Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-28 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, OCTOBER 28, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; Tom Anderson, Kevin Harrison and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Tom Blust, Road Department; Tyler Deke from Bend MPO; and about a dozen other citizens, including representatives of the media. Chair Baney 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. 2009- 620, an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement Establishing the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization. Tom Blust gave a brief overview of the item. The original agreement was done years ago, so this incorporates various changes. A lot of the governance issues were pulled out of the intergovernmental agreement and were put instead into by -laws. There is one change in the IGA is in section 9.1, which has to do with the effective date, which would be by signature. LUKE: Move approval of Document No. 2009 -620, to be effective at the time all signatures have been obtained. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 1 of 15 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of County Administrator's Signature of Public Facilities Improvement Agreements (Documents No. 2009 -622 through 628) with the City of Bend for the Oregon State Police /911 Building Project. Susan Ross presented an oversized general site plan map to the Board, in response to a request by Commissioner Luke. A discussion then took place regarding access to roads that will be declared public roads by the City of Bend. Commissioner Luke asked that this issue be clarified before signature. LUKE: Move approval of the documents. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009- 605, an Option Agreement with Society of St. Vincent De Paul, La Pine. Teresa Rozic gave an overview of the item, which has been previously discussed during work sessions. They have two years to exercise the option, $1,000 to exercise it, and $10,000 to reimburse the County for infrastructure expenses. The property is just east of the senior center and the affordable housing development. Discussed were improvements to Victory Way; that construction financing is in place; and $20,000 would be set aside for future road improvements (paragraph 7.4 on page 5). Also, a profit sharing clause is included. If within ten years of the agreement the entity sells to someone who is not a nonprofit agency, the property would revert back to the County. Members of St. Vincent de Paul were present. Corrine Martinez, President, said their board has met and is pleased with the agreement. This will help them relocate into a much better building. Jerry Moore, project manager, has done a lot of groundwork already. He said that Peter Bauer is the architect, who is already familiar with the project. They hope to get all of the funding in place soon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 2 of 15 Pages Commissioner Luke said that there are a lot of nonprofits who look to the County for support. Dave Kanner said that St. Vincent de Paul provides a lot of social services that may otherwise have to be provided by a government agency, and should be supported. Commissioner Luke pointed out that this parcel, seven acres, was set aside for uses of all kinds that benefit the community. Commissioner Unger asked about the funds held for future road improvements; he thought that perhaps a way to handle this is to allow payments or allow for this to be paid at a later date. Mr. Kanner stated this number is based on the improvements at the present time. The funds will be held in an interest - bearing account, and it is hoped that this will help keep pace with inflation until such time the road needs to be built. Ms. Martinez added that this organization is stable and has a good record of helping citizens in this area. LUKE: Move approval of Document No. 2009 -605. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009- 614, an Amendment to a Promissory Note regarding the Sale of County - Owned Property. Ms. Rozic said that a nonprofit organization named Four Winds asked for temporary relief with the mortgage payment on the property they are buying from the County since they, like others, are having a problem with cash flow. The loan would be restructured for a brief period of time but there would be no loss to the County. They have never been delinquent with payments. LUKE: Move approval of Document No. 2009 -614. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 3 of 15 Pages 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Remand on an Application from David Hurtley for a Determination of Whether he is Entitled to Relief under Ballot Measure 49. Steve Griffin opened the public hearing (a copy of the opening statement is attached for reference). Commissioner Luke asked if Measure 49 is for land use issues. Mr. Griffin said it is not. In response to the question regarding conflicts of interest, bias or prejudgment, all three Commissioners indicated they had none. There were no challenges to Board qualifications. Mr. Griffin said that the criteria are clear, as Ed Fitch is the only party who is still involved. Mr. Griffin said this concerns 29.8 acres in unincorporated area outside of the Sisters urban growth boundary, with a proposal of five lots from 5 to 6.9 acres. Originally the land use application had six existing homes; two were removed, leaving four. The proposal configured the lot lines so that there are homes on each of four parcels, with one left vacant for a future home. The proposal calls for a net increase of one home. There is an issue about two of the homes. Measure 49 vacated or extinguished all existing Measure 37 waivers, but gave the recipients a six -month window to obtain common law vested right. There has been a lot of litigation on what the window means; but it is thought that they had until November 6, 2007 to invest enough to obtain the right. There was concern about a rush to construct. The Deschutes County courts said there is nothing wrong with this action. From staff perspective, there are no concerns about good faith of the applicants in this regard. The courts came up with vested rights to protect owners from unintended changes to the law, and to protect them when they are halfway through construction. The Goal Post statute replaced the issue of common law vested rights. However, appellant courts said that does not apply with Measure 49. Complicating this is whether an applicant can achieve a vested right before tentative subdivision approval becomes final. On page 6 of the staff report, the relevant timeline was detailed. The quandary is that a vested right was declared on a date when there was no final approval of the project. No court has addressed this exact issue. In twenty years, the vested rights issue has not come up until now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 4 of 15 Pages There are authorities that appear to suggest that an applicant cannot obtain a vested right within that window, waiting for final approval. It would force the governing body's hand of not being able to change, reverse or deny the land use or subdivision application. Either you have the vested right or you don't. If you have a vested right to complete the project, the governing authority does not have the right to take that away. Since the governing body has the final say on land use decisions, it does not fit with the specified date. In the applicant's favor, there is the fact that the decision came out on December 3, and the applicant did not have any control over that date. They did not delay the application and proceeded as quickly as they could. It is an odd situation that the approval did not come before the deadline. Commissioner Luke said the record closed on September 3. On page 3 of 42 the applicant waived final arguments, so there was nothing else that came in after that date. He asked why it took 90 days to get a decision on this matter. Mr. Griffin said that there is no good explanation for this. He did not ask the Hearings Officer for an explanation. There was nothing terribly complicated about this situation. There was little impact of Measure 49. The applicant did not contribute to this delay. If it is the case that a vested right cannot be achieved before final land use approval, they are left out in the cold. Commissioner Luke asked if the Hearings Officer was aware of the date so that the applicant's rights could be protected. Mr. Griffin said he did not know. Mr. Griffin stated that the second issue relates to incurred expenses, and Mr. Fitch has given a revised expense ratio. There is about $4,000 difference between the recommendations of staff and the applicant. This has to do with whether Measure 49 expenses should be included in the proposal. There are also engineering expenses that staff feels are not properly documented. There is an opinion from the vendor that the value of the services is about $2,500, but there is no way to know if this is a reasonable amount. The bottom line is that $4,000 is not going to make a big difference. The total project cost is the consideration. Commissioner Luke asked about leaving out septic feasibility costs, although the Hearings Officer made it a requirement. Mr. Griffin replied that a Supreme Court case creates the concept of vested rights, and the case seems to exclude boring test holes. It is a nominal expense as well, at $225. The third issue Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 5 of 15 Pages relates to total project costs. There are figures in the staff report and work sheet showing the ratio for one home. The question relates to the configuration of the four remaining homes. The Hearings Officer felt that approving the tentative plan relating to lot 3 and lot 4, one did not have a building permit on file, and did not meet setbacks. One of the dwellings may be illegal as it was approved as an accessory farm dwelling to a property that may no longer be a farm. The question is what can be done with these homes. The applicant prefers that they be left. However, if they have Code violations that need to be corrected, it seems to staff that the project may include improper homes. This needs to be clarified. Commissioner Unger expressed concerns about this aspect, especially if newer homes replace the older ones. Commissioner Luke said that there is only one lot that has not yet been improved, tax lot 700. He asked what questions can be asked. Two are manufactured homes that could be replaced by stick -built homes. Commissioner Baney feels that they are trying to bring these homes into compliance through this action. Mr. Griffin stated that a challenge is that there is not particularly a good way to know. Chair Baney asked if they are approved today, what happens. Mr. Griffin said the applicant would continue with infrastructure, and paperwork would be based on where the homes would be placed, whether a permit process is needed. This does not necessarily grant the right to do this construction. Commissioner Luke stated that the question is whether they have met the requirements of vested rights. They could come back with a lower number. Mr. Griffin said that the Measure 37 waivers are no longer good in any case. The last issue has to do with on the ground construction. His reading of the authorities is that all expenses are not created equal, that the case he pointed out what where the Court of Appeals said that a building permit is not enough for a vested right. Most of the on the ground work has been done and the applicant said they proceeded in good faith. If the Board believes the applicant does have a vested right in spite of the window of time, and if the Board believes that enough investment has been done to support this, it can be approved. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 6 of 15 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if the law or court decisions talks about the value of the property at this time or at a certain date. The target date was December 6, 2007. The applicant demonstrated that the market was declining. The investment has been about $100,000, not including the land There is also consensus is that the cost of homes is labor and material, not including markup. The $100,000 is adequate. Mr. Hurtley is not in Code enforcement, but perhaps the building on Lot 3 might be. Ed Fitch, representing the applicant, addressed questions regarding the homes. This property is an anomaly, with multiple homes already on one lot. They were built over 30 years ago. In 2003 there was a planning process when the County confirmed these homes were valid and legal, on September 11, 2003. The County authorized stick -built homes to be built at that time. The reason one was out of compliance on the setback, the setback requirements were not in place when the home was built. This is a fifty -foot setback from the perimeter. There are four legal homes as confirmed by the County. The goal was to take those four homes and put them on separate lots. There is agreement that the cost of the home would be about $100,000. The scope of the project is five lots and one home since the other homes were deemed to be legal. The decision is 2003 is brief. The homes were legal but could not be sold separately. Commissioner Luke asked if they are being used. Mr. Fitch said one is occupied by the applicant, one by his son and two are rented. The vesting does not say that they can sell the homes right now, as conditions of final plat approval have to be met. A decision on Measure 49 does not mean these conditions do not have to be met. The written decision dates does not compare with common law vesting. It took twelve days later per County law to get a final decision. Common law vesting depends on thresholds of project costs. In this case, there is a minimum of 12% or more, when only about 7% is required by the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Fitch said that there have been four appellant cases under Measure 49. (He then discussed some court cases to support his argument.) Those who had Measure 37 cases that rolled into Measure 49 are stuck in awkward situation. He said the underlying principle is fairness, but the 90 day approval timeframe was the problem. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 7 of 15 Pages He then presented a document to the Board at this time. Measure 37 fees and work on that issue should be eligible expenses. They are a barrier to getting a final development done; nothing further can be done without doing that first. The Hearings Officer considered it the ticket to get in the door. There is no case law that indicates those fees are not appropriate to include as "soft costs" that are necessary. An allowance for the costs spent on the 13 -lot subdivision version that was not approved should be considered as well, since some were required for either one, in the amount of about $2,500. The test hole was also a necessary. This is in Code anyway, and had to be done before the ground froze. When looking at all the factors of how the homes interplay, there was about a 2.5 year effort to get it going. Either there is a substantial investment on the ground or in the project. There is no ground requirement for this, and the question is whether or not there is a 7% investment in the homes. Commissioner Luke asked that since this involves a rear lot setback, is the house grandfathered in. Mr. Griffin said that at the time it was in compliance, and had to be occupied or used. It could be a nonconforming use, but he is not sure. Commissioner Luke asked if the 2003 finding was to have this type of structures made legal. Mr. Griffin said that it has not been verified and he is not sure which one of the four homes was excluded. The Hearings Officer did not map them out Mr. Fitch said a septic permit was required in the early 1970's but none for the building. David Hurtley said he built the house himself and did what they were required to do at the time. He does not recall what permits were required. Commissioner Luke said that Central Electric Cooperative would know when the meter went in. Chair Baney said that it is unlikely that they could have replaced that structure with another after permits began to be required. Mr. Fitch said these questions came up during the process and he believes a septic permit was submitted into the record. Commissioner Baney observed that the percentage of improvements, there is a different between four or five homes. Mr. Griffin said the difference would be between 5.9 and 7.9, which makes it a closer call. The issue is the other factors. The agreed upon figures put it comfortably in the area where it is appropriate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 8 of 15 Pages Chair Baney said that there would not be any excavation work required. Mr. Griffin said there are no roads to be installed, no other infrastructure required, and in his view is in favor of the vested rights approval. Commissioner Luke asked for the date in 1973 when permits began to be required. Tom Anderson replied he did not know. Commissioner Luke said that before then there was nothing required except an electrical and septic permit. The City of Bend had some requirements, but the County did not. Mr. Fitch indicated that this should not be the breakpoint for vested rights, as it would not make that much difference in cost. In figuring the respective nature of the cost of homes, perhaps a ratio is not needed. Five subdivision applications were reviewed by the courts and found that this breakdown was not necessary. Others have come to the same conclusion. The cost of a home could be anywhere from $80,000 to $200,000. The conclusion is whether a substantial enough dollar amount has been invested. Sometimes that kind of precise figure is not obtainable or relevant. There is a long -term commitment and investment in the project. Chair Baney asked how much has to be done. Mr. Fitch said final work by the surveyor is needed and some paperwork completed, amounting to perhaps $10,000. Mr. Griffin added that the first issue is the approvals not being final. He is not sure this is divorced from the vested rights. The cost of getting that approval has been included in the figures, but he is not sure he agrees. The question becomes whether there is a property right or vested right without final approval. This is a concern, because the Board is the final authority on this approval. Chair Baney asked how they could get final approval without vested rights approval. It took a long time to process the information. Mr. Griffin said there is nothing they could have done to get the decision any sooner. They did not contribute to this delay. It is an unfortunate circumstance of timing for the applicant, and the applicant also bears the cost of the delay. Commissioner Luke stated that government performed actions that took away property rights, thus the resulting laws. He feels staff has some responsibility as they knew the deadline. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 9 of 15 Pages At this time, Mr. Fitch pointed out that the septic application was obtained in early 1973. Commissioner Unger said that this situation seems rather unique. Deadlines are common in land use, but this is different. Mr. Griffin stated there are time limits for appeals to LUBA, and notices to the Court of Appeals; and if the date is missed, the applicant or appellant is out in the cold. It could be a result of a clerical error in the courts or at LUBA, but it does not matter. Commissioner Luke pointed out that if the County does not issue a decision within the time limit, the applicant gets what he or she wants. Commissioner Unger said that this was a situation that was not within the applicant's control. Commissioner Luke asked if the Board could deliberate before making a decision on this issue. The other Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Luke said that Measure 37 is not a land use issue, and vested rights came from this. The County had complete control over the timing of this action. The applicant waived the submission of final argument, which means the file went to the Hearings Officer on September 3 in its final form. It is not fair that the decision was not rendered until after the deadline. In this case with these facts, he feels the case was a final when it was submitted to the Hearings Officer. In regard to obtaining land use if the application has not been approved, Commissioner Unger reviewed the timing. He agrees with Commissioner Luke that it was the County's fault that the deadline was not met. Chair Baney stated that it is speculation that the applicant would have received approval within that time frame. She agreed the decision was not rendered in a timely manner. Commissioner Luke said that he has a great deal of respect for planning staff and the Hearings Officer, but they dropped the ball. It is not a reflection of anyone, but it is an unfortunate event. In regard to the costs borne by the applicants, Chair Baney said the question is whether the test hole and engineering costs and the Measure 37 costs should be included. Commissioner Unger stated that whether those are included, he feels they reached sufficient expenses. Commissioner Luke said that there is a big difference between a 13 lot and 5 lot subdivision, but there are some costs that are there in either case. Some should transfer over. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 10 of 15 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that there are not many expenses that are still required, as most is already there. Even if there was a higher bar test, they could not spend the money. Chair Baney agreed that the $2,500 is appropriate in this case, as it would have been needed in any case. The test hole cost is reasonable to include, and she does feel the Measure 37 costs were necessary to get to this point. Chair Baney said this should be based on two things. For lot 3 to be sold, it will likely have to have private financing. Eventually it may have to be replaced. Commissioner Luke stated that there were a lot of dwellings built prior to late 1973 without permits. There is a good chance that it did not need one, and setbacks were not as stringent as they now are. You don't necessarily have to replace the dwelling as there are reasons for the setback issue and no permits. It might have been continuously occupied and therefore a nonconforming use. They may want to build another, but that is a replacement dwelling and not a new home. Commissioner Unger said that this creates five lots; the homes that were there could not be sold separately. Now they can and could be more valuable. Mr. Griffin said that profit margin cannot be considered in this situation. Chair Baney said that even if two homes were considered, 7% of the project cost is sufficient. They did what they could with the process that was in play, and the threshold has been met. This is a very unique situation and would likely not come up again. Commissioner Luke added that vested rights cases are unique and need to be considered case by case. Chair Baney stated that she does not feel this decision would set precedence. Commissioner Unger asked if this is setting precedent. Commissioner Luke said this sets precedent for this County, and feels that this situation is so unique that it would be hard to duplicate. The Commissioners agreed with staff that the record should be closed. LUKE: Move that this applicant be granted approval of his vested right application. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 11 of 15 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Mr. Griffin will draft the appropriate Order for the Board's signature. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda, with the exception of the minutes of October 19. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items. 7. Signature of Document No. 2009 -605, a Lease Agreement with Pot of Gold Thrift Shop 8. Signature of Order No. 2009 -065, regarding Peace Officer's Secure Transport of In- Custody Mentally Ill Persons 9. Signature of Document No. 2009 -618, an Application to the Oregon Economic and Community Development to Recertify the La Pine Industrial Site 10. Signature of Order No 2009 -066, Advancing Tax Levies to Certain Small Districts 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -122, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Department 12. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -123, Appropriating a New Grant in the Behavioral Health Department 13. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -124, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Developmental Disabilities) 14. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -125, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (KIDS Center) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 12 of 15 Pages 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -126, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Treatment Facilities) 16. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -127, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Early Assessment) 17. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -128, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Medical Records) 18. Signature of a Letter Reappointing NaDynne Lewis to the Board of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #8, through December 31, 2012 19. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Ken Day from the Board of River Forest Acres Special Road District, and Thanking him for his Service 20. Signature of a Letter Appointing Sam Pronesti to the Board of River Forest Acres Special Road District, through December 31, 2011 21. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Cathy Hearn to the Board of River Forest Acres Special Road District, through December 31, 2012 22. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Mary Martin from the Deschutes County Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, and Thanking her for her Service 23. Signature of Minutes of Meetings: • Work Sessions: October 12 & 14 • Business Meeting: October 14 • Special Meeting with Jefferson County Commissioners: October 19 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 24. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District (two weeks) in the Amount of $18,702.07. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 13 of 15 Pages BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 25. 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 $60,865.39. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 26. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) in the Amount of $3,226,044.16. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 27. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 14 of 15 Pages DATED this 28th Day of October 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. --�. ATTEST: Recording Secretary A 4L Tam.. Baney, Chat Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Wednesday, October 28. 2009 Page 15 of 15 Pages 0 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, OCTOBER 28, 2009 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. 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. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign -up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 2. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009 -620, an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement Establishing the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization — Tom Blust, Road Department 3. CONSIDERATION of Approval of County Administrator's Signature of Public Facilities Improvement Agreements (Documents No. 2009 -622 through 628) with the City of Bend for the Oregon State Police /911 Building Project — Susan Ross, Property & Facilities 4. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009 -605, an Option Agreement with Society of St. Vincent De Paul, La Pine — Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities 5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2009 -614, an Amendment to a Promissory Note regarding the Sale of County -Owned Property — Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities 6. A PUBLIC HEARING on Remand on an Application from David Hurtley for a Determination of Whether he is Entitled to Relief under Ballot Measure 49 — Steve Griffin, County Counsel Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Pages CONSENT AGENDA 7. Signature of Document No. 2009 -605, a Lease Agreement with Pot of Gold Thrift Shop 8. Signature of Order No. 2009 -065, regarding Peace Officer's Secure Transport of In- Custody Mentally Ill Persons 9. Signature of Document No. 2009 -618, an Application to the Oregon Economic and Community Development to Recertify the La Pine Industrial Site 10. Signature of Order No 2009 -066, Advancing Tax Levies to Certain Small Districts 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -122, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Department 12. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -123, Appropriating a New Grant in the Behavioral Health Department 13. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -124, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Developmental Disabilities) 14. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -125, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (KIDS Center) 15. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -126, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Treatment Facilities) 16. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -127, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Early Assessment) 17. Signature of Resolution No. 2009 -128, Transferring Appropriations in the Behavioral Health Fund (Medical Records) 18. Signature of a Letter Reappointing NaDynne Lewis to the Board of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Special Road District #8, through December 31, 2012 19. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Ken Day from the Board of River Forest Acres Special Road District, and Thanking him for his Service 20. Signature of a Letter Appointing Sam Pronesti to the Board of River Forest Acres Special Road District, through December 31, 2011 Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 200' Page 2 of 6 Pages 21. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Cathy Hearn to the Board of River Forest Acres Special Road District, through December 31, 2012 22. Signature of a Letter Accepting the Resignation of Mary Martin from the Deschutes County Addictions & Mental Health Advisory Board, and Thanking her for her Service 23. Signature of Minutes of Meetings: • Work Sessions: October 12 & 14 • Business Meeting: October 14 • Special Meeting with Jefferson County Commissioners: October 19 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 24. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9 -1 -1 County Service District (two weeks) CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4 -H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 25. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4 -H County Service District (two weeks) RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 26. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County (two weeks) 27. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Pages Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7 -1 -1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. 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. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388- 6572.) Monday, October 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, October 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, November 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Wednesday, November 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, November 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 12 noon Regular Meeting with Department Directors 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, November 11 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Veterans' Day. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Pages Thursday, November 10 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council — Redmond City Hall 3:00 p.m. COACT Meeting, Redmond November 15 through 20 Annual Association of Oregon Counties' Conference — Portland Thursday, November 26 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving Friday, November 27 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving (unpaid day ofd Monday, November 30 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, December 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 3 8:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Road Department 9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with Solid Waste 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with District Attorney 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Development 12:00 noon Meeting of Full Audit Committee Monday, December 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) 3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 2005, Page 5 of 6 Pages Wednesday, December 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, December 10 11:00 a.m. Regular Update with Health and Human Services Wednesday, December 16 2:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) — Please note later tame! Thursday, December 17 10:00 a.m. Regular Update with Community Justice Thursday, December 24 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Christmas (unpaid day off) Friday, December 25 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Christmas Thursday, December 31 Most County Offices will be closed to observe New Years (unpaid day off) Friday, January 1 Most County Offices will be closed to observe New Years Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388 -6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Pages BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest: Name C'4,41://;,r,f REQUEST TO SPEAK Date: Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Date: /.--z7.1-F---4'7 Agenda Item of Interest: Name Opposed i/11.,c7/7-4s." Address 531,3(0 iL Phone #s E-mail address Lq. In Favor c2-1-)iz( kkfa)-15 4-vez. Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? IN Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Remand Hearing, DR- 08 -02, David Hurtley, Common Law Vested Right to Complete TP -07 -999 Legal Counsel Suggested Order of Presentation 1. Open hearing and state purpose of the hearing. "The public hearing on DR -08 -02 on remand from the circuit court is now open. The purpose of this hearing is to consider, on remand from the circuit court, the application of David Hurt ley for a declaration that he has achieved a cornmon law vested right to complete the land use approved by the county in TP -07- 999." 2. Declaration of conflicts. Inquire as to whether any member of the board has any pre- hearing contacts, bias, prejudice, or personal interest to declare. 3. Official notice of any facts outside the hearing record. State any facts officially noticed outside the hearing record: None. 4. Challenges. Inquire as to any challenges to the board's qualifications to hear the matter. 5. State substantive criteria and admonish participants. "The substantive criteria for this hearing are set forth in the judgment of the circuit court in the case of Hurt ley v. Deschutes County, Circuit Court Case Number 08CV0579AB. In summary, testimony and argument should be directed towards whether or not on December 6, 2007 the Mr. Hurt ley had made sufficient progress towards completion of the residential subdivision tentatively approved by the county in TP -07 -999 to have achieved a common law vested right to complete the project." 6. Order of presentation. Note: the parties will answer questions from the board at any time during the hearing. ✓1. Staff report; 2. Proponent's presentation; NOTE: There is no opponents' presentation because this is a remand hearing and no opponents appeared in the circuit court; 3. Staff comments; 4. Proponent's final comments; and 5. Final board questions. 7. Conclusion. "The public hearing on this matter is now closed." 8. Deliberation and render a decision or, alternatively, schedule for a later time to render a decision, at the board's discretion. INCURRED EXPENSES/RATIO EXPENSES RECOMMENDED Measure 37 $500.00 Tye Engineering $9,780.00 Bedsaul $750.00 Legal Fees $4,153.75 Title Company $225.00 Fees (Deschutes) $2,850.00 Septic Test Holes $225.00 TOTAL $18,483.75 (1) Subdivision ratio (2) Subdivision with home 63% 14.3%