, or renewal or extension thereof, is determined to be required for code compliance. the appkation shan be accepted, or the permit or appnwa! shall be issued if aU necessary conditions have been met. Planning Department staff shall refer persons not allowed to apply for permits or approvals, or to whom issuance of permits or approvals or renewals or extensions thereof has been denied under this subparagraph, to the Compliance Officer to discuss required corrective action. SECTIONH)30 SeverabIlity The provisions ofthts Ordinance are severable. If any section, sentence. clat.ISe; or phrase ot this Ordinance is adjudged to be imtaIid by a court of c.ompetentjurisd"1dIon. that decision shaH not affect: ttte valdlty of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. l1'Ie Director, the Director'S designee or other Approving AI.d.'hority ~nat approve a development or use of land that ha$ been previously divided or otherwise developed in violation of this Ordinance. regardless of whether the applicant created the vIotation. unless: the violation tan be redified as part of the devdopment proposal. 902.4 Existing VIOlations on the Property Jefierso,n County 902.4 Whenever a violation of federal. state or Jocallaw exists. on the su.bJect property. the County shall eIther refuse to accept, or later may reject, ordeny any application for building or land use permits unless the property is brought into compliance with the law ot the appfication will remedy the violation. Umatilla 152.025 152.025 Bt Zonil\8 Permits shall be issued by the Director according to the provisions of this chapter. The Planning Director shall not issue a zoojRfi permit for the improvement or use of land that has been previously dWided in violation of this chapter Of contains a land use or solid waste violatiOn, regardless of whether the applicant created the violation, unless the violation can be rectified as part of the development. (C) A zoning permit application must be signed by all legal property owners of the subject lot or parcel, or by a legaliV authorized representative, (Ord.83-4, passed S-9-83;Ord.2008-09, passed 6-16­ 08; Ord.2009·09, pa.ssed 12-8-Q9;Ord.2012-02 passed 1-26-12)§ FW Public comment on code Enforcement Manual.txt From: Nick Lelack Sent: To: Tuesday, July 22, John Griley; Lori 2014 5:45 PM Furlong Subject: FW: public comment on code Enforcement Manual Lori, John, I do not recall if I forwarded this message to you. please create a record for the CE policy and Procedures Manual update public hearing late next month, and include this email in the record. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes county community Development Department PO Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97708-6005 office: 541.385.1708 / cell: 541.639.5585 / Fax: 541.385.1764 www.deschutes.org/cdd From: Matt cyrus [mailto:Matt@aspenlakes.com] Sent: saturday, May 24, 2014 12:59 PM TO: Nick Lelack Cc: Matt cyrus subject: Public comment on code Enforcement Manual To: Nick Lelack, community Development Director From: Matt cyrus, president of Deschutes County Farm Bureau Re: Comments on Draft code Enforcement Manual I respectfully request that the new code Enforcement Manual include provisions from DCC 19.12 (Right to Farm); especially with regard to DCC 19.12.130 and 19.12.140. page 1 --- --- SURVEY OF TRI-COUNTY JURISDICTIONS Voluntary Compliance Emphasis. (Is this a priority in your program?) Citizen Complaint Driven. (Is this an emphasis, or can code enforcement staff initiate enforcement based on their own observation of a violation?) Anonymous Complaints. (Do you take anonymous complaints?) Confidentiality of case files. (Are files confidential?) Magnitude of Penalty on Citation. (How much? Does it differ for differing violations?) Timelines for Compliance. (Are there established timelines?) BEND Yes, 98% of cases are closed w/voluntary compliance. We are mostly reactive, but based on our active case load I do allow staff to be proactive. No ....... Yes, RP info is never released w/out a court order. We issue our own citations. Varies from $.500 to $800 per violation per day. Most are for $750. Most citations issued exceed $5k (from amassed per day penalty). Staff appears at arraignment and recommends penalty. Higher penalty would be recommended on repeat violations. We have no established time lines. Time extended depends an whether violation affects public health or safety and the circumstances facing the owner. REDMOND Yes. 94% of last year's code enforcements were solved with volunteer compliance. It varies depending on the type of violation. When I receive a complaint, I make sure there are not any others in the same area or neighborhood. I can initiate any code violation and do take complaints from other City employees. Yes. Their information is not recorded, and they cannot ask to be contacted regarding the investigation results. No confidential information. Any case file can be requested and goes through a process to verify if the information can be released. CE Staff issues the citation. We have two ways to issue citations. The first one goes through the justice court and was set up before I started working for the City. The second is a civil citation process ran through City Hall (not a court}. Our citations range from $100-500 a day and can be issued daily. We do not have a mechanism for higher fines on repeat violations, but it may be added in the future. Have yet to pursue and injunction. We have a 20 day process for most violations. The time fine can be extended depending on owner contact/cooperation. JEFFERSON We do offer and encourage voluntary compliance and it Is our priority as well. I will most always send out a Courtesy Notice asking them to understand the violation and make the necessary corrections but once the violation has gane on for more than 15 or 30 days with no efforts to remedy or no cantact to our department for a timeline to be in compliance we then move to the Notice of Intent to Cite stage of enforcement. Which then gives them a hard date to be in compliance. We do both, however, I generally am not out looking for violations so most of my enforcement efforts are from written complaints. No, we do require that they fill out/sign the form but we do not disclase the name of the complaining party ever. Our files are not confidential but the complaint form is never part of the file. Our fines are set based on the type of violation (Class A, Class Band Unc1l.mified). Our most expensive fine is $750.00 p/d for an unclassified violation which ends up being the bulk ofour violations. I have the liberty of determining what the timelines will be for compliance. I am generally pretty lenient if people are willing to work with me or are trying to make an effort but it also does depend an whether this is a safety issue or hazard or whether they are habitual offenders. CROOK ..(1) Not to exceed $5,000, (2) (2) Not more than $1,000 on continuing violations. From Yr. 2010 survey. ~~~~~~~~~~?'~~~~ --- ----- 'Si.iRVEY OF OTHER SIMILAR JURISDICTIONS Voluntary Compliance Emphasis. (Is this a priority in your program?) Citizen Complaint Driven. (Is this an emphasis, or can code enforcement staff initiate enforcement based on their own observation of a violation?) Anonymous Complaints. (Do you take anonymous complaints?) Confidentiality of case files. (Are files confidential?) Magnitude of Penalty on Citation. (How much? Does it differ for diff:erlng violations?) Timelines for Compliance. (Are there established timelines?) Clackamas County Yes, voluntary compliance is a priority for us. We are complaint driven but staff can initiate enforcement If it is health, life, safety. Additionally, if we go on a property for a building violation and discover a zoning or solid waste, we have the owner abate all violations not just the original complaint. As of last year we do not take anonymous complaints. Our files are public record except for the nome of the complainant. That is protected under ORS 192­ 502(4). Been --- using Hearings Officers and administrative Civil Penalty for over a decade. -We have a priority system of one thru four. A priOrity one violation has a max citation amount of$500, a priority four is $200 per day. It's the same with our Civil Penalties, priority one is $3500.00 per day and priority four is $1000. Except for building code which by law cannot exceed $1000 per day. We've talked about established timelines and in 2009 did create a flow chart. lit really just doesn't work very well. Mostly due to the extent of the violation and the owners as each situation can be very different. Jackson County Yes, Voluntary Compliance is our primary focus ... but we do cite folks when needed. Yes. We prefer to have a complainant name and contact info ... but it is up to the CE officer's discretion if we take the anonymous complaint or not., always keeping an eye on preventing the use of CE as a weapon ... We make a very strong effort to keep all complainant information confidential at all times. All Public Records Requests are screened by our supervisor (who) determines on a case by cose basis if the records will be released to the person requesting. Been using Hearings Officers for 6 years. Our original violation citations can end up getting fined at a maximum rate of$600 per charge. If the violation is not handled by the violator after that first visit to the Hearings Officer then they can end up with a Continuing Violation fine of up to $10,000 per charge. We have no regulated timelines ... yes, we do adjust as needed if there are urgent circumstances. Mostly we adjust our timelines to keep compliance efforts moving but not so demanding or urgent as to discourage the violator and stf!!!. their clean up efforts. Marion County Voluntary compliance is important to us but not mandatory We can and do discover our own cases as well as take customer complaints. In fact (Staff) in Marion County now have districts that we regularly patrol. We also move into other areas as well to continue monitoring the area. Some areas and some folks are afraid to complain for fear ofreprisal. Our presence in the neighborhoods helps to discourage this. (see above) (Not directly answered, though jurisdiction indicates their approach as similar to Clackamas County.} (Not directly answered.) Process for fines via administrative civil,Penalty before a hearings officer was developed and implemented in approximately YR 2010. Jurisdiction currently utilizes courts Uustice court and circuit court) for most violations. Building code violations go before a hearings officer. Jurisdiction is proposing time lines for compliance in their ongoing procedures manual update. Washington County From 2010 survey ... 4~~1"'~~ Hearings Officer procedure for administrative Civil Penalty approximately year 2010. Fines vary. $100 to $5,000/ day based on priority system. Priority 1 are life safety violations; priority 4 are things like signs. EXHIBIT I August 25, 2014 Deschutes County, Oregon 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Letter of Credit No. NZS648008 To whom it may concern, Reference is made to that certain Letter of Credit No. NZS648008 dated September 28, 2009. This Letter of Credit remains as valid security for the Improvement Agreement and all terms expressed in the amendments thereto, including Amendment No.8 dated August 27, 2014. Very truly yours, WELLS FARGO BANK, NA TIONAL ASSOCIATION Roger W. Long Vice President Relationship Manager cc: Keith Vernon 2154 NE Broadway Portland, Oregon 97232 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., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27,2014 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. I 3. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-021, a Sunriver Plan Amendment from Forest District to Utility District -Cynthia Smidt, Community Development I Suggested Actions: Conduct second reading by title only; move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-021. !, I 4. CONSIDERATION of Second Reading by Title Only, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-022, a Sunriver Plan Amendment from Forest District to Utility District -Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Suggested Actions: Conduct second reading by title only; move adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-022.! I j II Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 1 of7 I 5. CONSIDERATION of First and Second Readings by Title Only, and Adoption by Emergency of Ordinance No. 2014-024, Amending Deschutes County Code 2.37, Public Contracting Code Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Suggested Actions: Conduct First and Second Readings by Title Only; Move Adoption by Emergency ofOrdinance No. 2014-024. 6. A PUBLIC HEARING on Document No. 2014-482, the Deschutes County Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual ­ John Griley, Community Development Suggested Actions: Open the public hearing and take testimony; move approval ofthe Community Development Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual 7. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Document No. 2014-462, Amending an Improvement Agreement between Deschutes County and Weston Investment Co., LLC for the Overnight Lodging Units at the Tetherow Destination Resort Will Groves, Community Development Department Suggested Action: Move approval ofDocument No. 2014-462. CONSENT AGENDA 8. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-426, a Deschutes County Sheriffs Office Contract for the Purchase of Vehicles 9. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-442, a Restrictive Covenant to Allow a Building Setback Exception Adjacent to a County-owned Surface Mine Property 10. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-451, Amendment #2 to the Intergovernmental Agreement between Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon and Deschutes County Health Services 11. Chair Signature of Document No. 2014-461, a Funds Transfer Agreement between Deschutes County and the Federal Highway Administration for the Payment of Deschutes County's Share of the Project Costs for the Skyliners Road Project Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda VVednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 2 of7 12. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-458, a Notice of Federal Interest for Sisters Clinic Property 13. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-472, a Bargain and Sale Deed for Approximately 0.82 acres to ODOT for a Right-of-Way at Wickiup Junction 14. Board Signature of Document No. 2014-473, an Acceptance Deed for a Temporary Construction Easement on Skyliners Road from Tad Hodgert 15. Board Signature of Letters Appointing Stan Robson, Carolyn Airriess, Monica Rendon, Samuel Davis, and Donald Knowles to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors for terms through June 30, 2016 16. Board Signature of Letter of Termination to Patricia Moore from the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors. 17. Approval of Minutes: • Natural Resource Protection Performance Update of August 12,2014 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 18. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District I CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extensionl4-H County Service District I RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I I 20. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County I 21. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 1 j I Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 27,2014 I Page 3 of7 ~ Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.bakerCaJ,deschutes.org. 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, August 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Thursday, August 28 9:00a.m. Performance Management & Department Update -Sheriff's Office, Part I Monday, September 1 Most County offices will be closed to observe Labor Day Tuesday, September 2 5:00 p.m. County College Presentation Wednesday, September 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 4 9:00 a.m. Performance Management & Department Update -Sheriff's Office, Part II Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 4 of7 Tuesday, September 9 6:30 p.m. Regular Joint Meeting with the City of Redmond Council Redmond City Hall Wednesday, September 10 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, September 11 12 noon Audit Committee Meeting Monday, September 15 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1 :30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, September 16 12 noon Boys & Girls Club Luncheon Event -St. Charles Medical Center Friday, September 19 8:00 a.m. State of the County Presentation -La Pine & Sunriver -Thousand Trails Resort Monday, September 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, September 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 Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 5 of7 Thursday, September 25 9:00 a.m. Performance Management & Department Update Library Risk, Veterans Services and Law 5:30p.m. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission -Co Agricultural Lands ntinuation of Discussion regarding Monday, September 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, October 2 8:00 a.m. Regular Joint Meeting with the Sisters City Council Sisters City Hall Monday, October 6 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, October 7 9:00a.m. Performance Management & Department Update 9-1-1 County Service District 3:30p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, October 8 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session could include executive session(s) Monday, October 20 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 Wednesday, August 27,2014 Page 60f7 Wednesday, October 22 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, October 27 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 29 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Monday, November 3 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Tuesday, November 4 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting 5:00 p.m. County College -Graduation; Election Night Wednesday, November 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session -could include executive session(s) Thursday, November 6 11:00 a.m. Tri-County Commissioner Meeting -Redmond (Fair & Expo Center) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 27, 2014 Page 7 of7