Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-20 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 20, 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; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Peter Gutowsky and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Sue Brewster and Rebecca Brown, Sheriff’s Office; Debi Harr and Hillary Saraceno, Commission on Children & Families; and approximately thirty 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 Documents No. 2010- 028 through 2010-037, Towing and Storage Service Contracts for Vehicles Impounded through the Sheriff’s Office. Sue Brewster and Rebecca Brown gave an overview of the contracts. These differ from what is in place with Consolidated Towing, who handles evidence towing. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 1 of 14 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2010-005, the Oregon Commission on Children & Families’ Partnership Agreement. Debi Harr and Hillary Saraceno indicated that there were changes, eliminating some previous language, clarifying other language and outlining the statutory requirements of the entities. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2010-038, an Agreement with Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance (Nunc Pro Tunc). Commissioner Baney said that she signed this previously due to time constraints. Nancy England explained the document’s purpose. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-004, Amending Deschutes County Code to Allow for Setting Fees Semi-Annually. BANEY: Move second reading, by title only. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Chair Luke conducted the second reading, by title only. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 2 of 14 Pages BANEY: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Authorizing County Administrator’s Signature of Document No. 2010-048, a Memorandum of Agreement with the Oregon Department of State Lands regarding Cooperative Planning for Development of the South Redmond Tract. This is a non-binding agreement between the Department of State Lands and the County regarding all of Central Oregon and not just Deschutes County regarding cooperative planning. The 945 acres owned by the Department of State Lands could be brought into Redmond Urban Growth Boundary as large lot industrial land, if supported and justified by demand and other factors. BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2010- 002, regarding Destination Resort Map Amendment Procedures. Peter Gutowsky read the opening statement at this time. Laurie Craghead said that there is a change in this statement; bias and prejudgment is not considered in legislative matters; conflicts of interest are. None of the Commissioners noted a conflict of interest. There have been a variety of work sessions and discussions on the record about this issue. No challenges were offered. Nick Lelack said that the Planning Commission has asked that this be remanded to the Planning Commission for further review and work. Commissioner Luke asked about notice going out in the November tax statement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 3 of 14 Pages Commissioner Baney stated that she welcomes having the Planning Commission participate further and provide more input on this issue. Commissioner Unger agreed, but would like to see it back before the Board in a timely manner. Ms. Craghead asked if the Board wants to take testimony and continue the process for a period of time, or remand now and not be involved in a further process at this time. Chair Luke said they could continue the hearing for a while, let the Planning Commission take time to review it. Commissioner Baney stated that the Planning Commission did not have a full board when they reviewed it previously and would like to be able to review it again. Commissioner Unger agreed. Mr. Gutowsky recognized written testimony received since December 2. At this time, he gave a PowerPoint presentation on the issue. (See attached.) Commissioner Luke asked about page 7 of 9 of the staff report, procedures, table 3. He wondered why this wording is required; he asked why the County would want to look at redoing the map after this process, unless there is an application submitted. The law says they “may” do this every thirty months, not that they have to. Mr. Gutowsky stated that there could be a notice sent out to remind those who want to be notified of deadline dates so they can apply. A thirty-day notice may not be useful, as anyone who is pursuing a destination resort application will be involved long before thirty days before any deadline. Commissioner Unger stated that there is no criteria on small destination resorts, only large ones. He asked how the small destination resorts would be handled. Mr. Gutowsky said that the County only has large destination resorts. This issue might be revisited, but not many properties would fit. Nick Lelack said he is part of a work group reviewing destination resort law and how this fits with potential small destination resorts. An agenda will be established for meetings to discuss this further. Chair Luke opened the hearing to public testimony at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 4 of 14 Pages Doug Parker, the Department of State Lands, testified, and noted that the State Land Board oversees common school fund trust lands. (He read a statement at this time.) They have some areas of critical concern in mind, but are understand that they are not currently available. Commissioner Unger said that the mapping process shows which lands might be appropriate, and thirty months have to pass before more can be added. Mr. Parker stated they would hold the land and work as a partner with the owner. No other county has asked about excluding lands, and this is the first time they have felt compelled to have to come forward in this issue. Tom Davis, an engineer and a volunteer for the Native Fish Society, mad a statement on behalf of the Society. (He provided written information at this time.) He wanted to talk about the economic engines and supply demands, reasons for saying “no more”, a LUBA decision on Thornburgh Resort, and issues that relate to fish health. He feels that the destination resorts do not improve the area but instead compromise them seriously. There does not seem to be a shortage of tourist rooms. There are a lot of amenities that are natural in the area, however. The Northwest Environmental Defense Center prepared a brief relating to the concern about the “takings” issue. Pollution and water flow are all factors. The LUBA decision adds to this, as it talks about flow depletion and the warming of stream temperatures. Fish habitat is critical; whatever is happening, good or bad, in the water is an indicator of problems. The regulatory programs in Oregon are not adequate. An article in the Oregonian made this clear as well. He feels that natural amenities can drive the economy, and there is no need for further destination resorts. Chair Luke said the idea is to make the map more realistic. He feels the best time to do this is when there are no applications. The map got started by Eagle Crest because there was no map at the time. This process is not to add destination resorts; instead, it would set the criteria if there is another application. It needs to be predictable and clear. Good land use planning requires standards to be in place. Mr. Davis stated that the process is complex, but he feels the bottom line is protecting one of the biggest assets in the area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 5 of 14 Pages Charlie Miller, a Miller Tree Farm property representative, said that this property has been included in the map for decades. Although they have no plans to develop a destination resort, they want to retain that designation. Derek Staab of Trout Unlimited stated that there work is oriented to help restore watershed. There are impacts to fish and wildlife. Expenditures for fishing and hunting are almost $70 million annually in Central Oregon. He is concerned that by allowing ineligible properties to be on the map, it will sacrifice some of the amenities that people visit the area to enjoy. There is degradation due to rising stream temperatures and other problems. He feels that three things need to happen. First, remove all lands that do not conform to local and state statutes at this time. In particular, wildlife corridors and winter ranges are a concern, as are endangered species. He is also worried about impacts to the flood plains. He encouraged the exclusion of anything in the Whychus Creek watershed. He suggested the creation of a committee to examine the impacts on wildlife. He appreciates that this is an amazing place, and more work is needed to protect the migration corridors and other areas critical to wildlife and fish. Chair Luke said that areas of critical concern are Whychus Creek and the Metolius Sub-basin. Mr. Gutowsky clarified that this is primarily the Metolius area. The State requires big game habitat be excluded, and also high deer migration areas. This will not change, and is consistent with the State and County rules. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the County was awarded grants to take a wetland inventory, and is in the process of beginning this process. Mr. Staab said that he commends the work of staff in this regard, and that they are going in the right direction. Jeff Wieland lives in the watershed area in South County. He testified that he appreciates the open process being followed by the County and Planning Commission. The beauty of this area is its biggest resource. He is opposed to grandfathering of ineligible properties and exceptions, which have lead to legal issues in other areas. The combining of properties to meet the 160-acre requirement is an invitation to ask for approval, and he opposes this provision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 6 of 14 Pages There is enough housing for tourists. This activity supports the area but they have reached the point where traffic, water quality and other issues are a problem. He agreed that a map is needed, but wondered how the County will say “no” if a property is on the map. Chair Luke stated that it is best to do the update when there are no active applications to create confusion. Not having a map does not mean there won’t be applications. There is a lot of property mapped as eligible at this time which is not really eligible. Commissioner Unger said that the Board represents all citizens and they don’t always have the same viewpoint. The process has to be followed. Certain criteria has to be met to move forward in the process, and that is when the impacts are examined. Commissioner Baney agreed, and said that the map is not a rubber stamp. The map may show that a property meets the basic criteria but there is a lot more criteria that has to be addressed. Mr. Staab expressed concern about infrastructure impacts and the cost of roads, law enforcement and other issue. Commissioner Unger stated that the old destination resort language needs to be clarified to address everyone’s concerns. William Kuhn, who lives within the Tumalo winter deer range, said that he respects the process and procedures. He has attended several hearings already. He does believe in property rights, and wanted the Board to be aware that he should be able to buy property that has restrictions on it, and that the restrictions are guaranteed to remain. He suggested that a new County ordinance should obligate property owners to complete requirements prior to new permits being issued. He asked about the new Deschutes (Skyline) Forest having nothing on the map for destination resorts currently, and how this process could affect that. Chair Luke stated that a destination resort cannot be placed on F-1 land, but F-2 is possible. Mr. Kuhn noted that if someone went after a zone change, they could try to change the zoning. Chair Luke said the legislature approved Skyline Forest, but the County cannot do the same thing under State law or County code. The County can review this activity, but cannot say “no”. The County does not want destination resorts on prime forest land. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 7 of 14 Pages Mr. Kuhn asked if a developer might be able to go through a land use process to eventually put in a destination resort in Skyline Forest. Mr. Gutowsky said that it is approved for a rural development, not a destination resort. The State mapped the land as big game habitat, so it is prohibited from being a destination resort. F-1 land is a County criterion; the State does not allow development on productive forest land; however, this area is not considered to have productive forest land. The County can be more restrictive than the State, but not less restrictive. Robert Corrigan said that he is not an expert in land use law or finance, but hopes the Board will exercise sound judgment in this case. (He provided a written document.) He had a general question as to why there are destination resorts; they are an exception to land use laws in the area. No one was born with a right to build a destination resort. Suburban subdivisions should not be destination resorts, nor should existing golf course areas. He feels that the purpose is to promote new tourism and funds. This area is over-served with destination resorts. Any further resorts are a matter of diminishing returns, with too much competition for them all to succeed. A developer can make a statement otherwise, but he would like to see a complete and full economic assessment be part of the application process. He added that the map should add clarity. Everyone looks for clarity, which should be done with common sense. Properties that might be eligible if combined should be shown, and those that just don’t fit should not be on it. There should not be a right to keep property on it if it does not fit. The County makes money form destination resorts. Government is unique in this regard. The government has a monopoly in selling off rights in this manner. The people have to depend on the Board to protect the rights of the many from the demands of the few. He asked that clean water, wildlife, scenic views and other amenities be considered as community rights. Richard Klyce said that he is not interested in supporting this amendment at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 8 of 14 Pages Pam Mitchell said that thirty years ago the area depended on a timber industry and agriculture. The groups that supported the decline of the timber industry are now not interested in supporting other ways to help the economy. Deschutes County was able to develop a different economy: tourism and construction. They should embrace what they have instead of closing the door. Currently there is a prohibition on irrigated EFU of 40 acres or more. This potentially can damage agriculture. A water right does not mean it is a viable water right. The mitigation of 8:1 ratio requires that the land has to be bought up to obtain the water right, taking away the revenue from the district and drying up the irrigated land. Brasada Ranch became a paying, viable customer that benefits the district because it puts the water rights into good use. This prohibition is damaging to agriculture. A lot of the property with the resort overlay could be developed as subdivisions and not resorts. Tourist-based property has additional benefits and does not burden schools and other infrastructure. She asked what is wrong with taking an existing subdivision from a non-public subdivision and adding amenities to benefit the economy. The fish and wildlife study includes total dollars spent; many are ancillary or secondary reasons. The numbers are not necessarily accurate. A lot of the people who oppose the resorts live in the properties they are now opposing. Jim Guild stated that this is his fifth year of opposing destination resorts. He disagrees with the comment that the remapping process is doing anything but rubber stamping resorts. He does not feel the Board represents all citizens. He said that there are a lot of foreclosures right now. The Commissioners are supposed to protect the health, safety and welfare of constituents, not the welfare of developers. He does not know who in the area supports destination resorts; maybe a public vote would be good. He is a serious property taxpayer. Builders support local businesses and land-owning clients. He did not expect land use requirements and restrictions to change. He knows what his risks are and does not expect the rules to change so he can make money. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 9 of 14 Pages There is no demand for destination resorts. The formula of home costs to lot costs used to be 4 or 5 to 1. Today, destination resort lots are too expensive. There is no market for them. He feels that people don’t attend hearings because their comments go on deaf ears. McCall, Idaho, is failing because of a class action lawsuit regarding destination resorts. If there is going to be a destination resort, it should be within the UGB, not in outlying areas. People who are committed citizens don’t see any good coming from these rural subdivisions. It is not healthy for the community. Tourism comes and goes and is based on people doing well in other parts of their life. Construction should be based on real development. Nancy Lowas said she submitted written testimony. Two people who submitted sign-in cards (Sandy Lonsdale and Andy High) did not testify at this time. The meeting was recessed until 6:00 p.m. today; the minutes of the continued hearing will be separate from the business meeting minutes herein. ___________________________________________________________ BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONSENT AGENDA 8. Signature of Document No. 2010-004, a Service Agreement between the Sheriff’s Office and Motorola regarding Maintenance of Radio Equipment 9. Signature of Order No. 2010-012, Declaring Certain County Personal Property Surplus, and Authorizing Sale 10. Signature of Document No. 2010-024, a Trustee’s Deed regarding a Default Property 11. Chair Signature of Document No. 2010-006, an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon regarding the Healthy Start Program Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 10 of 14 Pages 12. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-002, Appropriating a New Grant for Adult Parole & Probation 13. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-003, Transferring Appropriations in the District Attorney’s Office Fund 14. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-004, Transferring Appropriations in the Health Fund 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-005, Appropriating a New Grant in the Commission on Children & Families’ Fund 16. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-001, Initiating the Vacation of a Portion of Rock Springs Road 17. Signature of Order No. 2010-002, Vacating a Portion of Rock Springs Road 18. Signature of Letters: Appointing Brenda Pace to the Weed Board through December 31, 2012; and Reappointing Jason Deney, Larry Pecenka and John Stephenson through December 31, 2012 19. Signature of Letters Reappointing Chris Bellusci and John McLeod to the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Board, through December 31, 2011 20. Signature of Letters Appointing Mary Fuller, Martha Miller, Roger Olson and Lindsay Stevens to the Deschutes County Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, through December 31, 2011 21. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Brent Johnson from the Board of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6, and Thanking Him for His Service 22. Signature of Letters Appointing Neal Henderson (through December 31, 2011) and Adena Glassow (through December 31, 2012) to the Board of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #6 23. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Bob Beal from the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee, and Thanking Him for His Service 24. Approval of Minutes: ƒ Business Meeting: January 6 ƒ Work Sessions: March 30, 2009; April 20, 2009; January 6 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 11 of 14 Pages CONVENED AS OF GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 25. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Doris Brannan to the Sunriver Service District Budget Committee, through June 30, 2012. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 26. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Letter for the Replacement of Dispatch Radio System Equipment. Andy Jordan and Rick Silbaugh explained the item. This equipment is used by four agencies, and will be used in the new OSP/911 building when it is completed. This covers the software purchase; there will be an additional request for hardware later. UNGER: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 27. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $51,603.59 BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 12 of 14 Pages CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 28. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $5,096.70. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 29. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) Dave Kanner said that this figure includes mid-year grant disbursements and about one-third of the OSP/911 building, for about half of the vouchers. BANEY: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 30. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 13 of 14 Pages