Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-30 Business Meeting MinutesVOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2010- 420, a Road Project Agreement with the USDA, U.S. Forest Service regarding Road Maintenance. George Kolb said that this involves Deschutes Market Road and improvements that need to be made before the U.S. Forest Service can build its new facility at the Bend Pine Nursery site. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2010- 458, a Scheduling Agreement with AFSCME Local 3997 related to Community Assessment Team Employees. Lori Hill gave an overview of the item, which involves daytime assessment team activities and personnel. It is similar to the crisis team that provides assistance during nighttime hours. Terry Schroeder said he supervises the mobile assessment team, which works 24/7 to help those people who are having an emotional or mental health crisis. If someone is hospitalized, the other team takes over for further assessment and treatment. This agreement will help them to allow continuity of services and will enhance employee retention. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 2 of 24 Pages 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2010-457, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Human Services regarding Financing of Local Public Health Services for Fiscal Year 2010-11. Nancy England provided a brief explanation of the item. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for Establishing and Administering an On-Site Employee Clinic. Dave Inbody explained that a lot of research has gone into the idea of an on-site employee clinic, and it appears that establishing one can save the County a great deal of money. Site visits were done as part of the process. Commissioner Baney asked how success will be evaluated and tracked. Mr. Inbody said there would be a two-year contract with an opportunity to extend it. It appears that two years is about the right timeframe to know how the program is working. The Employee Benefits Advisory Committee have been involved in the process for some time. BANEY: Move Chair signature. 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. 2010-024 and Ordinance No. 2010-025, Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Code, Adopting Destination Resort Remapping Goals, Policies and Procedures. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 3 of 24 Pages Peter Gutowsky read the opening statement. In regard to conflicts of interest, Commissioner Unger said he has just talked with staff and Planning Commissioners, and briefly with citizens Rod Corrigan and Matt Cyrus. Commissioner Baney said the same but it related to letters that are already in the record. Commissioner Luke said he has no financial interest in this issue and has only dealt with staff. Peter Gutowsky gave his staff report at this time. He said that if the Board adopts an Ordinance that treats all property the same, only seven government- owned properties would be affected. There are four County properties, two from the City of Bend, and one property owned by another entity. A request would be sent to the agencies asking that they be removed from the remapping process. In regard to a grandfather clause, if CCR’s allow for it, individual lot owners could remain on the map. Also, staff entered the case file into the record, which includes seven letters received since the new hearing was opened. Chair Luke opened the hearing at this time. Christen Brown, Chair of the Deschutes County Planning Commission, and Merle Irvine, a member as well, came before the Board. They testified on behalf of the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown read comments into the record. Merle Irvine explained that made a recommendation to the Board in December. Subsequently, they learned more and requested the Ordinances be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration in February. They then took action that included the issues that were just mentioned by Mr. Brown. The current Ordinance still retains the ineligible reference for irrigated land and platted subdivisions. However, there are provisions in the proposed Ordinance that would put the platted subdivisions under the grandfather clause. The Planning Commission has not reviewed this particular approach. Richard Klyce spoke as a private citizen. Commissioner Unger and Baney attended an economic alliance meeting. The question there was attracting business. If this is passed, it will shoot that down. The Cyruses concluded some years ago that their farm land was not profitable. Therefore, they developed Aspen Lakes with this in mind. They did not go off on their own but asked permission, and consulted with County Planners to make sure they did it properly. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 4 of 24 Pages This change would create an unstable business environment. This will tell investors that making decisions based on County decisions may change with the wind in the future. This will poison the well. The Cyrus’ roots go back for generations. They have invested and supported school boards and irrigation districts. They have committed a lot of personal time and funding to benefit the community and should be supported. Brenda Pace, a previous Planning Commissioner, spoke as an individual. She read her statement into the record. There have been many criticisms of including Aspen Lakes Resort in the overlay. However, it needs to be fair to others who have had to bond or put up money before selling lots. This would shoot existing developers in the foot. She wants to see a level playing field. She agrees with State law regarding overnight lodging, but including cluster zones with or without CCR’s is confusing. The County does not get involved with CCR’s in subdivisions. The Cyrus’ do not have the specific approvals of each property owner and cannot use the CCR’s to differentiate projects. When Aspen Lakes was approved, it was done so as a cluster project. In that process, they were required to have open space in specific locations. That Ordinance required deed restrictions on those parcels, which cannot be built upon. The use of the open space was to continue unless the whole property was brought into an urban growth boundary. The Ordinance offers no exception. The County was generous with Aspen Lakes. It appears there are no deed restrictions recorded on those lots. George Read signed an agreement with Aspen Lakes LLC that totally gave the open space lots away. There is an Ordinance on one hand, an approved project on the other hand and the open space as required was given away. So Aspen Lakes no longer fits the Ordinance under which it was approved. The rules that were written for everyone seem to only apply to some of them. The Board needs to be consistent. If overnight housing is first, make it first in every case. The same would apply for requirements for open space. Commissioner Luke said that there are huge numbers of properties on the map that will never be a destination resort. The Board and staff have taken the position that for a cluster development to become a destination resort will take a change in State law. The destination resort map is extremely too big right now and most of it will never be classified as a destination resort. This is not about Aspen Lakes. It is about letting cluster developments ask to be left on the map if they so desire. They are already mapped for this. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 5 of 24 Pages Ms. Pace said that using CCR’s in this case is wrong. She believes that the Ordinance has not been upheld in regard to the open space. Toby Bayard concurred with Ms. Pace. She said she has a lot of compassion for the Cyrus family. She referred to her letter dated June 25. She is concerned about the Board receiving testimony by parties after the record is closed. She does not want to see her property considered after the fact for a use that was not contemplated or known when she bought it. She is concerned about the legal implications as well. She understands that this is just a first step in a multi-step process, but is worried about ambiguity. Land use policy needs to be clear to avoid conflicts down the road. She does not want to see more bad press regarding the Commissioners. Rob Corrigan of Sisters testified that he has paperwork from David Lee in regard to the CCR’s of the development that make no reference to a cluster development. The map is the first step in many hurdles, but thinks the map is meant to be a preliminary or obvious so that anyone could quickly access whether it has been fairly applied. Private, civil contracts between a developer and property owners may result in conflicts. To do a small finding that affects just one developer is not fair to others. There is a twenty-year history of statements that don’t match the written record. If it is predicated on State law, platted subdivisions should be held off the map. He encouraged the Board to reject the Cyrus amendment. Commissioner Luke said that the grandfather clause applies to any property that is already mapped, not just this one. It is not the ‘Cyrus amendment’. Mr. Corrigan stated that individuals may not be able to speak for themselves in regard to their own property. CCR’s are a civil document between private parties. Ms. Robb Reavill said she has written numerous letters. She wants to support the Sierra Club letters and letters from Paul Dewey, as well as the testimony of Brenda Pace. This is an anomaly and needs to be straightened out quickly. Jim Hill of Tumalo displayed a toy showing his disapproval of destination resorts. After reading Bulletin editorials, he is mad about this situation. He has submitted his comments. He said the In My View article is out of line. Mr. Shirtcliff said that environmentalists are dishonest and more. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 6 of 24 Pages Mr. Hill went on to explain his family’s history. He is a developer, a builder, a community leader and a taxpayer. He thinks that all developers will demand the same preferential treatment that Aspen Lakes wants. There would be a lot of lawsuits resulting. Groups are advocating lowering the assessed value of these properties. It is hay season now, and it is a business. This increases property taxes. The Board needs to stop answering to destination resorts and listed to those who work the land. Destination resorts are not the cash cow they think they are. Things can be appealed. He has spent thousands of dollars over the years on appeals. They would like this to stop right now. Nunzie Gould asked if the Commissioners actually listen to the tapes. Commissioner Luke said he does if he is not in attendance. Commissioner Unger agreed. Ms. Gould said that in 1992 a broad brush painted destination resorts were placed on 112,000 acres of land. A 55,000 area is now included. This includes subdivisions and public lands in the eligible lands. This is not acceptable. Fifty overnight accommodations can be built prior to lot sales. No subdivision should be allowed to convert. Many resorts abut public lands. This allows public lands to be eligible for destination resort mapping, which may eventually become private lands. How can Deschutes County monitor wildlife and habitat on these public lands? Most CCRs are boilerplate. If a developer wants to expand, this would be permitted and would not protect the existing resort property owners. It is important that new legislative policy respect current property rights. These are challenging times economically. The Ordinance says there is no fiscal impact by doing these hearings. She wants these hearings tallied to show how much it costs. Five years of this process has a fiscal impact on County coffers. Some staff are traveling to the State today for another meeting there. Just when the County started remapping, it put it on hold for Measure 37. DC should wait for the State to establish its destination resort review. It is unknown where the State is going on this. It is a reflection on Deschutes County that other communities follow. It is a mockery of the process. Keep public lands exempted per Code. They can go through a process to transfer to public ownership. At that point the owner can go through the process. Do not add subdivisions. Goal 8 resorts are not supposed to be subdivisions. The State and the community have differentiated why Goal 8 is different. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 7 of 24 Pages She asked that the record be kept open. She wants to know what other lands the County owns that might be eventually affected, including one that abuts Thornburgh. She does not know if it is mapped. Better accounting is needed regarding the ripple effect of the Ordinance. Simplicity and specificity is needed. Commissioner Luke asked if federal lands are being considered. Mr. Craghead said that the restriction was to be removed from any public land. Nunzie Gould remove all public lands, including those of the school district and irrigation districts. By making them all eligible, this does not remove acreage. The Ordinance would require tracking of CCR’s. She asked if the County can fund this kind of work. How many subdivisions have been reviewed that are in the destination resort area? The County has not done due diligence to analyze this situation. Staff is needed and she would like to know the potential cost. Commissioner Luke stated that the public lands would not be mapped. Mr. Gutowsky said those public lands are not mapped today but can apply to be put on the map if they are eligibility. Ms. Gould said the map supersedes the other. Kimry Jelen read a statement. It is the job of the Commissioners to represent everyone, not just friends or partners. Many years have been spent on seeking public input on this issue. If ineligible lands are removed, the gap would be smaller. This makes it even bigger. There needs to be a fair and lawful map. The information is available to make a decision to apply to all and not just special interests. Dennis McGregor of Sisters testified he has been following this issue for some time. He wrote a letter to the Board regarding the Cyrus family clearing their land. They said they were making a firebreak 200 feet wide. A few months later it was found they went far beyond that. It looked like they were preparing to develop it. It is designated open space. They made it so wildlife should move on. He asked the County to make them stop. He did not get an answer. It ended up in the letters to the editor in the Nugget. Everywhere he went in the community, he got support. There was not one disgruntled person. The people do not want a destination resort there. Commissioner Unger said that clearing the land was in conjunction with the Forester to do a fuels reduction project. This was to protect other lands. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 8 of 24 Pages Pamela Burry of Panoramic Estates in Sisters. There is a lot that is disturbing, mostly that this is supposedly only having to do with mapping. It is important and she feels that this is not being taken seriously. Commissioner Luke said that they are on the current map now, and there was a major attempt to reduce the amount on the map. The map is the first step. There is a big concern about the grandfather clause because of Measure 37 and 49, and what it might cost to defend those. It was never intended to be an insult and is just a minor step in the process. Ms. Burry said that she does not feel it is minor. There are other disturbing things, such as the contractual details of the law that created the process, which is undermined by priorities. She supports those who oppose this. No matter how these details evolve, the question is where this is going. When she spends her time and concern with projects and groups that are connected with the environment, if that area is rebuilt and open space is lost, this is 300 yards from the creek. She wants to preserve the creek and groundwater. Some is lost already to agriculture and housing. It feels like this is going backwards. Destination resorts are failing in the area. A lot could be lost. Commissioner Luke said he spent ten years on the Watershed Council and knows it is important for the area. The County has supported this. Ben Gordon spoke for 1,000 Friends of Oregon which submitted the original vision of reducing the map. They stand by those comments. The overwhelming response is for fewer destination resorts. In light of an article regarding Remington Ranch, it is not a viable economic model. They do not want to see development or more subdivisions, some of which might never get completed. It seems that the new Code provision was adopted only to accommodate a single property owner. This erodes the public trust in the land use process. Commissioner Baney rejoined the meeting at this time. Merry Ann Moore of the Sierra Club said that they have been at this for years in regard to Aspen Lakes. It was agreed that a subdivision cannot convert to a resort through a text amendment. She wants to know why this is now being considered. Ask yourselves, is it good government, what is the precedence, and what are the impacts on Whychus Creek. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 9 of 24 Pages You said you wanted the map to be clearer. Staff time should be redirected to more productive projects. The grandfather clause creates false expectations. Water rights to Whychus Creek are extremely over allocated. This resort would negatively impact it even more. If it impacts fish, it could be considered a taken. Strip the grandfather provision. Only allow those that meet both State and County criteria. Strip the Cyrus amendment. This started in 2005. Thousands of hours of staff time and personal time have been invested. The way this is decided will determine how County resources are spent. Pam Mitchell of Sisters testified that they are not asking for any special treatment. She is offended it is being called the Cyrus amendment. More than twenty years ago they moved down this road on the advice of County employees, starting one way and converting to a destination resort later. They want to continue the travels down this road and know it won’t be easy. They don’t feel it is fair to change the rules mid-stream. They spent a lot of resources based on the advice given and put certain tings into place based on this. They would like to continue the process. They do understand the importance of the creek. They invited Wolf Creek to bring classes there to learn more. They want to protect it. Development would not be within 300 yards. In regard to the CCR’s, they have been in place for a long time. Homeowners purchases with those in place. They were not a secret. She does not know how many other subdivisions shave similar language. She could see that the destination resort issue was a moving target, which is why the put that language in. That was to protect their rights, and the buyers knew about this. Regarding the fuels reduction issue, that has been a red zone for years. It needs to be kept safe. Matt Cyrus submitted testimony already. She asked that the rules not be changed on them yet again. William Kuhn of Sisemore Road asked if hearings could be made available live via internet. He said that in the suggested Ordinance, 22.23.010(h)(3) he asked why those would be waived by the Board. That is in regard to filing fees. Commissioner Baney said that the County has the right to waive any fee at any point. They seldom do that. Mr. Kuhn stated that he thought the purpose was to reduce the number of eligible acreage. The opposite seems to have happened, especially by opening it up to public lands. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 10 of 24 Pages Commissioner Luke said the Ordinance would allow the entity to apply at a later time to be added to the map, which is a full public process. Mr. Gutowsky said the County would have a process to remove lands. Commissioner Luke stated that the written testimony can be submitted Grant Cyrus of Sisters said that Mr. McGregor’s letter to the editor needed clarification and corrections. The thinning was useful and looks good. There were comments about building more golf holes, and they already have approval for 27. In regard to environmental impacts, they participated in the reintroduction of fish and have donated irrigation water back in stream, crediting the Sisters School District. They have self-imposed SDC’s that go to a Sisters School capital fund. Commissioner Luke said that there was a question about listening to the recordings. Commissioner Baney said she would listen to anything she missed. Written testimony will be accepted until 5 PM on Tuesday, July 6, and the issue will be placed on the Wednesday, July 7 agenda. Mr. Gutowsky said that if the tax mailing is utilized, it needs to be ready before the first week of September. Sandy Lonsdale asked if a decision will be made at that time. Commissioner Luke said that it is unknown if they will get to that point by then. Commissioner Luke closed the hearing to oral testimony. Commissioner Unger left the meeting for a few minutes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Consent Agenda. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 8. Signature of Document No. 2010-452, Gate Permit No. 10-002 for Walker Road, Applied for by the Bureau of Land Management Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 11 of 24 Pages 9. Signature of Document No. 2010-453, Gate Permit No. 10-001 for Bear Creek Road, Applied for by the Bureau of Land Management 10. Signature of Document No. 2010-454, the Annual Assessment and Taxation Software Services Agreement with Helion Software, Inc. 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-094 Transferring Appropriations in the General Projects Fund 12. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-095, Transferring Appropriations in the Public Land Corner Preservation Fund 13. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-096, Transferring Appropriations in the Natural Resource Protection Fund 14. Signature of Resolution No. 2010-098, Transferring Appropriations from the General Fund to the Natural Resources Protection Fund 15. Signature of Order No. 2010-036, Transferring and Distributing Certain Monies from the Deschutes County Land Sales Fund 16. Signature of a Letter Extending the Term of Keith Cyrus on the Deschutes County Planning Commission through August 31, 2010 17. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Richard Klyce to the Deschutes County Planning Commissioner through June 30, 2014 18. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of James Kerfoot and Jade Mayer from the Deschutes County Audit Committee, and Thanking them for their Service 19. Signature of Letters Reappointing Tom Anderson and Dennis R. Luke to the Deschutes County Audit Committee, through June 30, 2012 20. Signature of Letters Reappointing Harold Ashford, Peter Geiser, Dennis R. Luke, Craig Moore and Bill Padgham to the Community Forest Authority, through June 30, 2014 21. Signature of Letters Reappointing Individuals to the Deschutes County Dog Control Board of Supervisors: Norma Brenton and Judith Parker (through June 30, 2011); and Patricia Moore, Laurel Pierson and Lani Skykes (through June 30, 2012) 22. Signature of a Letter Appointing Dennis Simeson as an Alternate Member of the Dog Control Board of Supervisors, through June 30, 2012 Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 12 of 24 Pages 23. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Kelly Delauter from the Three Rivers Vector Control District Board, and Thanking her for her Service 24. Signature of a Letter Reeappointing Kristine West to the Three Rivers Vector Control District Board, through June 30, 2014 25. Signature of a Letter Appointing Cheryl Garrison to the Three Rivers Vector Control District Board, through June 30, 2014 CONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD 26. Before the Board was a Hearing to Review and Consider a Protest of a Proposed Biomass Contract Award. Mark Pilliod gave a brief overview of the process. The rules are set forth in Code. It is a de novo hearing, which should include the RFP, the responses to the RFP and the analysis provided by the Forester. They are focusing on the grinding and hauling component and not all of he various elements contained in the RFP. Joe Stutler explained that the County received a grant award for biomass projects, and a deadline of December 2010 was established. An RFP was sent to those on the qualified pool list. In the RFP, it was to produce 20,000 green tons of biomass, detailing sources and how it would be used. The question was asked as to whether the respondents had existing similar contracts. They did not want to deal with delays either because of he time constraints. Also asked was how quickly this grinding and hauling could be done, and how many jobs could be created and maintained. The cost of grinding, loading and transportation had to be included and any additional costs were to be noted. There was a June 3, 2010 5 PM close date and time. There were six responses. On June 11 all the respondents were contacted with the conclusions. On June 18, Mr. Fagan called and they discussed how they might work through Mr. Fagan’s issues with the award. They could not come to an agreement. Mr. Fagan chose to protest the bid award at that time. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 13 of 24 Pages Commissioner Baney said that there seems to be a discrepancy on what biomass is; whether it is mulch. Mr. Stutler said that it is commonly felt it is plant material that can be ground and used for biomass energy production. Mr. Fagan said that he considered mulch as biomass, but the grant is more specific. There is a qualified pool, and one includes this. Mr. Fagan has been on the qualified pool two times. It has been the same process for three years. Commissioner Luke disclosed that Mr. Fagan has done work on his personal property in the past. Wade Fagan said that he was notified to come here today on short notice and does not have the information with him. He feels that biomass is any organic material; it is a very general description. He thought that another respondent He would have done something differently. It was broken down to the tonnage rate, and he was told it would cost the County more. There have been discrepancies in the past. Using his chipper it would take more time to do it. He can produce so much more in other ways. He asked that they just run it across the scale to weigh it. He would accept being paid by tonnage. A per hour price makes it inequitable to him. This is not fair. All of his equipment runs on biodiesel and he keeps the work local. They turn biomass into mulch. On a global scale, this takes carbon and puts it into the ground, raising the soil profiles. This conserves water. When he added it all up, the volume could result in $2.8 million in value. The amount produced per day depends on the materials going in. Chippers are faster than a grinder. Grinders are better with limbs and that kind of material. The winning bidders ship theirs to the valley. When Crook County went out to bid, he was a winning bidder but was not allowed to bid on the next two. Not enough time was allowed to clarify the markets served. He feels that the ‘best value’ issue allows too much subjectivity. They should go with the lowest total price. Commissioner Unger said that he knows Mr. Stutler has tried to work with Mr. Fagan on the issues raised. Mr. Fagan said he was not informed about the protest day and time and he has not had time to prepare. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 14 of 24 Pages Mr. Stutler stated that the original RFP was schedule to close on June 3. In regard to item #2, the response could not be evaluated in the context of the RFP. He asked it be quantified. A revision came in then. He purposely sent the recommendations to the bidders and some of them said they understood. There is a difference of opinion regarding best value and low bid. He feels best value is the way to go. He looked at all six criteria in relation to the grant. Mr. Fagan’s protest does not deal with carbon sequestration, which they were not looking for in the RFP. There is a basic philosophical difference regarding how the qualified pool is administered. He feels it is being doing correctly. He can address Mr. Fagan’s written protest. Commission Luke said he has had concerns about the grouping since it began. The private sector can do what it wants. The public sector is different. People look at public money and feel that everyone should have a chance at it. He does not know what to do here. He is not an expert. Mr. Pilliod sated that the method of making a selection is not new. The protestor has utilized this in the past as well. It is provided for in statute and Code. The process was followed. If a person felt that the process was not appropriate, they were obligated to protest the process a month ago. Having allowed the process to proceed, it is not timely to say that it should have been done differently. The Board has provided the Forester the authority to prepare and announce an RFP. A notice of intent to award is pending. All but the grinding can go forward but they are waiting for this to be decided. There is a process established and the board needs to make sure the rules are being met. The bidders have to show that they are adversely affected, and they have to show that the process was wrong. There is a limited basis on which a protest can be supported. Commissioner Unger said that there is a difference in philosophy. These are federal contracts with certain specifications. He would have picked T-2 also. They seem to be the best match. He does not feel that Mr. Stutler erred in his selection. Commissioner Baney said that some of the concerns might be late in the game. There might be other ways to handle these in the future, but this is not the time do it. As she sees the synopsis of responses, she can’t help but see the discrepancies relating to cost. Attachment 2 shows the cost per hour and per ton showing major differences. The one that was picked seems to be quite high. The meaning of biomass is defined as a renewable energy source. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 15 of 24 Pages Mr. Fagan said that it should be specified that it has to go to a CoGen plant. He feels that it is not just an energy source. Commissioner Baney said that biomass as a single word is defined as renewable energy source, and the grant is specific as to the production of energy. Mr. Stutler explained that when looking at cost per hour, one might seem cheaper. The unknown is the transportation cost. It could cause the amount to be excessive. It is important that the product be handled quickly due to the time constraints of the grant. He gets bids all the time with the hourly cost being less, but the best value needs to consider all the potential costs. If they get behind they could lose the grant. Mr. Fagan’s bid did not quantify this. The chips have to be clean as well. Commissioner Luke stated that as opposed to a hard bid contract, this has some variables and people can bid things differently. Mr. Stutler said that this is just for the biomass grant. There could be others that come up separately. Mr. Fagan is still in the qualified pool. He also agrees that they can talk about how the qualified pool works in the future. Mr. Fagan said the number of jobs created locally should be considered. He did object years ago with others regarding the qualified pool process. He would like to get together with some of the losers of the bid. He does not object to the pool but to how it is bid out. It is very cut and dried to him. Even T-2 said that dirty chips cannot go to the CoGen plant. He is utilizing the process because that is the way it has been shoved down his throat. He did not realize there might be different levels of materials. He thinks there is more figured out behind the scenes. T-2 has done it before and maybe were more specific. He can do it for less than half the cost but there is trucking involved. No one should care where it goes and what the material is used for. It is not a fair process. Commissioner Baney stated that they do have to care how the material is used. They have to report how it has been used, which is what the grant requires. This grant is for renewable energy and job creation. If it is not handled properly, the grant funds have to be paid back. She does not care how the material is used but the federal government does. Mr. Fagan would not have met the criteria in this situation. She asked that his concerns be detailed and perhaps a survey done with others in the pool to see if things could be improved. Commissioner Unger said that he feels that Mr. Stutler tries to get local jobs going. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 16 of 24 Pages Mr. Stutler said that the qualified pool issue was objected by one person in the past. Mr. Fagan did not have a timely response and did not have standing then. There are 32 contracts in the pool. About a dozen of them made a business decision to overbid. They learn as they go. He left it open for week but no one asked for more time. The process is very transparent and he hopes it can continue. They are getting fuels work done for 50 cents on the dollar because of it. The reality is that he may not always agree with a contractor on what is the best value. He will work with others to make it clear, but once the bids are in he has to decide the best value. Usually there are few questions. Commissioner Baney asked if he has gotten feedback to make sure the bidders are comfortable with the process. Mr. Stutler said that what happens is that there are enough projects that most have taken part in some of it. They open the process up for several weeks. They know the deadline. Mr. Fagan stated that he had questions about the first one, and most gave just a range. He did not understand how that would be specific enough. Some others disagreed with the process then. If he had more time, he would have been more prepared today. Commissioner Luke asked if Mr. Fagan was notified of the hearing earlier. Mr. Pilliod said that these hearings are uncommon but most are notified earlier. There has been nothing submitted that supports his appeal. Commissioner Baney asked that Mr. Fagan get the criteria on which he would base his appeal. Mr. Pilliod said that the County cannot give advice. The appeal is based upon material submitted within 7 days of the award, not what comes later. Commissioner Luke said that this is a public contract revised by State law. The Board cannot change how this is done. This has been a good discussion but interpreting the law and the grant, the County has no choice. It is not the job of the Board to give advice. Nothing has been kept secret and everything was available to Mr. Fagan. Commissioner Baney said she feels the appeal is based on the ultimate use of the material. It is for energy production. Mr. Fagan said that he feels this is not fair. Commissioner Unger said that the grant is very specific. Commissioner Luke said he does not think bottom line that the criteria used has been met. The County has some obligation to at least refer people to where they can find answers to their questions. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 17 of 24 Pages Mr. Pilliod said that an Order will have to be drafted with the Board’s decision. Commissioner Baney feels that more notice should be have been given to Mr. Fagan and that he should be provided with the same information, even though he may not be eligible anyway based on his bid. She is uncomfortable with the process. Commissioner Unger said that although more help can be given to citizens, but there is a time issue so the work can be done as required. The requirements will still exist in a week and they were not met. They can work together on future projects. The Board directed staff to prepare an Order denying the appeal. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT 27. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2010- 097, Transferring Appropriations in the Sunriver Service District Fund. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 28. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2010- 441, Approving the 911 Service District Amended Operating Agreement. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 29. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District in the Amount of $427,324.22. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 18 of 24 Pages BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 30. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Jim Fields from the Deschutes County Extension 4-H Budget Committee, and Thanking him for his Service. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 31. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $9,446.30. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 32. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,063,491.48. BANEY: Move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 19 of 24 Pages 33. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Authorization of a Contract Change Order regarding Knott Landfill Cell 5 – Area A Closure. Timm Schimke explained that this would be for the Area A closure. There is a lot of excavation and moving of rocks, and it was discovered that they are about 10% short of the soil suitable for coverage. There is no costs noted for stockpiling as it was not anticipated any stockpiles would have to be used. BANEY: Move authorization of County Administrator up to approximately $305,000, UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2010-038, Reducing Temporary Restaurant Licensing Fees for Fiscal Year 2010-11. This item was continued from the Board meeting of June 28. Eric Kropp indicated that the estimated cost to the County is about $25,000. Tom Anderson said there were several changes to the original document. The wording now shows that the costs are fixed for the County. The various costs were also detailed. (A copy of the proposed Order is attached.) This would apply to events held in Fiscal Year 2011-11. Many vendors have purchased licenses for those events and will be entitled to a refund. Commissioner Baney explained that the State process is broken and it is hoped it will be fixed. The goal is to find a way to cover some costs There are a lot of moving parts and it is complicated. However, this will allow small businesses to operate at the same level as nonprofits, as this is a community benefit. Commissioner Unger added that this is just for a year, during which time it is hoped that some progress can be made on this issue. Commissioner Luke said that the City of Bend does not want to participate on this. He feels this is taking taxpayer money and using it for private businesses. He would like to know if the vendors are also charging the vendors as well. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 20 of 24 Pages Commissioner Baney stated that this is not happening in all areas. If there are six or more food vendors, they get a break when the others don’t, which does not seem equitable. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes no. (Split vote.) C. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of EBAC Recommended Changes to the Health Benefits Plan. Ronda Connor explained that the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee meets monthly and represents all County employees. They look at the benefits program as a whole. Some recommendations were made by EBAC members regarding several items. One change is due to changes in federal law. The dependent qualification now goes up to age 23 regardless of student status, starting on August 1, 2010. They have to be dependent and not have coverage available to them otherwise. It is impossible to determine an exact cost but estimates were made using information on current employees who might have children that might become part of this program. An open enrollment will begin immediately. Currently Providence PPO is being utilized, but they are having a difficult time getting claims processed in a timely manner. Because of this, EBAC has recommended that First Choice be utilized. The third change is in regard to flu shots. Commissioner Baney noted that the County offers stellar benefits and this plan has good oversight. She does not think it should be instituted until Fiscal Year 2011-12 instead of immediately. Commissioner Unger said that he has a child who might fit into this situation. There are young people who really need to be covered in some way. EBAC recommended that this move forward per their recommendation. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 21 of 24 Pages UNGER: Move that the recommendations of EBAC be approved. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: No. (Split vote.) UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consideration of Approval of Minutes: ƒ June 23 Work Session ƒ June 23 and 28 Business Meetings BANEY: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. D. Before the Board was a De Novo Public Hearing on File No. CU-10-2, regarding the Hearings Officer’s Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a Room and Board Arrangement in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Cynthia Smidt and Laurie Craghead came before the Board. The hearing was already open from the original hearing on July 28. Commissioner Luke asked the applicant, Terry Anderson, if he wants a room and board situation. If the Board determines that room and board is anything over 30 days and can be more than one meal a day, is that a problem. Mr. Anderson said that the occupancy would not be transient. He can see two to three week occupancy. On occasion, there are disruptions because of storms or wildfire, and to find adequate housing short-term is difficult then. They would offer their property in this type of situation. They would like to do room and board. Commissioner Unger stated that this is being heard because of confusion between room and board and bed and breakfast. No one seems to know exactly what room and board is. There are a lot of possibilities. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 22 of 24 Pages Ms. Craghead said there is a definition of bed and breakfast in Code. What is not known is whether or where room and board fits in. Ms. Smidt sought out information on room and board. State law and Code do not define this. It is typically housing in exchange for labor or money. There is limited board with one or two meals or full board with three meals. There is also no time limit on room and board. Commissioner Baney noted that no one can say what this covers. They could hire a ranch hand who does not end up staying more than a few days. She asked what the intent is. Mr. Anderson said the intent is room and board, but the term could be a school year, or two or three weeks depending on what is taking place at that time. They back up to BLM property and have people who bring horses and stay for an extended period of time. They want to make this available to others. In some cases it would be nice to be remunerated. There could be a need for a ranch manager as well. Commissioner Luke stated that a guest ranch might work as well. Ms. Smidt said that she thinks this requires 160 acres. Ms. Craghead says that it is 160 acres with specific numbers of guests and certain activities. Ms. Craghead added that there is a Code provision for bed and breakfast, but room and board is not defined. Commissioner Unger would like to have some kind of definition of room and board for future situations. Commissioner Luke asked if it is allowed on EFU ground per the State. Ms. Craghead replied that it is no longer shown in law. Dave Kanner stated that there is no way to codify a definition of room and board quickly. That has to go through a long State and hearing process. Commissioner Luke stated that a declaratory ruling could be sought to define room and board. Ms. Craghead indicated that it could be part of this application but it will take longer. Conditions of approval would have to be defined. There are likely bed and breakfast establishments on EFU at this time even though the law no longer allows them, and that is why the Hearings Officer rejected the application. Commissioner Luke would like to work towards a definition of room and board. Ms. Craghead said it has to be specifically defined to allow for findings. Commissioner Luke feels that room and board should be for thirty days or more. Minutes of the Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Wednesday, June 30, 2010 Page 23 of 24 Pages