Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-06 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2010 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Scott Johnson, Health Services; Joe Stutler County Forester; Steve Griffin and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Anderson and Todd Cleveland, Community Development; Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and eight other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2010- 023, Revised Public Health Advisory Board By-Laws. Scott Johnson gave a brief overview of the revised document. There were some inconsistencies with Oregon Administrative Rules that have been corrected. The mission statement was also changed. There are a few other changes to be made for clarification purposes. Mr. Johnson explained the reason for the group and its duties as required by statute. BANEY: Move approval of the document, with corrections as noted. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 1 of 10 Pages VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2010-002, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Crook County regarding Hazardous Fuels Treatment. Joe Stutler said that this grant for over $1 million comes through FEMA and relates to Homeland Security. It requires a match, which is the labor provided by the final recipients. Deschutes County gets half of the funds. There are projects already lined up for this funding but he encourages residents of high- risk neighborhoods to contact him regarding participation. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2010-004, Amending Deschutes County Code to Allow for Setting Fees Semi-Annually. Dave Kanner indicated that a bill was passed by the legislature and relates to setting fees at least once a year. The County is now allowed to do a mid-year fee adjustment, and this change brings the County into alignment with the State. Other changes are in regard to charging a fee mid year, after taking public comment. Also, a number of fees charged are set by the federal government or the State, and this allows the County to adjust those fees locally when appropriate. BANEY: Move first reading by title only. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 2 of 10 Pages Chair Luke did the first reading by title only at this time. Consideration of second reading and adoption will take place on January 20, 2010. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-008, Approving the Formation of Pinewood Estates Special Road District and Setting a Final Hearing Date. Chair Luke opened the public hearing. Laurie Craghead indicated that this hearing is required by statute. The entire record, including notices and affidavits, are readily available. Ms. Craghead said that the amount would be $2.50 per thousand, a permanent tax rate, to allow for the District. Per statute, in order to have a second hearing, the formation needs to be approved first. A majority of the property owners in the district are supportive. Terry Reid, a petitioner, said that this is a full section, 640 acres. Dues are set at $300 per lot, but they have been unable to get support to increase the dues to take care of the roads. The collector road runs right through the area. Commissioner Baney wanted the petitioners to be aware that the County will not be able to take in the road for maintenance purposes at this time. Mr. Reid said that they are aware of this, but having a district enables them to obtain funding to correct problems with the road. It does not have anything to do with the separate local improvement district. Ms. Craghead said that they have the option of having the Board members appointed by the Board of Commissioners. It does have to be voter approved since it is a taxing distinct. Some non-residential owners wanted to be included. Commissioner Unger said that this seems to be complicated. Ms. Craghead stated that she has a packet giving step-by-step information, but they are advised to obtain their own legal counsel. Chair Luke closed the hearing. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 3 of 10 Pages 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-006, Establishing the Nitrogen Reducing Rebate Program in South County. Tom Anderson said that the PRC amendments to Code provided an opportunity for developers in the New Neighborhood of La Pine. A pollution reduction credit would The amount is $7,500 per TDC. The builder can try to obtain a credit from an individual property owner at something less than that. Elkhorn/Pahlisch began a program to do this but suspended it when the market fell, so suspended their PRC program. As an interim measure, the Board thought it would be a good idea to step in at this time and provide an equivalent payment to what Elkhorn had been providing. It is modeled after the PRC provisions. The developer will not be able to go back and purchase another PRC on the same property. It provides direct financial assistance to those property owners who have installed the nitrogen reducing systems. This will not come out of the Community Development fund, but instead it is federal funding for this specific purpose. The order provides Mr. Anderson the authority to sign these when appropriate. Commissioner Baney said that this is a proactive way to help people who have to install a new system. Regarding those 22 people who already went through the process, Mr. Anderson said that they can be assisted retroactively. Commissioner Unger asked for clarification of the amount. Mr. Anderson said that the asset of the New Neighborhood was to help with this funding. Because of rising land values, the TDC program no longer made sense. The County amended the Code at this time and created the pollution reduction credit program. To save money and decrease the financial impact of development, property owners were able to acquire eight’ Commissioner Luke asked why the County is not banking them at this point. Mr. Anderson stated that they could be provided to the developer at that time. Ms. Craghead stated that in terms of what Pahlisch paid to property owners, the people either installed the system or received a lesser amount if the system was not installed. The County cannot create PRC’s; the developer can. A PRC cannot be owned; it is a paper trail. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 4 of 10 Pages Commissioner Baney encouraged economic development in that area once the market picks up. She would like to see those rights utilized by the developers.Mr. Anderson said that it ends up being a net reduction on what the developer has to pay. Commissioner Unger stated that in regard to water, it can go into a water bank and can be sold to others in the future. If this process is difficult, it might be easier to have it set up that way. Chair Luke asked how funding can replenish the grant. Mr. Anderson said that the developer has the ability to obtain one at less than the $7,5000 rate. Ms. Craghead said the letters to the 22 were under the authority of the State OARs. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-003, a Determination of Vested Right Relief under Ballot Measure 49 (Rencher). Steve Griffin gave a brief overview of the item, based on hearings in December. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-004, a Determination of Vested Right Relief under Ballot Measure 49 (Harry). BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 5 of 10 Pages VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-005, a Determination of Vested Right Relief under Ballot Measure 49 (Bolken). BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 10. Before the Board was Consideration Whether to Hear an Appeal of a Hearings Officer’s Denial of a Proposal to Establish a Wireless Telecommunications Facility East of Sisters. Will Groves provided a brief overview of the item. It was found that the facility needs to be sited on EFU ground that is non-resource, among other provisions. The applicant has requested a limited de novo review by the Board. If the Board does not hear this, it can be appealed to LUBA. The Hearings Officer denied the application because the applicant relied on hearsay for a portion of their information. Ms. Craghead stated that although it may be a good idea to give the applicant a way to address this, under State statute the County will not receive deference, although they would take a County decision into consideration. Mr. Groves said that there was significant opposition to the original application. The visual impacts seem to be the biggest issue. The application was amended to provide a tower with less impact; a stealth, monopine structure. Commissioner Unger stated that there is a lot of federal law that pushes these types of structures forward. He asked if hearing this might help in the future. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 6 of 10 Pages Mr. Groves said that a problem is that State statute regarding siting these on EFU resource land has no criteria regarding how they look. Staff feels the important issue is that there is no clear guidance as to whether they could put up five towers instead of one. Chair Luke feels that this should not be handled one decision at a time; rather, it should be noticed to everyone and public policy set. Counties interpret the law differently. The applicant had the opportunity to show that an alternate site was not relevant. Mr. Groves said that they thought they had it covered, but the Hearings Officer felt they did not fully consider this. This is not a change in the language but an interpretation. The question is whether a reasonable number of towers would be a good alternative. Chair Luke stated that some in the past wanted to develop towers on a speculative basis. He asked if this has been shown as necessary. Mr. Groves replied that AT&T has leased space but the leases are expiring. There is a gap in this area and there will be a problem when the leases end. Commissioner Unger feels the Board should step in and be involved in the process so that it doesn’t just end up at the State level. The County should have more input and control. Mr. Groves explained that if statute requires towers located off resource lands, is it better to surround that location with any number of towers or is it better to have one centrally located tower. The technology is evolving rapidly. The applicant has a burden of proof to show that this cannot reasonably be done off resource land due to any number of reasons. The question is whether they can put lower towers in a variety of locations and close the gap, and whether this is reasonable. A difficulty is that cost is not to be considered, and it is usually less expensive to put these on resource land. BANEY: Move approval of Order No. 2010-007, to hear the appeal partial de novo. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes no. (Split vote.) Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 7 of 10 Pages VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 11. Signature of Order No. 2010-009, Changing the Name of a Portion of Deschutes Market Road and Morrill Road to 19th Street 12. Approval of Board Positions for Calendar Year 2010: ƒ Chair: Dennis R. Luke; Vice Chair: Alan Unger; Commissioner: Tammy Baney 13. Approval of Minutes: ƒ Business Meetings: December 30 ƒ Work Sessions: December 30 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District (two weeks). There were no vouchers to approve this week. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District (two weeks). There were no vouchers to approve this week. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks). There were no vouchers to approve this week. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 8 of 10 Pages 17. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2010- 025 a Bargain and Sale Deed regarding the Disposition of a County- owned Strip of Property off Research Road. Teresa Rozic briefly explained the item, which was discussed in work session earlier in the week. BANEY: Move approval, with closing to take place no sooner than fifteen days after publishing public notice of the private sale. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. B. Before the Board was a Decision on Primary and Alternate Representation on Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council for 2010. Commissioner Unger will remain the primary contact, with Commissioner Luke the alternate. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. C. Before the Board was Approval of Minutes: January 4 Work Session BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2010 Page 9 of 10 Pages